Lords Sitting of 20 January 1992

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

Hospitals: Building Finance
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
What criteria have been used in the apportionment of new building money for the 57 newly formed hospital trusts and the hospitals remaining under the control of area health authorities.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, the main criteria used to allocate capital for new developments are that there is a demonstrated service need and support for the development by purchasers, that purchasers can afford the development, that there is a sound business case to support the development, and that the development should accord with national priorities.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. However, perhaps she will understand that some of us find the position difficult to comprehend. For instance, the figure quoted in a recent press report of the allocation for Guy's Hospital in London, using the present criteria, is £36 million. I make no criticism of Guy's Hospital being allocated that money or the use of it. Is the Minister aware of a report in the Manchester Evening News on Friday last which uses the term "shocking conditions" with regard to Withington Hospital in Manchester? Elderly people and the chronically sick are suffering because of the conditions at the hospital. The figure quoted to those who have to manage and operate that hospital to deal with the backlog of repairs and maintenance to put the hospital into an acceptable condition is £26 million. Why is there that difference between Guy's Hospital and Withington Hospital when human beings are involved in both cases?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord acknowledges that the capital allocation to Guy's and Lewisham National Health Service Trust is not the result of any special treatment but merely the continuation of capital investment which commenced prior to the unit becoming a trust. Much the same applies to the Manchester situation. Virtually the whole of the capital allocation has been for ongoing schemes in the North West. Allocations for both Manchester Central Hospital and Christie Hospital result from those ongoing schemes. The funds for Withington Hospital, to which the noble Lord specifically referred, again are in proportion to the ongoing nature of the arrangements.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, is the Minister aware that some of us believe that every penny spent in Guy's Hospital is worth while?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, yes.
Lord Carter: My Lords, on capital allocation, does the Minister agree with the view that the trust hospitals fare better if they are underbedded, thus ensuring that all the beds are full? It has been observed by one of the trust general managers that that may be unfortunate for the patients but it is "commercially sound".
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, as I have already established, there has been no special treatment for trusts. Any disproportion between the number of new developments funded in the first wave trusts compared with directly managed units may reflect the ability of the trusts to produce sound business cases for new developments, which is an important new criterion.
Lord Carter: My Lords, that is not the question that I asked. I asked about the effect of the technique of underbedding to ensure a larger capital allocation for trust hospitals.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I had assumed that the noble Lord referred to sound business cases. The management and use of beds is part of the sound business case.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the considerations set out in her original Answer will strike most fair-minded people as thoroughly sensible?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I can only agree with my noble friend.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, will my noble friend agree that Guy's Hospital is in the middle of a building programme? Does the Labour Party seriously suggest that we should not put the roof on?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I believe I underlined the fact that in that case the capital allocation was part of an ongoing and very large new capital investment. We are pursuing what I believe is known as Guy's Phase III as of this moment.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, the Minister will be aware, as I am, that Guy's Hospital has two powerful advocates in your Lordships' House. The noble Lord, Lord Mellish, did not seem to be concerned about Withington Hospital, although I expressed anxiety about Guy's Hospital. I do not know whether the noble Lord who has just spoken is still employed by Guy's Hospital. However, he has had the advantage of being employed at Guy's Hospital. Therefore Guy's Hospital is in a very privileged position: an advocate who works at Guy's Hospital is a Member of your Lordships' House and makes a special pleading.
However, the point that I put—
Noble Lords: Ask a question!
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, the Minister has not answered my question. Is she satisfied that elderly

561
people and the chronically and mentally sick in Withington Hospital are obtaining a fair deal from the criteria cited? That hospital requires £26 million to put it into a reasonable state of repair, irrespective of the allocations to Guy's or anywhere else?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the short answer is yes.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the noble Lord, Lord Dean, makes an important point; namely, that hospital buildings in the National Health Service are in a sorry state because in the past management in the NHS has been very bad and money was saved by not repairing buildings?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I know that there is strong feeling about the state of Withington Hospital. It is a matter that is under discussion and review. I certainly hope that patients in that area receive the best possible treatment in the future, as the health authority aims to ensure.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that the point made by the noble Lord, Lord McColl, is a real one and that hospitals have been starved of money and not been able to undertake repairs, particularly over the past eight or nine years? Is he not correct in that?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we all recognise that there were problems in the National Health Service. That is the reason for our reforms.

NHS Hospital Beds: Numbers
2.43 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they will respond to the Audit Commission report recommending the closure of large numbers of NHS hospital beds, and whether they will consult relevant staff organisations before doing so.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the Government welcome this report but have no plans to respond directly to it. Local National Health Service managers will review their services in the light of the report and the further detailed work that the Audit Commission will carry out in all health authorities and National Health Service trusts over the next 12 months. The effect of any consequent decisions on staff will be a matter for local decision.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, may I assume from the Minister's Answer that staff associations, which are gravely concerned about this situation, will undoubtedly be consulted first at local level and then if necessary at national level? Is she aware of the grave concern that will be caused by an item in today's BBC programme "Panorama" according to which hundreds of beds are being closed down for very elderly and badly stricken patients who are to be moved—in the anomalous term—"elsewhere"? Can she enlarge on that information and say what it means?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, first let me say that the Government welcome the thrust of the report to which the noble Lord referred. As I said, implementation of the report will be done at local level and will undoubtedly involve consultation with staff. The "Panorama" programme has not yet been transmitted; so we are talking somewhat hypothetically. During the period to which the programme, which has been trailed in the press, refers, there has been considerable improvement in hospital rehabilitation, acute care and community health services. That has resulted in a shortened length of stay, down from 79.3 days to 38.6 days. That reflects fully our policy of trying to keep to a minimum the number and length of any episodes of hospital care.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, does the Minister accept that many beds that might be closed under the proposals of the Audit Commission are beds for the mentally ill and for the elderly and mentally frail? Bearing in mind the commitments in the Patient's Charter, will she give an absolute assurance that beds will not be closed so long as there is a need for them and that patients will not be discharged until there is proper alternative accommodation and treatment for them?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, decisions on the length of stay of individual patients are clinical decisions for the consultant concerned. With regard to discharge, the recommendations of the report reinforce our advice on arrangements for discharge already issued to health authorities. We expect health authorities to ensure, through their contracting arrangements, that discharge procedures are properly followed.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the report of the Audit Commission is a great embarrassment to all those who have been making such a hoo-ha about all the beds that have been closed in the past 10 years? Is she aware that every year since 1964 on average 7,000 beds have been closed, irrespective of the government in power? Does she further agree that beds are dangerous places and that one should keep out of beds as much as one possibly can?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, by way of agreement with my noble friend, I confirm that the National Health Service is there to look after patients and not beds.
Lord Carter: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Audit Commission report found that in 90 per cent. of hospitals last year patients requiring emergency admission had to be put into beds earmarked for routine surgery? Is she further aware that that situation caused cancellation of operations and lengthened the waiting list? What proposals do the Government have to prevent such occurrences? Did the Minister not say in her first Answer that the Government did not propose to respond to the report?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I said that it was not for central Government to respond to the report. In fact we welcomed the report. Implementation of the report is for decision and action at local level.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that the figure of 7,000 beds closed every year since 1964, given by the noble Lord, Lord McColl, means that a total of about 175,000 beds have been closed? Is that really true? Will she be kind enough to comment on that figure?
Furthermore, having heard what was said by the noble Lord, Lord McColl, to whom I listened with great respect, is it not a fact that there is acute anxiety as regards the number of mental patients and geriatric patients who are discharged unjustifiably? In view of that, is it not the duty of the noble Baroness's department to look into the matter very carefully? Will she ask her right honourable friend either to make a Statement or produce a short White Paper explaining the situation to the satisfaction of the people of this country?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, it is true to say that substantial numbers of beds have closed over a long period of years. We welcome that because at the same time more patients are being treated than ever before. That is as a result of increased and improved techniques and technology which enable patients to stay in hospital for a minimum amount of time thus avoiding disruption to their lives. That must be the best way forward. We hope that the trend will continue.
As regards the latter part of the noble Lord's question, if any examples of patients who have been discharged at the wrong time are brought to our attention or to the attention of the health authority, those examples are investigated. That is what the Patient's Charter is all about. However, we take the advice and clinical judgment of the consultant in those situations.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, will the noble Baroness be rather more specific or at least give an undertaking that she will look again into the charge that 175,000 beds have been closed since 1964?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, my noble friend is usually so good on his figures that I am prepared to accept them. However, I shall investigate the matter and let the noble Lord know if there is any substantial difference.
Lord Carter: My Lords, will the noble Baroness confirm that the report shows that in 1974 there were 158,000 beds and in 1988–89, 123,000 beds, a reduction of 36,000 beds in that period.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I have undertaken to look into the matter.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, does my noble friend not agree that during the past 30 years in surgery we have managed to carry out operations without having patients in hospital beds for 30 days?
564
They are now only in for 30 hours. Is that not a good trend? Does my noble friend not agree that in view of that progress, we do not need as many beds?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, certainly it is not the total number of available beds which matters but the use which is made of them. Medical and surgical advances, the development of day surgery, faster throughput and more efficient use of resources mean that the National Health Service is treating 25 per cent. more patients than it did in 1979 with some 30,000 fewer beds in that period.

EC Funds: UK Contributions
2.52 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington Lord Bruce of Donington asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they propose to negotiate an amendment to Articles 4 and 5 of the EC Decision of 24th June 1988 (Cm 822) to provide for a significant increase in the abatement of the United Kingdom's contribution to the "own resources" of the EC.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, at present we have no plans to do so. The Fontainebleau mechanism negotiated in 1984 provides a significant abatement to our contributions, with a cumulative benefit of some £12.5 billion by the end of 1992.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that after the extremely welcome abatement to which he has referred and after taking into account all receipts from the European Community by way of the social fund, the regional fund and so on, the net burden on the British taxpayer of our contributions to the European Community has amounted, during that period of abatement, to nearly £10 billion? This country, together with Germany, still remains the only country which makes a significant net contribution to European Community funds. Is the Minister aware also that during that same period the dubious benefit to the United Kingdom's economy from its participation in those EC matters has been a visible trade deficit of £50 billion, including a £25 billion deficit on our manufactures?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the noble Lord cannot claim the figures which he just quoted are a direct result of our membership of the European Community. That could have happened whether or not we were members of it.
Ourselves and Germany are not the only large contributors. France is also a significant contributor. The reason for our contributions is twofold: first, our share of the agricultural support expenditure is low because we have a relatively small agricultural sector compared to other member states; and, secondly, we are a relatively prosperous member state and therefore we receive only modest levels of structural fund receipts.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, do I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, is

565
advocating the withdrawal of this country from the European Community? Is that in accordance with the policy of his party?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am pleased to say that it is not for me to answer on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, while recognising that we are a major contributor to the European Community, surely we are entitled to some receipts. One notable receipt is the £09 million of RECHAR money which has been agreed by the regional development commissioner, Mr. Bruce Millan, but the Treasury seems to be preventing the coalfield communities from receiving that money. Why has there been no agreement on that matter?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the Treasury is not preventing the receipt of that money. We believe that the Commission is wholly wrong to hold the RECHAR funds. It should pay those funds and should pay them now.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, that the Labour Party is fully committed to staying in the European Community. In fact, it is rather more committed than noble Lords opposite, since my party would have been at the forefront of the Maastricht renegotiations. The Labour Party will certainly seek to make sure that in a few months' time it is at the forefront of developments following from that. On more serious matters—
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Peston: My Lords, I do not like these political discussions going backwards and forwards. I ask the noble Lord to reflect on a significant part of his Answer. He said that we are net contributors partly because we do not receive a great deal in the agricultural sphere. Is not another reason that we do not receive a great deal not only that our agricultural sector is small but also that it is rather efficient? Is that not a consequence of the nonsense of the common agricultural policy because it does not reinforce efficiency?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am not sure what could be more serious than our membership of the European Community. On this side of the House we are committed to remaining as a member of the Community and have been for many years, unlike noble Lords opposite who have changed their minds half a dozen times in a dozen years.
As regards agriculture, we are concerned about the common agricultural policy and we shall pursue any possible useful reforms to it.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I am delighted to hear the noble Lord's remarks on the common agricultural policy. My point about seriousness is that I believe that the subject of membership of the Community is too serious to be bandied about. Will the noble Lord confirm that his party is united in its attitude towards Europe, especially post-Maastricht? We may then
566
hear some members of the leadership of his party occasionally supporting the Prime Minister on those matters.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as I said, we are fully committed to membership of the EC. Perhaps the noble Lord would like to discuss the issue with his noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I speak as one who has not changed his mind and who will in due course be vindicated. Is the noble Lord aware that the directive to which I referred in the Question must be renegotiated at some time during the current year in order to ensure the necessary amendment to Article 3 of the directive? Is the Minister saying that he will not use this opportunity to renegotiate the abatement which has so far proved quite inadequate to meet an altogether fair position between the United Kingdom and other members of the European Community?
If he is not prepared to negotiate, why did not the Prime Minister at Maastricht renegotiate Article 201 of the Treaty of Rome so that major decisions on that directive or amendments to it require unanimity?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we will consider our position in the future financing review which is shortly due to take place. However, I should point out to the noble Lord that just as it would require unanimity to weaken the abatement, so it will require unanimity to improve it.

R. v. Rooney: Inquiry
3 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich Lord Harris of Greenwich asked Her Majesty's Government:
In the light of the observations of Judge Bruce Laughland on the case of Regina v. Rooney at the Central Criminal Court what action they propose.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, there will be a full inquiry into the case. We shall announce its precise nature and remit shortly.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that I welcome that reply? Is she aware also that the judge at the trial of Mr. Rooney said that the crime was foreseeable and the death of Mrs. Quigley preventable? Further is she aware that Mr. Rooney was taken to the Homerton Hospital by police officers after he had attacked another woman? He was allowed to discharge himself and six days later he murdered Mrs. Quigley in the presence of her two small children. Is the noble Baroness finally aware that this man, on three separate occasions, was taken to a mental hospital after either attacks or threats of attack on other women? In all the circumstances that is an extraordinary situation.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, it is obviously a sad case and we shall study the papers carefully. However, I expect that any conclusions regarding resources, action taken or the adequacy of the law to deal with them will need to be reviewed in the light of the

567
inquiry. I am sure that noble Lords will understand that I am unable to make comments in detail at this stage.
Lord Carter: My Lords, can the Minister say whether this is an isolated case or whether similar cases have occurred where the papers have been sent to the relevant department?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, in the nature of things I assume that such matters may happen from time to time. In each and every case where any problem is found, clearly remedial action is taken to ensure that it does not happen again. I am certainly not aware of any other cases.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, will the noble Baroness undertake that a copy of the report of any inquiry will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, indeed. That is normal practice.

Business
3.2 p.m.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to say a word about this afternoon's two debates standing in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Molloy and Lord Jenkins of Putney. As the mover is allowed 15 minutes and as the Minister should rise to reply not less than 20 minutes before the scheduled end of the debate, in the case of the debate in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, the number of speakers is such that it is not necessary to propose any formal time limit. But I am sure that noble Lords will agree that it would conform with the spirit of these short debates if they would keep their speeches within the 15 minutes which apply to the mover of the Motion. In the case of the debate in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, it means that all other speeches should be limited to a maximum of nine minutes. If any noble Lord should speak at greater length he would do so at the expense of subsequent speakers in the debate.

Offshore Safety (Protection Against Victimisation) Bill [H.L.]
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to protect employees working on offshore installations against victimisation when acting as safety representatives for members of safety committees. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Baroness Turner of Camden.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

NHS Medical Bodies and Health Department: Working Relationship
3.3 p.m.
Lord Molloyrose to call attention to the case for a closer working relationship between the Department of Health and the medical organisations of the National Health Service; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I begin by congratulating the Government on the creation of the UK Central Council for Nursing. It has been accepted by nurses as an interesting step forward and they are grateful. We understand that nurses will now be accountable to the nursing profession and that the nursing profession will perhaps have a lot more say than hitherto.
Another point in which the nurses are interested is that nurses elected to the UKCC will be allowed to examine all finances. With that measure, therefore, the Government have got off to a good start. I hope that they will improve on it by following the line of my recommendations this afternoon and consult more with the nursing organisations.
I know full well that the Minister understands the link between all NHS staff and professional organisations, and that must be appreciated also by the department in which she is an able and hard working Minister. I sometimes think that somebody in the department is attempting to put a brake on her attempts to have more discussions with the organisations and associations.
I should like to make clear that all the organisations and associations in the NHS knew full well that various changes had to be made. Many of them did not join in the cries when certain proposals were introduced. All the responsible organisations in the NHS knew that changes were necessary. They criticised some of the changes but fundamentally they criticised the fact that, having acknowledged that changes were necessary, greater dialogue with the Minister did not take place. They complain that the dialogue is much too limited.
I shall make reference also to what has become known as the "Selsdon Manifesto". It is causing some anxiety. I cannot say that the Government will approve of it; I hope that they will not. However, doctors, nurses and other specialists—I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, will agree even some of the great surgeons—are anxious that general
practitioners may become self-employed professionals employing their own staff and that all hospitals will become self-governing either through sale, management buy-outs or as independent trusts. It is felt that all patients will have to choose which hospital and which GP they want. Of course there will not be a great amount of choosing. People know the doctors and hospitals in their areas. I believe that the so-called "Selsdon Manifesto" is unnecessarily causing perturbation and anxiety among people in the professions and ordinary folk.
I wish to refer also to the Dyson proposals which tend to make, inter alias the NHS a hire and fire employer by casualising the workforce. I am not

569
totally sure what that means. Are we to have casual Lord McCoils doing a little now and again? Will there be casual doctors and nurses, and only casuals? It is causing great anxiety. All doctors, nurses and surgeons who have examined the Dyson paper, irrespective of their political outlook, find it a source of serious anxiety.
Perhaps I may briefly mention—it is not mentioned enough—an argument for dentist's charges. We discussed some aspects of the issue last week. According to my researches dentists are of the opinion that they need more money. The British Dental Association says quite categorically that underfunding can mean that patients will suffer. I feel sure that the department does not want that to happen and will be prepared to look at the situation.
I should like to talk briefly of the work done by some of the associations; first, the British Medical Association. It is a powerful association. I regretted some of the extreme views it took when opposing the Government some time ago and was glad that more sane voices prevailed. It did as it ought and will continue to be as co-operative as possible.
The BMA produced a thoughtful document which is a great credit to a great organisation. I refer to the BMA Agenda for Health. It is concerned with educational advice and it makes the point that education and advice are no substitute for fiscal measures and defective legislation. The BMA believes that NHS trusts are needed for certain types of hospital but not all. It also believes that those hospitals that are being formed into trusts should in the initial period be carefully monitored. Every specialist, surgeon, nurse and doctor does not look at the matter with a political eye. It is new. It may be right or wrong. In any case it will be correct for the department on behalf of the nation to ensure proper examination and monitoring. The BMA makes the point also that free eyesight tests for all should be reintroduced.
I mention those matters so that people can understand that it is not a question of a continual argument concerning the medical associations and organisations against the Government. All do a remarkable amount of civil and decent work. For example, the BMA is campaigning for a closer examination of the diets of our people, the amount of alcohol they drink and their smoking habits. The BMA believes that with its voice and specialist knowledge, its views should be heard.
I read an article by a very old colleague of many noble Lords. He was at one time leader of the Liberal Party. He was very witty, able and capable. He has suffered enormously of late. I refer to Mr. Jeremy Thorpe. We all know what he is suffering from and we realise how terrible it must be. In the article he refers to how upset he was that non-medical people were making vital decisions about how he should be treated although they knew nothing about what was happening to him. The priorities of the actual sickness or ailment must be a matter for the medical profession itself. The Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology has made a similar point—that is to say,
570
concerning the discussion of the conduct of research both by and within the NHS, particularly as a result of the inquiry of the Science and Technology Committee of this House into the priorities in medical research. That is is of great value to the country as well as to the NHS.
I shall also speak briefly about other organisations. I refer first to the Confederation of Health Service Employees. It is a remarkable organisation. It covers a very broad area of National Health Service staff including nurses, nursing sisters and other ward staff, ambulance crews, kitchen staff and nearly all other auxiliaries. The officers of the confederation have great knowledge of the workings of the NHS and how they can be improved. The officers have a wealth of experience. They wish to make certain that that experience is put at the disposal of the department.
The confederation acknowledges that occasionally there are meetings with the Secretary of State but only through the TUC health service committee. The confederation believes that its detailed knowledge should be made available. Its representatives should be able to submit a case to the Secretary of State on the basis that he would be prepared to discuss it immediately and give the representatives of CoHSE every facility. It is not enough to have an occasional meeting on a certain date once a year. The confederation believes that if it comes across something which can increase the efficiency of the health service and which can help to reduce pain and suffering, then a meeting should be arranged with the Secretary of State. The confederation gains this knowledge from the experience of its members. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord McColl, will acknowledge that nurses, ambulance drivers and such people sometimes gain knowledge which even great surgeons such as the noble Lord would not be aware of.
The current chair of the general Whitley Council is a representative of the confederation. That is a useful organisation. The confederation believes that discussions with civil servants are not enough. I can understand that. I was chairman of a Foreign Office organisation many years ago. We found life very difficult. I had to see the then Foreign Secretary, Ernest Bevin. As the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said, he was probably our greatest ever Foreign Secretary. I cannot repeat the language which Ernest Bevin used to me about ex-civil servants, but they poke their noses in where they are not wanted. He said to me, "Whenever you have anything important, Molloy, you come to me, not to them." It is that kind of attitude that we want in the National Health Service. CoHSE believes that discussions with civil servants are very important but not enough. There is need for more realistic meetings with top flight civil servants and ultimately with Ministers.
It hurts me to have to tell the House about a little incident some time ago which affected Mr. Hector MacKenzie, the general secretary of the Confederation of Health Service Employees. As noble Lords will gather, he is a dour Scot: he does not take

571
any insult lying down. He was insulted by the Secretary of State for Health. Mr. Waldegrave had referred to a speech in which Mr. MacKenzie said:
"COHSE is acting now to protect its members. Success depends on the willingness of members to stand by their unions … to push for a Health Service that acts in the interest of its staff".
The Secretary of State went no further. He did not add Mr. MacKenzie's final words,
"and the people who rely on it".
Those words were deliberately omitted, and the omission completely altered the context of the statement. It was a very important part of the statement. Hector MacKenzie had said that if one had a satisfied staff and a comfortable one which was happy at its work, it must mean that patients would be much better looked after. The Secretary of State did not bother to mention that.
I want to speak briefly about the NHS support federation. It is a growing organisation garnering support from those who want to see complaints eliminated and improvements examined. It wishes to become a worthwhile watchdog. The federation asks that a certain group of people should be able to examine all that is taking place in the health service. I am not too sure whether I agree with that, but I shall not reject anything that comes from such an organisation.
There is another great organisation which is acknowledged by doctors, specialists and nurses throughout Great Britain. It may well be the favourite organisation and its work the most valuable work of all. I refer to the Health Visitors' Association. I am proud to be its trustee. The organisation is intimate with poverty—a word that the Secretary of State has abolished. That is arrogance for you! The Secretary of State may have abolished the word; the association believes that he should be more interested in abolishing poverty. I agree with that.
The Health Visitors' Association provides school nurses. Its very first nurse, Amy Hughes, was appointed by the London School Board to investigate the health of school children. At the time of the Boer War, poor physical fitness among the working class meant that many young men were unfit to join the forces. Indeed, just after the last war Aneurin Bevan said that one of the most disgraceful things that our nation had to realise was that between 1938 and 1939 between 30 per cent. and 40 per cent. of our young men between the ages of 18 and 21 were unfit for military service. I agree with Mr. Bevan that we have to keep a strong army, navy and air force. We also need a strong NHS so all the young men serving in those great services can be fit and give of their best. I do not know whether any noble Lords would disagree with that.
The Health Visitors' Association provides probably the most poignant story of all. Its general secretary, Catherine Burns, and the members, deservedly enjoy the praise and support of all NHS organisations. The association deals with school nursing and deprived families and is active wherever poverty strikes. It works for the stricken and crippled. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord McColl, will acknowledge that some people, with the best will in the world, are sometimes
572
confined to bed for the rest of their lives. Some servicemen of the 1939–45 war will never get out of bed again. They depend greatly on the remarkable people of the HVA.
The association is also concerned with one-parent families and broken families, including the homeless. As the organisation provides midwives, it has to deal with the awkward situation of the unmarried girl who is pregnant and who does not know what to do. The members of the association are remarkable people. They deal with the blind and all aspects of community nursing. They are veritably the angels of mercy. The association has run a cot death campaign to which the Government are now giving support and it welcomes that. The services of health visitors, in connection with doctors, specialists, nurses and ambulances, are appreciated throughout the NHS.
Does my noble friend on the Front Bench wish to intervene? He should have listened to what was said by the Leader of the House. I did, that is why I am continuing for a few more minutes.
It would appear from Mr. Waldegrave's attitude that these NHS organisations need not exist, particularly with regard to their views on some aspects of trusts and the creation of NHS reforms. I believe that our NHS is the envy of the world. It was created within a few years of the end of the most costly war in our history. It is one of the most wonderful things we ever did; after a most terrible war when London, Scotland and parts of England were bombed, and tens of thousands of soldiers were injured overseas and had to be brought home. We built more houses in those two years of our history and at the same time created the National Health Service. It is those things that make us a great nation and an example to all mankind.
I conclude with these words. We quite rightly spend many millions of pounds on defence and assisting other nations with arms so that they can give us support. That is right and proper. However, we must work not only for massive military organisations like NATO—which is vital—but start thinking about creating the equivalent of a nursing medical NATO for the benefit of all mankind. That may well be hundreds of years away, but I believe that if there is one country which can start the medical equivalent of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation—that is, an organisation leading to a worldwide free health service—it is this nation of ours. I beg to move for Papers.
3.23 p.m.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, for bringing this debate to us. I agree with him entirely that all 1 million employees in the National Health Service have a great deal to learn from one another. I pay personal tribute to many of the people who have kept Guy's Hospital and Lewisham Hospital running for many years—the faithful people of Bermondsey and Southwark who have done such great work in keeping the hospitals clean and who carry out all those jobs behind the scenes for which they do not often get a great deal of credit. They are, I believe, the salt of the earth. The noble Lord, Lord Molloy, is absolutely right to draw attention to them.

573
Nowadays when I am operating in theatre you can see everything I am doing because it is on a sort of television screen. Everyone present in the theatre can see my every movement. Therefore, if I have had too much coffee and there is a slight tremor it is visible on the screen, so they can all make comments. They can contribute. I am very happy to listen to advice from anyone. Sometimes the porter may be in the theatre and see something he does not quite like and say, "steady there". I am very happy to have any help.
I am reminded of the relatives of a child who was very ill. The parents asked the consultant paediatrician if he would mind very much if they took the child to Lourdes. I shall always remember what that paediatrician said. He said, "Of course, we shall be delighted if the child is taken. We are going to need all the help we can get". That is the right attitude to have in the health service.
Perhaps I may go back to some of the points which have been raised on the maintenance of hospitals. It was mentioned earlier that the fabric of our buildings is, in many cases, in very bad repair. That is a serious matter. But we should not lose sight of the reason why that has occurred. I am afraid that in the past 20 years or so we have not been blessed with the best managers and finance people. It is not their fault, they simply were not trained for that kind of work.
When some managers received a bill and did not know what to do with it they put it into the "suspense" account, known as the "dustbin". Some of them left the bills there unattended for a year so there would be bills amounting to a million pounds. That very often was the basis of a financial crisis. It is unbelievable how crude the financial control was. Therefore, towards the end of the financial year there is sudden panic and a great deal of money has to be saved quickly, so they stop maintaining the buildings. Some of the buildings have not been properly maintained for over 10 years.
That is a very short-sighted policy because the total bill at the end of the day will be much more. It would have been much cheaper if they had kept up regular maintenance. That is now being done. I am sure your Lordships will be glad to hear that.
I turn now to the question of beds. I am sorry if I shocked the House with my figures. There is nothing new about them. TB is no longer a scourge. We no longer need those thousands of long-term beds. People who had suffered heart attacks used to be kept on complete bed rest for six weeks, and that was only 30 years ago. They were not allowed even to leave their beds to go to the toilet. They had to put up with that dreadful torture called the bedpan. I do not know whether any noble Lord has ever balanced on one of these things on a Dunlopillow mattress, but it is a form of torture and great effort is required to keep one's balance. Heaven knows what it did to the heart. However, patients were kept in bed for six weeks. Nowadays they are in for hardly more than a few days. That is nothing to with saving money. It is simply the best way of treating patients.
As far as concerns children it is better that they do not stay a single night in hospital. They can stay in
574
hospital, with their parents, throughout the day and go home in the evening. That is the best way of doing things. Elderly patients feel much the same. Sometimes they refuse to come into hospital altogether, so we have to go to their homes and operate in their bed at home. I am talking about the very elderly who would be disoriented by coming into hospital, even for a few hours. In such cases we go out to their homes. That does not present any great problem except that their beds are usually rather low and to do the operation one has to kneel, which is probably the right attitude to adopt in more senses than one.
I was delighted to hear the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, say that perhaps self-governing hospitals may be right and perhaps they may be wrong. I think that is a real breath of fresh air from the Labour Party, which I welcome very much indeed. There is not a great deal of difference between self-governing hospitals today and the teaching hospitals of old with their boards of governors. And who set them up? Aneurin Bevan. He was no fool. So I am very glad that there is this attitude that perhaps self-governing hospitals are right after all. I think that they will turn out to be right because they are orientated to giving the best deal possible to the local population. That has to be right.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McColl, is absolutely right in what he said. That is precisely what Bevan said. It is not possible to say that all hospitals are this, that or the other. He gave the example of what hospitals have to do mainly in South Wales. They will always have to deal with miners who have had accidents, miners who have what we call "the dust", or steel people. About 60 per cent. or 70 per cent. of all patients in those hospitals are either steel workers or miners. So what the noble Lord, Lord McColl, has said is correct.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, for that intervention. I also take up the point that he made that these self-governing hospitals should be carefully monitored. That is absolutely right; but it applies to all hospitals, not only self-governing hospitals. That is a crucial part of the Government's reforms of medical audit. Again, like all the reforms in the Government legislation on the NHS, they were not plucked out of the air. They were not new. They had been tried in many places. Medical audit has been tried for something like 20 years. The Royal College of Surgeons, the Royal College of Physicians and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists are very much in favour of this. The Government are absolutely right to push that movement.
I am also pleased to acknowledge our debt to the British Medical Association. I have always been a member and have remained so through thick and thin. I pay tribute to the present chairman, Dr. Jeremy Lee-Potter, who is first rate. Like the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, he is a man with a completely open mind, and we are grateful for that.
The noble Lord asked whether surgeons will become casual surgeons. There is no such thing as a

575
casual surgeon. We have to operate most days in order to maintain our skills. If we do not operate most days many of us get withdrawal symptoms. It is important to continue to be expert. When we realise that our expertise is diminishing, then is the time to retire. It is sometimes difficult to have the necessary insight to know when to retire, but the students usually give one a pretty good indication. One of our Home Office pathologists was once lecturing the students. He was talking about gunshot wounds and he was saying how worried he was in case he started to become senile before he was due to retire. He said that he had arranged with his wife—also a forensic expert—that if she saw any sign of him going off she would arrange a shotgun accident. A student at the back of the lecture theatre—the students are very sharp these days; they are better than ever—shouted out "Left it a bit late, hasn't she?" There is nothing wrong with medical students.
I should like to deal with the question of finance. It has been said that this Government are not putting enough money into the National Health Service. I should like to analyse that claim in a little more detail. The British Government put into the health service 5 per cent. of gross national product. America puts in 5 per cent.; Switzerland puts in 5 per cent.; many European countries put in 5 per cent. But the difference is that all the European countries, the United States and Japan put a great deal more into the private sector. In this country 1 per cent. goes into the private sector and 5 per cent. goes into the health services through the Government. In the United States 5 per cent. comes from the government and 7 per cent. goes into the private sector. We must bear that in mind when we hear constant attacks about finance.
The position is not quite as it seems. If one goes to Germany to have one's hernia repaired one is given two week's holiday, with physiotherapy, in Lindau am Bodensee. Is that really necessary? Is it not the height of extravagance? The patient should be back at work in two weeks. Running repairs is the name of the game. It is safer to get back to work as soon as possible. It is safer to spend as little time in bed as possible.
Finally, there was reference to the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, and myself being powerful advocates on behalf of Guy's Hospital. I am sorry that that was said. The noble Lord, Lord Mellish, has given marvellous service to Bermondsey and Southwark and he has been of tremendous help to the hospitals. He is an astute man with tremendous insight. I can assure the House that he has been around our hospitals and has been very critical; critical in order to improve them. He has made many extremely helpful suggestions. Neither of us would ever use our positions to further our hospitals—when I say "further our hospitals" I mean further in an undesirable way—but we use our positions to try to improve the service given by our hospitals because we believe that that is the right thing to do.
3.34 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, by his choice of wording for the Motion my noble friend Lord Molloy has given us an opportunity to range fully around the National Health Service. We have just heard a very entertaining description of the journey of the noble Lord, Lord McColl. I have chosen the narrow interpretation of my noble friend's Motion. By "medical" I shall refer to the medical profession as such, of which I am a member, though I fully agree that a closer working relationship between all health workers and the Department of Health is vital.
There is a continuous dialogue between the Department of Health and the medical profession. The BMA has at least six standing committees and other ad hoc bodies which have frequent meetings, sometimes regular fixed meetings, with Department of Health officials. Ministers attend at critical junctures. There are regular meetings with the Chief Medical Officer. The Royal Colleges have frequent meetings with the relevant officials to discuss legislation and other matters affecting their special interests. I am not saying that all is sweetness and light at those meetings. There are a number of issues of a political nature where the Government's position appears fixed. To describe a meeting over such an issue as a consultation, as has happened in the past, is a euphemism.
In this respect I am thinking in particular of the imposition of the limited list and the general practitioner contract, the latter when M r. Kenneth Clarke was Secretary of State. However, when, as with the current reforms, Parliament endorses changes, the British Medical Association and the Royal Colleges, opposed to them in principle, discuss with the department the practicalities of operating the changes in a constructive manner. The current discussion on general practitioner fund holding is an example. One result of that dialogue is that the Government appear implicitly to have recognised the potential damage that a high proportion of unrestricted GP fund holders could have on the planning and operation of a health district's budget. I am delighted that collaborative projects between district health authorities and GP fund holders are now to be set up in a number of districts. Had the Government listened to advice from this House two and a half years ago they would have instituted such projects right from the start.
Another issue on which the profession differs from the Government is the abolition of free eye tests, a point to which my noble friend alluded. Since they were abolished in 1989–90 the number of tests has gone down from 16.2 million to an estimated 10 million only. There is a great need for closer monitoring of the effects of this reduction in eye tests. Ophthalmologists are very worried, especially in regard to glaucoma.
Altogether, the effects of the National Health Service reforms have not been as beneficial as the Government would like us to believe. Only last week a Department of Health report on increased activity revealed no such thing. In fact the increase in the number of in—patients treated—I accept that there was

577
an increase—was slightly less than the increase in the preceding year. What is needed is a more objective and rigorous monitoring exercise that is not designed mainly to reflect credit on a Government running up to an election. Perhaps that is too much to ask at this time of the year in this particular year.
Lastly, I wish to mention a running sore. I refer to the pay of clinical academic staff, a subject with which my noble friend Lord Butterfield will deal in more detail. Since the late 1960s clinical academic staff have been paid on identical salary scales to those of NHS hospital doctors. Parity of salary between clinical academic staff and their NHS counterparts was introduced to resolve a long-standing problem of recruitment and retention of the best doctors into academic medicine.
Sadly, I can remember that issue causing problems as far back as 1967–68, when I was a full-time academic at St. Thomas's Hospital. It seems incredible to me that a formula has still not been devised which avoids that embarrassing hassle. That is possibly because the profession has to deal with the Department of Education and Science and not the Department of Health. That should not happen; universities should automatically be given the top-up required for clinical academic staff from the Department of Health through to the DES every time clinical salaries are reviewed.
From time to time joint meetings of the Department of Health with representatives of all the branches of the professions may be required. Very strong representations suggesting beneficial changes to the NHS Bill were made to the Government in 1989 by an impressive and unanimous array of Royal colleges and other organisations. Sadly, the Government did not listen. But, on the other hand, the ongoing dialogue at relatively mundane working level which goes on day by day and week by week achieves a great deal. The relationship between the Department of Health and the professions is probably closer and better than in nearly every other country. Such discussions sometimes even result in modifications of rigid government positions which cannot be achieved by political means.
3.42 p.m.
Lord Colwyn: My Lords, I too should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, for introducing the debate this afternoon and to say what a pleasure it is to take part in such a good tempered debate on the health service. I was going to apologise to the noble Lord for widening the range of the subject, but he has shown me that that will not be necessary. I have kept my eye on the speakers' list and, in view of the fact that there are not too many names on it, I believe that the noble Lord will not object if I say something about the dental profession. I feel confident that it can be described as a medical organisation of the National Health Service. However, I should first declare an interest as I am a dental surgeon. I should also point out that I have notified my noble friend the Minister of some of the points that I intend to cover this afternoon.
578
In September of last year a sample survey of dentists in the general dental service was conducted to present an overall picture at national, at regional and at individual family health service level to establish whether, following the introduction of the new contract, dentists were still treating patients under the health service and, if so, whether they were being selective in the type of patient whom they were treating. Nationally, it was found that 76 per cent. of dentists routinely accepted all National Health Service patients; that 22 per cent. of dentists were selective in their acceptance; and that only 2 per cent. did not accept any NHS patients.
That finding, and the British Dental Association's press release on Friday 10th January, which showed that, in the South East, fewer than 70 per cent. of dentists accepted all patients, caused quite a stir in the national press. On 11 th January The Times ran the headline, "Dentists turn away NHS work". A headline in the Telegraph stated, "Dentists refusing to treat NHS patients". In the Independent the headline was, "NHS dental work disappearing in South-East" and the Guardian quoted, "Dentists turn away NHS patients".
In a letter to The Times on 13th January my noble friend the Minister repeated the department's denial of any problem. The last paragraph of her letter read:
"The vast majority of dentists still work within the NHS. In most parts of the country there is not the slightest difficulty in obtaining NHS dental treatment, and if anyone has a problem, steps will be taken where necessary to improve the problem".
My noble friend repeated that in her Answer to a Question on the same subject tabled last Thursday by the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick.
The new contract means more work and that has been endorsed by a workload survey which is due to be published at the end of the month. The Government are keen to have some sort of performance-related pay and I am aware that the Secretary of State has summoned the chairman of the GDSC to bring forward proposals for this by the end of the month. The dental profession would welcome a scheme which rewards commitment to the NHS by dentists. I know that there are general principle proposals with the department on this, but it must be paid for with new money—not by shuffling round the existing money in the GDS pool.
The existing system penalises the profession for its success. The more patients that are signed up, the more of the population will be covered. But, if dentists exceed the income recommended by the review body, then it will be clawed back in three years' time. Over the lifetime of this Government, the sum of £4,509 per dentist has been recovered because more work than was anticipated had been done. The Secretary of State has recently written off £1,529 of that "overpayment", which will help; but it should not be regarded as an overpayment. The work has been done and, in effect, the Government are applying an incomes policy, as happened in the late 1970s under another administration.
We need to encourage dentists to register NHS patients by putting in pump priming money so that we can increase the proportion of the population who

579
have their own dentist and encourage those dentists who are committed to the NHS. Even now members of the profession are working hard to ensure that their patients are receiving a high standard of care under the NHS, but there is no doubt that their health, their bank balances and their family life are suffering—to the extent that some are finding that they are no longer being able to afford to offer NHS treatment, while others are taking early retirement or leaving the profession altogether. For the first time since I qualified in 1966, I am aware of bankruptcy involving dental practices.
I know that my noble friend will deny that there is any crisis and that she will tell me that there are now 100 or so more dentists working in the GDS than this time last year. However, she must be aware that many who opt out of the NHS still retain their FHSA number to treat family or friends, and to avoid the considerable superannuation, pension implications of leaving the NHS altogether. In some areas, particularly London and the South East, one in every five dentists has registered less than 200 patients for the first year of the new contract—meaning, in effect, that they do not taken on NHS patients. Low fees are certainly the biggest problem, but dentists are also leaving the health service in low-cost areas where overheads are relatively low. The fees are the same as in the South East, so I must ask: why is this happening?
I have spoken to many dentists, who all say that the "registration" aspects of the new contract are in complete chaos. Unless patients are registered with a dentist, he or she cannot undertake a course of NHS treatment. Registration involves compatibility of the details on the computer at the Dental Practice Board with the treatment form sent in by the dentist. If there is any fault, such as an initial or a spelling being given incorrectly, the patient's form is rejected on the ground that the registration cannot be found and the eventual process can be delayed by six months or more.
The British Dental Association tells me that it has been trying for over six months to negotiate changes in the system with the department, only to be told just before Christmas that there were insuperable legal problems which it would require primary legislation to correct. My noble friend will no doubt point to her various public statements, including a press release issued in October 1991, in which she expressed her willingness to enter into discussions with the GDSC about "fine tuning" of the contract. However, I am told that the profession has found progress in the negotiations to be extremely slow. For example, meetings have been cancelled at the last moment and there are frequent delays while officials in the department consult among themselves, with Ministers, with the Treasury and with legal advisers. Nor are such delays confined to the dental service. I hear that the Joint Negotiating Forum for the Community Dental Services has not met since last August because, apparently, it is awaiting responses from the department on various issues raised by the profession.
580
An administrative letter to the Dental Practice Board is not now routinely acknowledged owing to shortage of staff. Moreover, replies can take up to five months to be dealt with. When the contract was introduced in 1990, most dental practices were inundated with extra dental work, to the extent that many dentists took on extra staff to deal with the workload. At the same time, it transpired that the DPB—this is confirmed in its annual report—was laying off staff as part of a cost-cutting programme. That has made practitioners extremely angry.
It is also argued by practitioners that many hundreds of dental forms are being lost or are going missing at the DPB or en route to the DPB. That means lost registrations and lost payments. If those forms are eventually described as officially missing, the practitioner has to produce a duplicate form which is valid only if it has the patient's signature. That is often difficult to obtain. I am aware of practices where there are many hundreds of such forms, all originally sent to the DPB by recorded delivery, which are awaiting a new signature before the work, carried out many months previously, can be validated and paid for.
Children registered into capitation in October/ November/December 1990 all lapsed on 31st December last unless a roll-on form was completed to reactivate the capitation. Because of the delays, I suspect that hundreds of thousands of those forms are unprocessed and sitting at the DPB. My anxiety is that that will result in all those children being missing from the dentists' lists this month and it may be some considerable time before they are re-registered.
When the GDSC has raised those worries with the DPB it has been assured that no major problems exist. It would seem that the problems experienced by dentists are not taken sufficiently seriously by the board and that something must be done to improve communication between the board and practitioners.
The board's chairman and chief executive have been extremely helpful in conversations I have had with them. While they admit that there have been some problems with the tremendous volume of paperwork and the large number of invalid forms, they do not feel that there is much wrong with the system, and they state that cash flow to dentists is being maintained. I am aware that the board has made high levels of payments in the past few months, but some members of the profession have found that not to be the case. Perhaps I can persuade my noble friend to visit the DPB with representatives from the dental profession to obtain some firsthand information.
Capitation works well in areas where there is no dental disease, but in areas where there is a high caries rate, or expenses are particularly high, it has produced devastating problems. Due to the fact that all treatment must be completed within fixed financial limits, thousands of children are not being given the full treatment they need or are being referred on for extractions under general anaesthesia. I should be grateful if my noble friend would, yet again, give an assurance to all my dental colleagues that dentistry is not being carefully withdrawn from the NHS.

581
Following the Government's launch of the Patient's Charter, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said:
"This is the first time that a Government has put its weight behind a set of rights which all patients are entitled to under the National Health Service. It is also the first time that a Government has introduced national standards for the NHS. By implementing these fundamental rights and national standards we have signalled our commitment to preserving and improving the standards in the NHS".
The dental profession is concerned that the charter did not even contain the word "dental" and that no dentists have been involved in any of the NHS strategy meetings. I must say that that does appear a little suspicious. I hope that my noble friend can state categorically that the exclusion of dentistry from the mainstream of the NHS in the charter is not a Government admission that the idea of universal NHS dental provision has been abandoned.
Morale is low. Perhaps my noble friend can cheer us up and give an indication that the Government will accept in full the forthcoming report of the Doctors' and Dentists' Review Board and not stage the award as has happened in the past. In conclusion, will my noble friend say whether she is aware of any progress made with the Oral Health Strategy Group, which was set up under the chairmanship of the Chief Dental Officer to advise the department on the development of a consultative document to propose more detailed targets for improvement in dental health than those contained in the Health of the Nation Green Paper, and when the profession can expect an announcement of the action to be taken as a result of the Poswillow Report on dental anaesthesia and sedation?
3.55 p.m.
Lord Butterfield: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, for giving us an opportunity to air some of the matters that are worrying us. The noble Lord, Lord Rea, has already said that an issue which is worrying me and many of my colleagues relates to the pay of academic doctors; that is to say, doctors who work in the university departments and who work with the NHS. The situation is unsatisfactory. It is sad because each year—I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord McColl, will be able to confirm this—heads of university departments have young men and women academic doctors who face difficulties because their pay rises do not come through at the same time as those of their colleagues.
I hope the Minister will not be too upset if I tell her that we should be most grateful if she could solve that problem in the near future. It is having an unfortunate effect upon the morale of people whom I regard as among the most important and valuable members of the medical profession—those who take responsibility for teaching our medical students, organising research programmes, publishing papers, setting examination papers and ensuring that candidates' standards are maintained, who go abroad and produce papers about the great achievements of British medicine, who stand up for the NHS when it is attacked in America and who are in fact some of the Government's most important shock troops in the whole medical
582
profession. I hope that other Members of the House who may not feel so strongly about such people—I admit that I have a personal interest in them because they are my young friends and they are the young people whom I feel I must do what I can to support—will understand that they have had a wretched time.
It was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Rea, that year after year the Doctors' and Dentists' Review Board has worked out what would be a reasonable salary increase for the people beside whom its members work on the wards, in the operating theatre and in the outpatient department, the people with whom they may well be planning curricular developments for our students, with whom they are working in the community and with whom they work, even late at night, on the statistics that result from their experiments. They are working beside those people and they are conscious that while they were in medical school most of them were the top boys and girls—those who received the medals and whom the professors all identified as the sharp-eyed people who would maintain the cutting edge of our profession. They feel, and I am sorry to have to put this so firmly, that they cannot matter very much if they become a shuttlecock or political football—whatever one likes to call it—in the interactions between the DES, the CVCP and the UFC on one side and the Department of Health on the other.
Sometime during the year a salary rise is given to people within the NHS. When that happens we have to start negotiations within the university world to try to get a rise for the people who are doing similar work but who have many additional important responsibilities which they cannot duck to do with the teaching and research side of the profession. It should be remembered that such people cannot be promoted these days unless they have an astonishing record of research and of publishing papers and giving lectures all over the place. They will not receive their salary rise until some great chess game is played behind the scenes by the people who are responsible for getting them their salaries—but out of where?
The problem is that it is difficult for the university organisations to know by how much the review board will increase salaries. There are between 2,000 and 2,300 such people out of perhaps 30,000 academics altogether. They form only a small section of the academics. I admit that they receive good salaries and get rises, but it is hard for the bursars and university finance officers to be able to budget for those rises; so they are not budgeted for. If they are not budgeted for, when they arrive everyone scratches their heads. They say that the doctors and the surgeons will have to wait and, "They are busy. They will not notice that their salaries are not going up". They do notice. In these days when mortgages and interest rates are part of the warp and weft of a young person's life, such people go to their professors and ask, "I'm in a fix. Is there any chance that I can do better in America?". Sometimes they go there.
I very much hope that a way will be found to solve the problem. I have many friends who point out to me repeatedly that, "You will never win on this one. If these people are paid by the Department of Education

583
and Science but are working with and helping the Department of Health, there is no way you will be able to get money out of the Department of Health budget into the Department of Education and Science conduit".
I beg the Minister to examine the situation because I believe that that argument is flawed. Having served for many years on regional health authorities, I know that those authorities grumble when they find that they have to pay the merit awards—that is the top-up, to make sure that people do not emigrate when they are at the top of the tree.
The merit awards are paid into the salary pool of these people out of the Department of Health funds. If it could be arranged to pay the superstars like the noble Lord, Lord McColl, and me in my day, why on earth can we not arrange to pay for the young chaps and young women who replace us? It seems to me that they should know, first, that this is happening with the merit award system. It has always been kept rather quiet, understandably, in the past. If they knew that, they would be cross. I do not say that they would march because they are not that kind of people, but they would be cross. Secondly, if they found out that this had been going on for many years they would wonder what on earth the likes of us professors had been up to over the years in not helping to defend their just deserts in terms of salary rises year by year.
I hope that the Minister will not mind my bringing this out. It is a serious matter for about 2,500 young men and women. To me they are a special group of young people because they not only carry on their clinical work but take on many other responsibilities, carrying out research, publishing papers, going abroad. Everyone says, "Oh, they go swanning off on a wonderful trip", but when they go abroad they have to stand up for Britain. They have to give their papers impeccably so that other nations do not think that British medicine is slipping. I can assure the House that it is not, but the morale of these people is low.
People have asked me over the years, "If they really think that we are so important, how is it that they cannot solve this apparently simple problem? Are they not supposed to be clever people in the Treasury?"
4.3 p.m.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, one point is agreed by all parties: that this House has not been short of discussions on the National Health Service either during Question Time or in general debates. We need make no apology for that at all. Good health is essential to any country. Whether we have a recession or a boom, one thing is quite certain: the health of the nation is all-important.
We are all very much in the debt of the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, for having initiated the debate, which until now has been good tempered and extremely constructive. One depressing point is that at the moment in the run-up to the general election—and I have witnessed a few general election campaigns in my time—there is constant backbiting about the National Health Service. All political parties seem to be entangled in an unholy row. Who are the losers? The losers are the nurses, the doctors and others who are
584
employed within the health service, as well as the patients, as has quite rightly been said. In a democracy differences of opinion must be aired. In the time prior to an election it is only natural that fairly strong views should be expressed, particularly in the elected Chamber. It is, therefore, a breath of fresh air that we are able to have such a debate and I hope that it receives wide circulation. Many of the speakers taking part have extremely close experience of the National Health Service.
Turning to the Motion, I wish to thank my noble friend the Minister, who wrote me an extremely explicit introduction to a conference at which I had to speak in Copenhagen in September, the second European seminar on the registration and national care of the elderly. It is a subject in which I must confess I am not particularly expert. But it was an extremely interesting conference, and the Minister's foreword was received with enormous enthusiasm.
Knowing Scandinavia as I do, particularly Denmark and Finland, I made the point that we are treating at least 40 million people under the National Health Service every year, plus European Community nationals and many others who come over here. Whatever differences of opinion we may have on hospital trusts, the condition of hospitals or nurses' pay, the large number of patients is something which all political parties will accept.
My family has been connected with health care for six generations, although I have pointed out to your Lordships before that only our younger daughter, who is a practice nurse, is employed in therapy. The noble Lord, Lord Molloy, mentioned Mr Aneurin Bevan, who is acknowledged as one of the outstanding health Ministers, even by those who may not necessarily agree with all his views. In the early days of the health service, my uncle was secretary of the Kingston Hospital in Surrey. There was a regional board meeting going on, and Mr. Bevan came into the oak-panelled council room with all the doctors there. He said, "You so-and-so doctors, it's a very different game now, boyos". Then he gave them quite a lecture and walked out of the room. They all thought, "By jove, the next board meeting will be north of Moscow". He came back an hour later and my uncle quotes him as saying, "I am sorry, I was rather angry with you. Please forgive me. We must all work together", and they did. They may have disagreed but there was an enormous amount of working together in those days, even though the inception of the health service had certain problems.
I wish to make a somewhat provocative point here. Looking at the health service with hindsight, I believe that if some minimal charge had been imposed at its inception, if only for patients' food, despite national insurance contributions and so on, the service at that time would have been better funded. I believe that the policy would have been continued. However, that is water under the bridge and I mention it only because whenever I go overseas I always try to visit a hospital. I ask two questions: "Do you have waiting lists? Do you have a nursing shortage?". I must say that I am surprised to hear that, in the majority of countries, in almost every case the answer is in the affirmative, even

585
in Scandinavia, where there are a relatively small number of people to treat. Hospitals there often have much better operating theatres and wards because they have the finances which are often denied to this country through the enormous number of people we have to treat. But they are faced with similar problems. We must get this matter into perspective.
In yesterday's edition of the Sunday Times there was a survey of waiting lists in hospitals throughout the country. I am always rather suspicious of surveys as they represent the state of affairs that exists at one time only. However, the survey in the Sunday Times was interesting in that it showed that hospitals situated north of Watford have shorter waiting lists. It was a little depressing to note that Westminster Hospital came bottom of the list of credits. However, I am not at all sure that one survey necessarily proves anything.
I was particularly keen to note that the Epsom hospital trust—as your Lordships may know, I am a friend of Epsom general hospital—was rated highly as regards facilities for ear, nose and throat treatment. I believe such treatment constitutes a vital part of our health service, particularly as regards children. The National Health Service has an important role to play in that area.
My father used to be the chairman of a London children's hospital in Chelsea. In those days there was a kind of one upmanship as regards removing tonsils and adenoids. Their removal constituted a status symbol. My father intervened in that matter as many children who needed such operations were denied them as a certain amount of queue jumping went on. That is one area where it is essential to ensure that everyone has equal access to treatment.
I have always believed, as a canny Scot, that one should make haste slowly in the matter of hospital trusts. I believe the idea of the trusts is a good one. It has certainly worked in the area where I live. In my area there is a superb manager and a substantial number of staff have been appointed. However, this is a matter that needs to be looked into. I have never believed—I do not think many people believe this should be the case—that all hospitals should be made into trusts at a stroke. It is equally vital that local control should be given to the trusts. Much depends on the manager, and also on the number of nurses who now become nurse managers.
This is an important debate. In two days' time we shall have another important debate on a much narrower subject. For the sake of nurses, doctors and patients I hope my noble friend the Minister will make some interesting points when she replies.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, in the various public national services there is almost always a tripartite structure, either acknowledged or covert. It is that of, first, the professionals, secondly, the public, and, thirdly, the political parties, including primarily the party of the government of the day. Those three combine to make the success or failure of the services.
586
I take an example from the area of education where I am more at home than I am in the area of health. In education the running is almost always made by the professionals. They like to pretend that that is not the case. Perhaps I am being unfair in saying that they "pretend" since they may not always be aware of how much influence they exert and to what extent they govern the climate of opinion at any given time. I have little doubt that the professionals also have an important part to play in forming the opinions which lie behind the running of the health service.
However, it is to a certain extent for the government of the day to hold the ring. Not only are the consumers and professionals involved but there is rivalry either acknowledged or unacknowledged, between various branches of the profession. The Government's job consists not only of putting into practice and into legislation the decisions that are made by all these bodies, but also in ensuring that none of the bodies is being done down. The Government will, of course, inject their own ideology. That is right because that is what governments are for and that is why we have political parties. If that means that from time to time we have reversals of ideology, that is the price one pays in a democracy. Recently, we have not had to pay that price often enough.
The Government's job is also to ensure that the voice of consumers is heard as loudly as possible because consumers are very much on the receiving end in every sense of that phrase. It is difficult for them to combine sufficiently to make themselves heard unless the institutions through which they do so are provided by the Government. Things are much better in the health service today than they were in the past when the voice of the customer was not often heard. The present Government have a certain amount to be proud of in that respect.
It is also the job of the Government to look after the whole area in which the great national services operate. In the field we are discussing today the Government have not always been as understanding of the professional interests as they might. If that is so, what of the future? We must all welcome the Patient's Charter. That must be a step forward in an important area where the Government can make provision for the ordinary consumer and the ordinary patient. It is by definition in this field that the patient is doubly or trebly at a disadvantage as opposed to consumers in other fields because he or she is usually feeling ill. It is important also that the Government should pay attention to those areas where it appears that trouble is brewing because where trouble brews it is usually for a good reason.
I was interested that the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, spoke in such detail of the problems in the dental profession. That is an area where the Government must do something to heal—how impossible it is to get away from medical metaphors—a running sore in the National Health Service. Like the noble Lord, I hope very much that the Government are not sidelining the dental profession, which is a very important part of the National Health Service.
The whole question of eye tests needs to be considered again. Much more care, trouble and time

587
needs to be taken over the establishment of NHS trusts. It is undoubtedly the case that they can be a good thing, but there appears to have been too much haste in the implementation of some of them.
A tremendously important area is the impact of poverty on the health of the nation. There is a group we have come to know as an underclass—a debatable but I think correct term—of people, who are singly, doubly or trebly handicapped in various ways. They are not able to look after themselves because they are not given the opportunity to do so. Among them—because of poverty and poor diet—illness and disease are rampant. Often, the health service they receive is not as good as it should be, not through any fault of the professions but because that is the way of society. Those who are already unfortunate and who have little find that what they already have is taken away from them.
It is important that local and professional representation should be included on all the governing bodies of the National Health Service. We should press for that. We are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, for initiating what has proved an extremely good debate. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McColl, who made an excellent and illuminating speech, as did several other noble Lords.
We have a great health service still, despite all the problems. Those of us who from time to time go to the United States of America and see one of the alternatives come back to Britain thanking God for what we have here. We must keep it. All parties to this great debate are learning and doing better. The Government are learning to co-operate, even when they feel rather impatient in terms of their own ideology. I know that the medical profession is improving. When I was young it was fairly difficult to find a general practitioner who was not a little bit of a dictator. Now if one tries to find a new practice to attend under the National Health Service one will find that almost everywhere doctors have learnt the new language of co-operation with patients as opposed to dictatorship.
I go to the Bolingbroke Hospital in Wandsworth, which has won prizes for the best outpatient facilities in London and for serving the people courteously, efficiently and in very pleasant surroundings. It is extremely good that there are such competitions. All hospitals appear to be improving their service.
The main principle is co-operation. It is a matter for the Government primarily to see that the bodies concerned, including themselves, hold the right balance in co-operation and in using the resources that are available to the very best effect and to the benefit of patients in particular and the general health of the nation in general.
4.26 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, like other noble Lords I thank my noble friend Lord Molloy for making the debate possible and the Government for making it necessary. We are all in favour of closer working relationships. That must mean openness and access to information. It is not just a matter for the medical
588
organisations, which are mentioned in the Motion, and the health care professionals; the voice of patients and client groups must also be heard.
Unlike the noble Lord who has just spoken I am glad to see that the Government appear to have dropped references to "customers" of the health service. The term was heard a good deal at the beginning of the reform debate.
We all agree that lack of constructive dialogue leads to ill thought out and badly planned projects. Noble Lords will remember the very short time allowed for consultation—was it five months?—between the issue of the White Paper Working for Patients and the publication of the reform Bill, a change which we were told was the biggest in the National Health Service for 40 years. An even shorter time—was it five days?—was allowed between the White Paper on community care and the publication of the Bill on that subject. Your Lordships will also remember that many organisations and many Members of this House and the other place begged the Government to take more time, to try out proposals on a pilot scheme basis and to listen to the advice they were receiving. Sadly, that did not happen. Despite a barrage of public relations publicity—and I fear that we shall receive even more between now and the election—some of our fears have been realised.
Curiously, where those fears have been slightly alleviated it has been because the Government have acted to stop the reforms working as they were supposed to. The example of the GP fundholders was given by my noble friend Lord Rea. To prevent queue jumping the Government had to introduce a protocol almost as soon as the reforms came in, although the fears expressed on that subject had been brushed aside before the reforms were introduced. A second example is the decision to require health authorities to negotiate "solid state" contracts to ensure as little upheaval as possible to referral patterns, presumably before the election. A third example is the ducking of painful decisions about hospital provision in London. In effect, the reforms in London have been put on ice, again presumably until after the election.
To be fair, the picture is not all bad. There is the recent example of the Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Bill, a non-contentious Bill drafted after lengthy consultation and supported from all sides of both Houses. I understand that there is shortly to be a Private Member's Bill on nurse prescribing, again a sensible proposal which has been drafted after lengthy consultation.
Therefore, the Government can consult if they have a mind to do so. But why make the process of consultation, dialogue and local involvement more difficult by excluding local and professional representation from health authorities and packing them with property developers and company directors, the majority of whom I suspect rely largely on private health care?
I ask the Minister what proposals the Government have for monitoring the performance of the trust hospitals on an objective and credible basis? If the performance last week on activity levels is anything to go by, we shall not receive that objective monitoring

589
from this Government. That point was well made by my noble friend Lord Rea. The same applies to waiting list statistics. Your Lordships will know that many doctors have pointed out that, to improve the statistics, patients who had been waiting for over two years with non-urgent conditions have been given preference over patients with more urgent conditions who had been waiting for less than two years.
The noble Lord, Lord Auckland, referred to an article in The Sunday Times yesterday. It quoted a device whereby, to cut long waits for inpatient treatment, authorities are deliberately allowing longer waiting times for outpatient appointments because the clock on the waiting list does not start to run until the consultant authorises the treatment. It seems that we now have waiting lists for waiting lists. To quote the Sunday Times:
"For example, Southmead hospital"
which serves the Bristol constituency of the Secretary of State,
"sent a letter to an orthopaedic patient that says: 'The consultant presently has a waiting list of 60 weeks to see him and therefore rather than booking an appointment too far into the future we have added your name to our pending list'".
I would ask the Minister if she has any figures on the length of pending lists.
Yet another example of lack of dialogue and local involvement is the deliberate downgrading of the role of community health councils, with one third reporting that they have not been invited to comment on the general contract plans and over half being excluded from input into individual contract specifications. As so many noble Lords have said, why will the Government not listen to the BMA and to the many other organisations which want the reintroduction of free eyesight tests for everybody? Why did the Government not listen to the fears that were expressed over the new dental contract? That was a point well made by the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn. We now know that nearly one dentist in four is not offering the full NHS dental service, and in some areas the figure is much higher.
The Government were warned about the effects of the closure of geriatric beds. We now learn that there is enforced and substantial shift of geriatric care from the National Health Service to the private sector.
Another area where consultation and closer working relationships, which we all want, are being put at peril is that of patient confidentiality. One FHSA now employs a doctor to go round to GPs' surgeries and take patients' confidential medical records from the shelves to check up on the payments to that doctor. I understand that the department has turned a deaf ear to pressure on that issue from local doctors, from the data protection registrar and from the community health council. The department said that such action was required for the effective management of the service. I would ask the Minister whether, if a patient expressly stated to his or her GP that the medical records were not to be revealed to third parties without the express consent of that patient, the GP would be entitled to refuse access to the records to another employee of the health service?
590
An article in the British Medical Journal of 31st August last year stated:
"The threat to patient confidentiality is the most disturbing feature of the whole process".
That is a reference to extra contract referrals.
"Patients who are referred extracontractually may have their name, address, diagnosis, and proposed course of treatment transmitted, often by facsimile machine, to people not directly concerned with their care without their knowledge or consent (which they would probably withhold were they to be given the choice)".
If we are to ensure closeness of working relationships, this must mean trust between staff and management. Is the Minister aware that in at least one general hospital due for trust status in April 1993 non-executive directors were appointed last October and the shadow chairman of the proposed trust now expects to chair the various appointment committees? The shadow chairman is not a member of the health authority, and the hospital will be directly managed by the health authority until April 1993. There is a statutory procedure for appointments to various committees. I would ask: what is the legal status of the shadow chairman and the appointments made under his chairmanship?
Is the Minister aware that in some cases the national agreements regarding study leave for doctors and associated expenses have been abrogated? In one district health authority in the West country, which I know well, the total costs for doctors on study leave and expenses have been slashed to a maximum of £200 per year while the limit for managers is £500. Is that the way to build up the closer relationships which we all want to see?
Time does not allow me to take up all the points made in the debate, but I must refer to one matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord McColl. He drew a not unreasonable analogy between the governance of self-governing hospitals and what used to happen under Nye Bevan. I hope that the noble Lord is not therefore arguing that the late and great Nye Bevan would have supported the internal market. If the noble Lord believes that, he will believe anything.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I should like to point out. that Aneurin Bevan had some very remarkable ideas. He introduced the system of merit awards whereby secret payments made to consultants could double their salaries. A third of all consultants had them. So he had a very open mind, possibly in many ways more open than the minds of some of the present members of the Labour Party.
Lord Carter: My Lords, if the noble Lord really believes that Nye Bevan, with all his background, would have supported the internal market, I have to say that he would believe anything.
I referred at the beginning of my speech to the fact that closer working relationships must extend beyond the medical organisations to patients and to all interested parties. It is only proper in this year and from these Benches to indicate the policy of the next Labour Government in this area.
In the general area of public access to information, we shall introduce a freedom of information Act. So far as the health service is concerned, we shall consult

591
with community health councils and local authorities regarding the health needs in their areas and the drawing up of performance agreements. They will have the right to comment on the proposed strategies and agreements, as will the general public through the use of forums. We shall allow NHS employees to comment on the service and not attempt to gag them with confidentiality clauses in employment contracts.
We shall end the nonsense of the internal market. We shall work with local authorities, with community health councils, and with business and industry, to promote better health. Above all, we shall involve patients and consult them about the health service they want and certainly deserve.
4.37 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I too welcome this opportunity to discuss the very good working relations that exist between the Department of Health and the medical organisations. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, that it has been a good debate. I have noted also that many contributors to the debate have taken the layman's use of the word "medical" and have not confined themselves to referring to doctors' organisations. I shall therefore follow suit in responding, but I shall try to stick to the theme of the debate.
The Department of Health has long established procedures for consulting the various parts of the medical profession. In general these work very well. Quite apart from negotiating meetings, officials attend various committees of the medical royal colleges, usually as observers. There are also numerous contracts on a day-to-day basis with individual experts and professional associations. Indeed we could not function properly without good formal and informal working relations with the medical professions.
There are two main sources of formal advice to the department on hospital medical and dental matters: the statutory Standing Medical Advisory Committee and the non-statutory Joint Consultants Committee, both having their origins in the setting up of the NHS.
The Standing Medical Advisory Committee was set up in 1949 to advise the Secretary of State on technical medical matters. Over the years it has been an invaluable source of advice for Ministers, for the Chief Medical Officer and for the department generally, offering an authoritative medical view based on a balance of experience between individual specialties and general practice, between teaching and non-teaching hospitals, and between London and the rest of the country. Membership of the committee includes the presidents of the royal colleges and faculties together with the chairman of council of the BMA.
The department consults with the Joint Consultants Committee, or JCC, on all matters of concern to hospital medical service, save those to do with terms of service and remuneration. The committee comprises representatives of the BMA and the presidents of all the royal colleges of England and Scotland, the Faculty of Dental Surgery and the central consultants and specialists committee of the
592
BMA, the hospital junior staff committee of the BMA and the dental committee for hospital dental services of the British Dental Association.
The Chief Medical Officer, supported by representatives of the Department of Health, meets the full JCC every quarter. There are also four interim meetings during the year. The department is thereby able to give the profession an early view of new and revised policy affecting hospitals, and the doctors are able to raise matters of concern. Such regular and early consultation meetings are regarded as of the highest importance by the department. The successful implementation of government policies often depends upon them.
I can give a very good, recent example of the value of consultation with the JCC. When the new reforms were introduced concern was expressed in some quarters that patients of GP fund holders were receiving priority on waiting lists. Officials from the department met with the JCC and agreed guidance on contracts for health services between hospitals and GP fund holders—guidance which was published. This timely action ensured that fund holders' patients were not advantaged at the expense of others. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, referred to that. I am glad that he acknowledges that we have fulfilled our undertaking that we would monitor the introduction of the reforms and take action where necessary.
On general practice, the profession and the department meet regularly and with a common purpose to improve the quality of care that patients receive. The Chief Medical Officer meets jointly the leaders of the Royal College of General Practitioners and the General Medical Services Committee to discuss professional issues. Other officials meet to discuss contractual matters, and do so in a businesslike and effective way, although, as the noble Lord, Lord Rea, said, all is not always sweetness and light on those occasions.
This businesslike relationship can be illustrated by the setting-up last year of a Joint National Health Service Review Committee, consisting of Department of Health officials and GMSC negotiators. The committee provides a forum to discuss review issues, including the effects of GP fund holding. The Government have always wanted the profession to be involved in the development of GP fund holding; the committee offers such an opportunity.
Noble Lords will be well aware of the criticism levelled at the Government—many noble Lords have voiced it today—over the introduction of the new GPs' contract in 1990. However, the Government have shown their good faith in being prepared to listen to genuine concerns and acting upon them. I must emphasise to your Lordships that despite the fears expressed, the first year of the contract has been a success, with targets achieved and almost 1 million health promotion clinics held in the first year.
Having said all that, in terms of the practice of the profession, one of the most important areas in which we work with the profession is that of undergraduate and postgraduate education. I am surprised that more people did not dwell on that topic. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, had indicated at one stage that

593
she might join in the debate. I am sure that had she done so the ground would have been covered more fully.
In the field of undergraduate education the department's contacts with the relevant medical organisations have been further improved in recent years. Following a critical review of the mechanisms for joint policy development between the Department of Education and Science, the health departments and the University Grants Committee, a conference between the parties concerned in 1987 led to the formation of what is now the Steering Group on Undergraduate Medical and Dental Education and Research, chaired by the Permanent Secretary of the Department of Health. All the interested parties are represented.
The noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, made a plea on the subject of the pay of academic doctors. The Government believe that clinical academics should have parity of pay with their National Health Service counterparts. That has long been accepted. An undertaking was given by the Government in 1986 that if a pay settlement was agreed for clinical academics which provided increases equivalent to those in the National Health Service arising from the review body report, then the Government would provide the universities with additional funds to cover the cost of that settlement to the extent that it exceeded the pay settlement for non-clinical staff. The problem with that formula—I realise that the noble Lord knows it, but I believe that it should be on the record—is that the sum needed cannot be determined until both settlements have been reached. A new formula has therefore been proposed and is currently being considered. We trust that it will have rapid results.
Another excellent example of the way in which the department works closely with medical organisations is through the Medical Manpower Standing Advisory Committee. This was recently set up by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to advise him on future developments in the balance of medical manpower supply and demand in the United Kingdom. Although the committee does not have representatives of medical organisations as members, it has written to over 60 bodies inviting their views on medical manpower issues. I am pleased to say that the Health Visitors' Association, of which the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, is a vice-president and trustee, is included in the list.
The department has also been actively working with the profession in improving opportunities for women in medicine. Again it was not a subject raised in the debate. However, I should like to put on record that the department has taken action with the working party on part-time training which will review and develop the present arrangements for part-time appointments for senior registrars. A second group, called the Women in Surgical Training Working Party, aims to encourage women actively pursuing a career in surgery by establishing regional advisers and providing information on career progress of women trainees.
594
The department's Chief Medical Officer also has many contacts with the profession. He is, for example, a member of the General Medical Council, which meets regularly. Together with the medical director of the NHS Management Executive, he frequently meets with the 14 regional directors of public health for England and the Association of Directors of Public Health to discuss matters of mutual concern. The CMO also has regular, informal meetings with representatives of the academic and research sectors of the profession which are much valued by both sides. In addition he has consultant advisers who can advise him on their particular areas of expertise.
So far I have concentrated more on the regular well established links with the profession which do not arrive as of right but which have been vital in developing recent policy initiatives. During the year-long review of the National Health Service which resulted in the reforms currently being introduced—an issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Molloy—the Government gave thorough consideration to a large number of submissions from a wide range of organisations including many representing staff and other interested groups. Their opinions and suggestions were taken fully into account in drawing up proposals for reforming the health service, even though, as my noble friend Lord McColl stated so well, those ideas were not plucked out of the air but represented good practice up and down the country.
Another example of consultation and listening to advice is in the launch of the consultative document, Health of the Nation, which was published in June. We have received responses from the BMA, the royal colleges, medical schools, many health authorities, community health councils, family health service authorities, local authorities and other interested parties. Those replies will be taken into consideration in the preparation of the forthcoming White Paper.
The profession has also been fully involved in the development of medical audit, whereby doctors meet to examine critically each other's work. Both the department and the profession share the goal of improving the quality of care patients receive; the Government have provided over £60 million this year towards the implementation of a comprehensive system of medical audit in the National Health Service. Supervisory committees have been put in place to ensure that all doctors can and do participate.
I have already given examples of the readiness of the Government and the Department of Health to listen to genuine concerns. However, I remind the noble Lord, Lord Carter, that we always made it clear that we would monitor the changes and respond as and when necessary rather than delaying what have proved to be effective and necessary reforms. The establishment of the Clinical Standards Advisory Group is another example. It was in response to anxieties expressed in your Lordships' House that I introduced an amendment to the National Health Service and Community Care Bill to set up the group. The Government had carefully considered arguments made by noble Lords and the concerns expressed among doctors about the possible effects of the reforms on clinical standards, and they acted

595
accordingly. The group, which was set up on 1st April 1991, has met and is giving an excellent example of closer working relationships between the Department of Health and medical organisations.
The first months of the reforms have already started to dispel any fears about a fall in standards. We welcome the British Medical Association's change of attitude to the reforms. But it is thanks largely to the dedicated work of doctors, nurses and all those who work in the National Health Service that the reforms are starting to deliver the benefits to patients and the National Health Service in general. More and more doctors are recognising the advantages of devolution of responsibility, allowing them to control and organise the services that they provide in the most caring and efficient way for patients. Indeed, I heard only last night from a nurse that she would never choose to go back to the old way of running the system and not knowing where the money was coming from. Patients too are more than pleased with the standards of the new trusts. A recent survey of 900 patients treated in eight trust hospitals conducted on behalf of the department by an independent organisation showed that 96 per cent. were quite satisfied with the quality of the services that they had received.
The Government have never pretended that all the problems in running the National Health Service could be solved at a stroke. As my noble friend Lord Auckland pointed out, some of the problems in the National Health Service are not just national but international problems. Yet there is ample proof that we are on the right track.
As noble Lords will know, a report entitled NHS reforms—The first six months was published only last week. It suggests that an additional 250,000 patients will have been treated in 1991–92. It points to further encouraging falls in the numbers of patients waiting over two years for treatment. So there is no doubt of the improvements that the changes have brought. In the area of primary care, GP fund holders also are demonstrating the benefits which their independence and innovation can bring to their patients and to other patients too.
In the course of the debate more than one noble Lord referred to the dental service. I disagree with the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, that the service is underfunded. Annual gross spending on National Health Service dental services has increased by 48 per cent. in real terms over the past 12 years. Dentists are earning more. In the first five months of the financial year payments to dentists were 11.2 per cent. up on the same period last year.
My noble friend Lord Colwyn referred to the chairman of the GDSC being summoned by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. That seems to be entirely within the spirit of this debate. It is not as one-sided as it sounds. It was the representatives of the dental profession, whom we were consulting over the introduction of the contract, who indicated clearly that we should go ahead with the dental contract in the first place.
The family health service authority survey which we have just conducted—at the end of the first year of operation of the dental contract—pointed to areas or
596
pockets in which there was more of a problem than in others. I recently met the chairmen of the four London family health service authorities which have the lowest registration levels. Each of them assured me that when asked to find a dentist who provided National Health Service treatment, he was able to do so. Therefore the answer must be: go to your family health service authority and it will be able to help. However, the question of the new contract meaning a much heavier workload has been taken into account in the workload survey that we conducted, the results of which are still being analysed.
There is a difficulty on the general matter of remuneration because an averaging system applies. Dentists' fees are set at a level which is intended to enable the average dentist to earn a predetermined target average net income. That can only be realised—after the fact of course—by balancing actual income against intended income. The balancing mechanism for dentists operates three years in arrears and is similar to the system that operates for doctors. So it is fair to dentists and the taxpayer. Any suggestion made to dentists that this system should be changed has always been greeted with shock and horror. I hope that my noble friend appreciates that.
In 1988–89, net payments to dentists averaged £4,874 per dentist in excess of the intended level. We decided that a special factor related to the rate of processing of the dental practice board, which was exceptional and once for all, should be excluded from the sum to be recovered. We therefore waived £1,529 per dentist. That represented a constructive and substantial response to the profession's concerns as they were expressed.
We are discussing aspects of remuneration with the General Dental Services Committee and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will have further discussions. In reply to the allegation that dentists are leaving the NHS, there are currently 26 per cent. more dentists practising in the general dental services in Great Britain than there were in 1979. After all, dentists are independent contractors who have always been able to do as much or as little National Health Service work as they wished. Although my noble friend alleges that in some areas and particularly in London and the South-East one in every five dentists registered fewer than 200 patients during the first year of the new contract, the average number of National Health Service patients for dentists at the end of the first year of the contract was 1,426 and 26 per cent. of dentists had 2,000 or more registered patients.
I emphasise that even before the new contract there were dentists on FHSA lists in London who did very little National Health Service work. Although some dentists have withdrawn from dental lists in London, most London FHSAs still enjoy a higher ratio of dentists per head of population than most parts of the country. Another example of the Government taking into account the arguments of the profession is the introduction of an early retirement scheme for dentists which was introduced on 1st April last year. It was

597
introduced at the request of the profession and is an example of fine tuning, as was the reimbursement of rates to which we rapidly agreed.
We have been in continuous discussion with the profession about the new contract and how it might be improved. There have been notable moves: for example, the introduction of reimbursement of business rates (to which I have already referred); improvements to the dental claims form; some changes to the fees scale; a relaxation to the requirement for issuing treatment plans; and the removal of root treatments from capitation. Progress is being made and although there may be a number of dentists who are unhappy with the capitation system, as my noble friend alleged, I suggest that there are just as many, if not more, who are content.
In answer to a specific question, the oral health strategy group has had useful meetings and will issue a consultative document. We hope to be able to make an announcement shortly on Poswillo.
I must refer to another point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, about CoHSE having regular meetings with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. I remind the noble Lord that the TUC health services committee meets the Secretary of State once a year and ad hoc meetings are sometimes arranged. The membership is drawn from general secretaries and senior officers of health trade unions. There is no reason to believe that the interests and views of the health unions are not sufficiently represented.
I refer specifically to the question of sight tests since that matter was raised by several of your Lordships. I stress that recent surveys have indicated that the demand for sight tests is returning to normal. The optical profession has published a series of surveys in the past few months purporting to show that the demand remains low. However, many of the surveys use an artificially high baseline as their starting point, which gives a distorted picture of future trends.
In conclusion, since 1911 when the National Insurance Act first created a right to health care for employees on low wages, successive governments have seen the need for effective working relationships with the medical profession. The phrase which was then used then was "the need for an honourable partnership between the State and the Profession". For our part, we wholeheartedly support that in the interests of the people of this country. Nevertheless, there will be times when conflict arises, as Lloyd George, Bevan and, more recently, Kenneth Clarke have found out. Government must govern and no one group, however distinguished, can expect always to prevail.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I congratulate the Minister on her reply, although it is a pity that she ruined it right at the end. She has covered many of the points raised. I am extremely grateful to her for what she said and for the undertakings she has given.
I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. My noble friend Lord Carter underlined a number of vital points which I hope will be looked at. The noble Lord, Lord
598
Beaumont, made a very interesting speech. He omitted to mention that I had referred to the HVA, but I have lived with poverty. If he reads Hansard, he may wish to write to confirm that.
The noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, spoke about dentists. Dentists' nurses are equally important and play an important role. The noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, has compelled me to look at the work of the academics. I do not know much about it but he has tempted me to look at the matter. I am sorry to learn that the morale of academic doctors is low. Perhaps when we win the next election that situation will change.
The staff associations are concerned not only about their situations but also about the success of Britain's National Health Service. When they know about the debate held in this House, they will be extremely pleased with this House, perhaps rather more so than they are with the other place. After a very happy, pleasant and sensible debate, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Competition and Service (Utilities) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Trident
5.4 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putneyrose to call attention to the case against Trident; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as some of your Lordships will be aware, I am a nuclear disarmer. However, you do not have to be a nuclear disarmer to be opposed to Trident. There are an increasing number of people, including distinguished military figures and other people equally distinguished in other walks of life, who, although they may not accept the nuclear disarmament argument, are nevertheless of the opinion that to proceed with Trident at this time is a complete nonsense. As the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, who cannot be here this evening, asked, "What the hell is it for?"
Although there are now said to be anti-Trident voices in influential quarters, the Cabinet decision has been to argue that the break up of the USSR makes it certainly no less necessary. Indeed, I have even heard a voice in the other place suggest that it is even more necessary to proceed with, to maintain and to complete Trident. That view is not supported elsewhere and it is not easy to sustain if one examines exactly what Trident is and what it can do. Perhaps that is why, instead of dilating the power of Trident, government spokesmen tend to ignore and, indeed, to minimise it.
In a letter which the noble Earl, Lord Arran, was kind enough to write to me quite recently, he assured me that each Trident boat would carry no more than 128 warheads compared with Polaris which carries 48. As each Trident warhead can be independently targeted, that gives the four boats a potential of 512 targets. Why are we so vastly increasing the

599
destructive capability of our strategic nuclear deterrent at a time when the main ballistic missile holders are making drastic cuts under the START agreement. We are moving against the world tide in this matter and I have not yet heard a single argument which suggests to me that we are right to do so.
The Government are cagey about the destructive power of each Trident warhead but as the America D5, on which it is based, can have a maximum yield of 475 kilotons, we can assume that, even if we had only one boat, one missile and one warhead, the destructive capability would be equal to that of 36 Hiroshima bombs. That means that a single Trident submarine can carry a destructive power equal to 4,608 Hiroshima bombs. Let us think what that means.
Perhaps I should say that, since that calculation, I have noted that a source which I respect says the figure should not be greater than 3,000 times that of the Hiroshima bomb. That is because destructive power increases at a rather lower rate than the comparable kilotonnage. Be that as it may, the very existence of such a weapon is an obscene blot on the face of mankind and it could not be used without threatening civilisation itself.
The officer who presses the button might not only be committing his own suicide but also that of humanity. I say "might" because I am not among those, although they include some weighty scientific figures, who believe that nuclear war would spell the end of life on earth. Neither do I believe that the end would be sudden. However, I question whether human life would be worth living after a nuclear exchange and, indeed, some authoritative environmentalists fear that it is unlikely that our species would be among those able to adapt and survive the consequences of a nuclear exchange of a massive type.
Perhaps it is not entirely surprising that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, asked, "What the hell is Trident for?" The danger of possessing a weapon which cannot be used to the extent of its power, if it can be used at all, is that in extremis or by one of the inevitable misunderstandings of war, it might be used. Why are we preparing that enormous increase in our nuclear firepower, which Mr. King calls "minimal" presumably to prevent himself from thinking about what he is actually advocating? I am not surprised at that. It is terrible to contemplate the effect of a single D5 explosion in central Moscow. The fireball would be almost a mile wide. Steel and concrete buildings would be vaporised, as would hundreds of thousands of people, and many more thousands would be buried alive. Around 1½ million people would die from that single missile. No wonder government spokesmen shy away from talking about what they are really talking about.
Do we want Trident to kill Russians? They are our friends now. It just so happens that our strategic nukes are targeted on Moscow and other FSU cities. But let us put that question on one side for the moment. Perhaps the noble Earl, Lord Howe, will answer it when he winds up the debate, and perhaps he will not. We shall see.
Why do we want Trident? Is it because the Americans have dropped Polaris and spare parts for it
600
are no longer available? That is true. But why not drop Polaris ourselves? We have plenty of other nukes. Why replace Polaris with this terminable—I said "terminable", I meant to say terminal—monster? Is it because we want to keep our submarine strategic capabilities? Why? Is it because we want to retain the power to destroy the now non-existent Soviet Union single handedly from mobile seaborne bases? Why? We can be almost equally destructive with our airborne nuclear capability. Why should we want to do that? The Russians have already destroyed the Soviet Union themselves. It no longer exists.
Is the answer perhaps that we are so tied to the United States that when they move on to Trident D5 we shall have no option but to do the same if we want to stay in the crazy game? The Americans are showing strong signs of themselves wanting to pull out of the crazy game. Why is this the moment for us to be certain that we should get into it with a degree of strength that is beyond our financial and economic power to carry out without serious damage elsewhere, even to the Royal Navy?
Why? Echo answers, "Why". I read the debates in another place and did not find an answer. Neither has the noble and gallant Lord to whom I have already referred. Poor Tom King, whose performance in the debate last week was almost pathetic, hung on to the words, "nuclear deterrent"—it was not "nuclear deterrent", that is old hat; it was "nuclear defence" —as though by repeating those words he could bring into being what does not exist. There is no effective nuclear defence. Defence is not what Trident is about. It is about creating such a monstrous destructive power that any interceptor missiles which attempted to protect Moscow would be overwhelmed. That is the object of the exercise. I do not know why we have to participate in it. They are probably already useless.
In Trident we would have a weapon which, if a single missile exploded in Red Square, would have the terrible effects upon which I touched. We propose to have 512 of them. No wonder government spokesmen do not care to talk about what Trident really means. Why do we on this island need that power at this time? For a start, the Russians are almost certainly willing to de-target London. Therefore, why do we not offer to de-target Moscow in exchange, instead of upping the ante so colossally on our new friends? Is this the time to do that?
Mr. Yeltsin wants to join NATO. Are members of the club to target each other? Is not that nuclear madness? Surely now all efforts should be directed at reducing and not increasing a destructive power no man and no government are fit to handle. There is no halfway house in the world of nuclear power and nuclear weapons today. We either continue to produce more and more destructive weapons until one day we destroy ourselves, or we follow the pattern set by Argentina and Brazil and support what is essentially the aim of the START agreement; that is, to bring the numbers down at least to a manageable level even though not everyone will go along with me in saying that we can reach a level where all nuclear weapons can be phased out.

601
Of course, I agree entirely with those who say that we cannot destroy the knowledge of them. However, we must be constantly aware that the existence of these weapons in the present size and the present numbers is a constant threat to the entire civilisation, of which we are a not unimportant part.
The Government are attempting to make the matter an election issue. The attempt may well backfire. In any event, for good or ill, the election is likely to be decided by less important considerations.
As I said, to oppose Trident one does not need to be a nuclear disarmer. Trident is simply a gross step in nuclear proliferation. We are all supposed to be in favour of that. I am in favour of getting rid of the spread of nuclear arms at all levels. We are signatories to a treaty which opposes vertical proliferation as firmly as it does the horizontal spread of such weapons. We cannot halt horizontal proliferation while at the same time indulging in massive vertical proliferation. If we do not stop both sorts of proliferation we are done for. That is obvious. If we explain that to people they will understand it, accept it and support it.
The case against Trident can be stated in many other ways. It is fantastically expensive. The cost works out at around £2,000 a minute and the effect of that on the rest of the Royal Navy is well known in this House. Trident is unsafe. The American Drell Report was so alarming that the Government made their own inquiry. What is the result of that? Perhaps the noble Earl will tell us, or perhaps he will not.
At this moment we are in danger. Polaris is well beyond its use-by date and the House of Commons has expressed great anxiety and so on. There is enough for a speech lasting an hour or more. But perhaps the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, asked the unanswerable question, "What the hell is it for?" I believe that there are many people who have never supported nuclear disarmament and who would never join CND but who are ready nevertheless to say to any government that Trident is over the top; that now is the time to draw back from the abyss about which the late Lord Mountbatten warned us years ago. I hope that we shall hear this evening that there are such people in this House. I believe we shall. I beg to move for papers.
5.18 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I yield to no one in my admiration for the tenacity of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, regarding his views on this matter. He berates those of us who think differently for not having changed our position, as he sees it, given the change in the world situation. But the truth is that the noble Lord's position has remained totally unchanged almost from the day that nuclear weapons were invented. Indeed, not only has his view remained unchanged but also his speech, if he will forgive me for saying so. His arguments would perhaps begin to carry a little more weight if he could deploy some fresh ones.
The noble Lord referred to a number of distinguished military figures who think, perhaps
602
secretly, as he does. But he is mistaken in suggesting that there is more than one. I can think of only one noble and gallant Lord who remotely supports his view. That is of course the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, who is unfortunately not in his place today. To the best of my knowledge there is not another senior military figure in the world who remotely shares the views of the noble and gallant Lord, distinguished though he may be.
The noble Lord also referred to what he sees as the excessive destructive power of the new Trident system. Ministers have repeatedly said that it is not necessary to use the total available destructive power of Trident. Of course decisions have not been taken as to how much of that power will be used and it certainly would not be announced when they are. But the fact is that Trident has the flexibility to enable less than the full destructive power to be deployed or used if that seems necessary at the time. Ministers have certainly undertaken that that will be the case.
Happily today we have in his place the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, who until recently was Chief of the Defence Staff and therefore the Government's principal military adviser on these matters. Therefore, I shall not dilate on the technical issues on which he is infinitely better qualified to speak than I. I doubt very much whether the noble and gallant Lord will agree with the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, when the former comes to speak to us in a moment.
The first question that we need to address in any discussion on this matter is whether we want to be a nuclear power at all. I believe very strongly that we do and for two principal reasons. The first is that by being a nuclear power and retaining a nuclear deterrent of our own—I mean of course an independent nuclear power and thus we retain an independent nuclear deterrent—we secure for ourselves above all a most important place in the councils of the world. Above all it means that we are a permanent member of the Security Council of the United Nations. There are only five such permanent members. They are clearly the five most important members of the United Nations. It is only by virtue of our possession of the nuclear deterrent that we find ourselves in that happy position. There are other nations which are bigger than us in commercial and maybe also in political terms who would no doubt claim our place if we did not keep it for ourselves.
Perhaps I may mention again the importance of our being an independent nuclear power. Although it is true to say that our weapons are primarily assigned to NATO for NATO purposes, we have always said that we will retain the right to use our nuclear deterrent for national purposes when—I hope I have the words right—our supreme national interest so requires. Of course so far no such circumstances have ever arisen and I hope that they never do. Neither, for that matter, have we used our nuclear deterrent for NATO purposes. But we need to retain the right in extremis to use it for our supreme national purposes. I am very glad that we do.
That is an important point because throughout his speech the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, kept referring to

603
the D5 system. On this occasion we have chosen to purchase the Trident missile system, but we have not purchased the warheads. We manufacture them for ourselves and therefore the performance of those warheads is quite a separate matter from the performance of any other warheads that may exist elsewhere in the world.
The second reason why we need to be an independent nuclear power is that the effectiveness of a double-headed nuclear deterrent, if I can describe it as such—that is to say, the United States' deterrent on the one hand and ours on the other—is infinitely greater than the effectiveness of a single deterrent on its own. The reason for that is that it puts into the mind of a potential aggressor a much greater degree of complication than would otherwise exist when he is assessing the likelihood of a response should he visit his aggression on us.
For example, it might have been the case that the old Soviet Union had decided that it could attack the United Kingdom with impunity. Under the NATO arrangements an attack on the United Kingdom would have been the same as an attack on any other member of the alliance. It would have certainly resulted in a response from the United States whether or not the Soviet Union had used its weapons on us. By retaining its own separate independent deterrent the United Kingdom has added to the complications and the calculations which a potential aggressor must make. By so doing I believe that we have greatly reduced the likelihood that we should invoke or suffer an aggression launched on us.
If we have decided to be a nuclear power, as we have, and I believe rightly so, the next question is what system we should adopt. There are powerful arguments, which I dare say the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, will deploy, which point inexorably to a submarine-based deterrent, and a submarine-based strategic deterrent at that. That is what we have had for a number of years since the introduction of the Polaris system in the late 1960s.
It is particularly advantageous that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, will be speaking to us because at an earlier point of his career I believe that he was a distinguished pilot of the V-force. At that time our nuclear deterrent was carried by those aircraft. Now we have a submarine-based deterrent which is a good deal more invulnerable than was the air-based deterrent of all those years ago. What is more, we are now moving to the Trident system which your Lordships will appreciate has distinct advantages over the Polaris system, most particularly because of the range of the missile which confers important advantages on the invulnerability of the submarine platform.
Those are the principal points that I wish to make. I hope that the House will support the Government's policy in this matter. I hope that if ever we hear from the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, again, it will be with some new arguments rather than a rehash of the old ones.
5.28 pm.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, who brings out many important arguments in his speech. Although we are well aware of the views of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, on nuclear issues, I must admit that I was still somewhat taken aback by his remarks today about Trident. He seems to cast Trident in the role of some big Satan which, regardless of all consequences, must be dispensed with and annihilated. Surely it is the people who own and operate nuclear weapons, not just the weapons themselves, whom we should be considering.
I have had about 30 years' experience with nuclear issues in the Armed Forces. In the 1960s, as the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, mentioned, I captained V-bombers which could have been launched within minutes on a retaliatory mission if ordered to do so. In the 1970s and 1980s I commanded formations of nuclear-equipped aircraft and became closely involved in Whitehall up to Cabinet Committee level, with the many policy issues concerning nuclear forces and with the requirements for new weapons systems, including Trident, and the replacement for the free-fall weapon, WE177.
Throughout those 30 years I saw the highly professional and responsible way all those connected with our nuclear forces have behaved. I have no doubt that we can continue to rely on such sound stewardship.
For me, all of that experience was against a clear-cut and accepted possible threat from the Warsaw Pact forces to the East. But the scene is rapidly changing. What do these changes mean for the philosophy and provision of nuclear forces? Whatever they may mean, there is no question that, as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, has himself acknowledged, nuclear weapons can somehow be dis-invented or become an extinct species like the Dodo or dinosaurs. They exist, and all the indications are that more rather than fewer nation states are going to have the potential, if not the actuality, of nuclear forces at their disposal.
Apart from the two atomic bombs which were dropped on Japan at the end of World War II, no nuclear weapons have been used. All major nuclear powers to date seem to have come to recognise the principle, the key rationale, for the possession of a nuclear capability. It is to deter any attack, not just a nuclear attack, on their vital interests. All have taken great pains to ensure that control of the movement and operational use of nuclear weapons was held at the highest political level.
As we look to the future, can we be as confident about this aspect of ownership? It seems to me right that it should be given very great importance in all discussion about these weapons and not only with the republics of the former Soviet Union.
So far, nuclear owning powers have deemed it essential to underwrite the deterrent value of their nuclear weapons by requiring the Armed Forces concerned to exercise and practise all the procedures of command and control and operation. Indeed, paradoxically we have felt that the credibility of the

605
deterrent could be suspect without such activity in peacetime. There now seems to be creeping in the concept that third world possessors of these weapons could pose a threat to us or others without being seen to exercise their command and control or operational tactics in peacetime. In other words, we see them as being possible instigators of nuclear warfare rather than possessing nuclear weapons for deterrent purposes, as we do. And armed with long-range missiles the threat of nuclear attack, or blackmail, could be posed against us from afar.
That is, of course, only a very short sketch of a new world order of more prolific ownership of nuclear weapons. But taken with all the many valuable points being made in recent debates, and I expect by other noble Lords here today, it is enough to underline that, far from seeking to surrender our nuclear capability at this time, we should be concentrating on ensuring that it will remain a viable and credible deterrent well into the next century. Moreover, I do not think that it would be wise, as some have argued here and in another place, to seek to protect our vital interests by relying on the nuclear umbrella of another state, even the United States.
For them, as for any other nuclear power, the decision to use their nuclear weapons in the event that their deterrent value has faltered, particularly against another nuclear state, must in the final analysis be driven by a perception of what is the vital national interest at stake. I do not believe that we can expect any long-standing NATO arrangement to safeguard us from every third world type threat. So I believe, in spite of the many changes now happening and no doubt many others yet to surprise us, we would do well to retain—and to replace as necessary—our nuclear weapons to ensure operational viability.
Some argue that in the new scenario the exposure of the submarine's position by firing a single missile while on patrol could be accepted to meet the requirement for a sub-strategic response. But this idea might lead us to another conclusion. If one does not wish to safeguard the position of the operational boat short of firing a full salvo, one does not need to have the assurance that a fourth boat would provide. Three boats would do. In extremis, missiles could be fired from territorial waters, or even alongside.
However, I do not advocate a three boat force. Our continuous deterrent capability could be lost at a stroke if a serious defect were to strike at the submerged or sea-going safety of the few boats available at any one time to the operational cycle. Four boats is the minimum number needed to sustain the required capability for a 25 year or 30 year lifespan.
While it provides the big deterrent stick only if we have a separate nuclear tipped sub-strategic capability as well, does Trident retain its full credibility as our strategic deterrent force? Certain key characteristics for a sub-strategic system have been identified which complement Trident: for example, an alternative carriage and delivery vehicle; different basing and flight profiles; recall and re-targeting after takeoff; and swift response against targets which can be at long
606
range and/or widely separated. All such characteristics add strength and confidence to a deterrent policy. One cannot have half of a deterrent policy and expect it to be credible. That choice would be a ludicrous use of taxpayers' money.
Thus I believe that we need a sub-strategic option. We must retain the flexibility and choice of response which an aerial delivered selectable yield weapon will give. Such a mix gives this country a truly credible potential in an uncertain world.
I hope that any government will continue to sustain a four boat Trident force and an aerial delivered sub-strategic capability. Nuclear deterrence has served the security of these islands well for half a century. Now is not the time to discard it.
5.37 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, the problem with the Trident programme is that while it had a certain terrible logic when it was initiated to act as a massive deterrent to the Soviet Union, that original purpose has virtually disappeared. There is, of course, a huge stockpile of nuclear weapons in Russia, in the Ukraine, Byelorussia and Kazakhstan, but no one seriously suggests that any of those republics is remotely interested in an offensive war against the West. There is more danger that they will be in conflict with each other—a Yugoslavia with nuclear weapons, as former President Gorbachev put it last year. In the present world situation instead of increasing global security Trident will in fact destabilise it. It will make it more rather than less likely that nations other than the former USSR will further develop their nuclear capability.
It was made clear during last week's very well informed debate on nuclear proliferation, introduced by my noble friend Lord Kennet, that the acquisition of nuclear weapons or the means to make them, particularly by Middle-Eastern states, was a real possibility as a result of the breakup of the USSR. That was because Russian nuclear scientists could be employed at higher salaries in hard currency and perhaps because Russian fissile materials or complete weapons could be sold openly or clandestinely. For instance, it would be very difficult to detect, even by satellite, the delivery of such weapons by night across the Caspian Sea to Iran. I understand that there are already rumours of tactical weapons being sold to Iran. It is very tempting for a nation, such as one of the former Soviet republics which is extremely short of hard currency, to do that.
The importance of strengthening the nonproliferation treaty was agreed by every speaker in last week's debate. Practical means of doing so, such as giving more teeth to the International Atomic Energy Agency, were suggested. I risk repeating what I have said on previous occasions by reminding noble Lords yet again of Article 6 of the non-proliferation treaty. It requires signatories to,
"pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament".
To increase our strategic potential ten fold, which carried to its conclusion is what Trident will do, hardly seems compatible with that undertaking solemnly

607
agreed by the Government. The parallel of the drunken pastor preaching abstinence, which was quoted by my noble friend last week, seems apposite.
The United States and the former USSR have agreed to begin the process of nuclear weapons reduction through the INF and START treaties. President Yeltsin has undertaken to honour the agreement entered into by the Soviet Union. Britain and France, however, have not so far agreed to reduce their strategic weapons by one iota. On the contrary, we shall be increasing ours by a colossal margin if Trident goes ahead. Why should Iran, Israel or any other country pay much attention to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty when we are so flagrantly violating one of its basic articles? I suggest that the Trident programme has gathered such momentum that despite all logic it seems unstoppable—almost as if it were a missile itself. It is not too late to take a long hard look at how it might be brought harmlessly to earth, and in such a way that the investment already made is not entirely lost.
At this point I should like to ask the noble Earl who is to reply several questions about the cost of Trident. The whole programme was recently estimated to cost £21.2 billion. Is that the latest estimate? Does that include running costs and, if so, what are those thought to be? How much has already been spent? What will be the cost from now on of fitting out the three vessels already under construction until they are ready to travel to the United States to be equipped with missiles? What total sum have we agreed to pay the United States for the missiles? How many will be purchased? What is the additional estimated cost, first, of building the proposed fourth submarine and, secondly, of equipping it with missiles? I have given the noble Earl notice of those questions, although I apologise for the fact that it was rather short notice.
Even if we agree that strategic nuclear weapons are needed, we have to ask whether we need an independent strategic capability. I cannot accept the scenario that was put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne. After all, we are dependent on the United States for the supply of the missiles themselves. Without close relations with the United States Trident is a non-starter, so why do we not rely on the United States as an ally and a full member of NATO to operate the strategic option on our behalf until strategic weapons are phased out altogether, as was the declared intention of President Bush and President Gorbachev? Boris Yeltsin has agreed to that aim.
To wind down the Trident programme gently would be perfectly possible if we were to complete the three vessels already under construction but in effect put them into cold storage or mothballs without fuelling their nuclear generators and without installing their missiles. In the extremely unlikely event of a major nuclear threat occurring, they would still be there. I am sure that we would have plenty of warning. In case that did not emerge—I hope it never will—perhaps there are peaceful purposes for large, nuclear-powered underwater vessels, though I cannot think of any at the moment. The shipyards of Barrow would be kept busy for the next year or two completing the vessels already begun while active
608
planning for redeploying the yards was undertaken. The workers of Barrow would join the other workers in the defence industries of the United Kingdom who need alternative work. My suggestion would allow some time for the diversification process to be planned. It would cost far less than continuing Trident as planned at the moment. The defence diversification agency that will be established by the next government, who I am sure will be a Labour Government, will insist on exactly that kind of programme. But that is another story and another debate.
In conclusion, I suggest that to persist with the full Trident programme will result in a grotesque overkill capacity. It will be throwing good money after bad and far from adding to our security will encourage non-nuclear nations to acquire their own weapons.
5.46 p.m.
Lord Birdwood: My Lords, I hope that our public arguments have evolved beyond the stage of unilateral disarmament. It is an unfulfilled hope, because the views of unilateralism are still being aired. But those voices which go on denying that super power stability ever had anything to do with nuclear deterrent policy are sounding a bit shrill, a bit less righteous. So, this afternoon, the argument is not, and should not be, about the principle of deterrence, but whether Trident is appropriate.
Of course we understand that the noble Lord whose Motion it is is unequivocal in his position towards the UK nuclear capability. I do him the honour of respecting his consistency. He has never wavered. Perhaps if we had foregone the deterrent, if we had asked to be excused from NATO obligations, if we had willingly given up our seat at the Security Council, we would have been happier people. I conjecture otherwise. But I am falling into the trap, as the noble Lord sees it, of linking nuclear independence with the high ground of moral authority.
However, the argument of nationhood, history and power is not our concern today. I am convinced that the need for, and the success of, NATO's nuclear deterrent policy since the 1950s is not in doubt. The threat posed by the USSR was well understood and the potential response very effective. The threat to national security is now very unclear and likely to remain so. Under those circumstances it would be most unwise to compromise our existing and planned defence capability.
Apart from the residual nuclear weapons capability of Russia and the other members of the Commonwealth of Independent States on whose territory strategic nuclear delivery systems are deployed, there is a strong possibility of further nuclear proliferation in the near future. India, Israel and South Africa are believed to have an advanced nuclear weapons potential. Iraq's activities in pursuit of a nuclear capability are now well catalogued; Iran is believed to be engaged in a clandestine enrichment programme; and Algeria has received nuclear technology from China. I might speak also of North

609
Korea. The first quarter of the 21st century could well see the emergence of 10 or more nuclear powers to join the present five.
In order to ensure our security in a world of many nuclear powers, we must retain a credible full-time, not part-time, strategic nuclear deterrent. The basis of deployment of the UK's submarine-borne deterrent ensures that there is always at least one boat "on station" at all times capable of delivering a nuclear weapon to any target within its range. In order to achieve that objective on a continuous basis, four boats are required—one on station, one returning to base, one in transit to station, and one undergoing refit. In comparison with the four British submarines it is believed that the US Navy currently plans to have 18; the French six; and the USSR, or whatever succeeds it, about 60 at the time of implementing START. That means that around 20 Russian submarines are at this moment on station, on deep patrol. Each one is a huge, autonomous war capable machine. I should like to ask: where do they now think of as home? We have recently been worrying about recruiting Russian nuclear scientists. I suggest a far more evil and immediate possibility—the clandestine acquisition of even one of these machines by a nuclear-aspiring government.
The command structures in the Soviet armed forces are looking more fragile every day: the very reasons which make the submarines so hard to find mean that they—above all, weapons systems—are boxed in only by the disciplines of ideology and national loyalty; that is, the disciplines on board. The first is in tatters and the second in pieces. In that picture, what a prize one of these will be, and what stakes to play for. We have the credible chance of some of these boats becoming mercenaries of a so-called new world order beyond imagining. When the cold war ended, we thought that we had buried the dragon. What we did was to sow the dragon's teeth.
It has been suggested that the fire power of the Trident fleet of four submarines, each carrying 16 missiles, each missile carrying up to 14 warheads—a maximum of 896 warheads—is disproportionately large for a British nuclear force in the post-cold war environment. The first point to be made here is that those who make the suggestion have no way of assessing the variables involved in the calculation of a minimum deterrent—the reliability, accuracy and penetrative power of the missiles and their warheads, as well as the effectiveness of the anti-ballistic missile defences of a potential enemy.
However, even if the argument is accepted, the Trident system is almost infinitely flexible. The number of missiles can be reduced; it would be possible, although more complicated, to reduce the number of warheads on each missile, and the Trident submarine can be used as a platform for sub-strategic instead of intercontinental missiles. In any case, it is important always to remember that there will normally be one submarine, not four, on station.
A critical element of the British deployment is the refit cycle. These vessels are designed to operate without a major refit for at least 10 years, at which
610
time their complex systems require a total overhaul, taking 12 to 15 months to complete. The submarines, the vessels themselves, represent an estimated 20 per cent. of the whole Trident system, the logistics of which depend on a fleet of four boats to ensure effective operation.
It has been suggested that cancellation of the fourth vessel in 1992 would save the full cost of construction of one vessel, estimated to be £500 million. That is simply not the case. Under the system of long-lead funding, significant construction work has already been completed. Fabrication of the pressure hull, manufacture of the missile tubes and tactical weapons equipment, and the propulsion plant including the reactor and main machinery is well advanced. Cancellation of the fourth boat would also have a direct impact on the cost of the three already on order. In addition, substantial costs would be incurred by VSEL and their sub-contractors, who would be obliged to lay off thousands of their workforce already committed to the Trident project, the scale of which was confirmed in the MoD review, Options for Change.
VSEL which, in the era of British Shipbuilders, was obliged by the current Government to make a commitment to a four-boat programme to the exclusion of other work, is especially vulnerable. The importance of this company's survival to the well-being of the community of Furness in Cumbria is well known and cannot be ignored. In those circumstances, the total cancellation costs may well add up to half the purchase price of the completed vessel.
Our present system was designed to counter, and is extremely effective against, a limited ground-based defence as specified within the ABM Treaty. Trident D5 was selected to replace Chevaline in the mid-1990s when the Polaris boats, the missiles and the front ends, would be reaching the end of their operational lives.
The US Congress passed the Missile Defense Act 1991 in November, authorising the DoD to develop an ABM-compliant site by 1996 and also to negotiate amendments to the ABM treaty to permit three topics: first, additional missile defence sites; secondly, the increased use of space-based sensors for battle management; and, thirdly, greater flexibility for technology development of advanced ballistic missile defences. Success in any of those negotiations would free the successor to the Soviet Union to nullify the effectiveness of Chevaline.
Trident—it follows—becomes essential if deterrence is to remain an arm of policy. Particularly significant is the fact that penetration aids—that is, decoys designed to counter radars—are likely to be completely ineffective against space-based sensors using long wave infra-red. Chevaline is only effective now because of decoys: it would have little value against infra-red space-based sensors.
All we can do is skim over the arguments which, for me, forge the unbreakable logic of Trident. The arguments are technical, geopolitical, financial and, above all, a recognition of the real world. They derive from assumptions which many previous sceptics now

611
share. If anything that I have said takes the process of conviction just an inch further, my contribution will not have been wasted.
5.56 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, it is a little depressing to hear the arguments from the supporters of Trident still rooted in the concrete of the cold war. However, there are a number of arguments which have been raised this afternoon that I should like briefly to answer. The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, whose speech I may say we have heard before, referred to there being five nuclear powers today. But that is not so; there are now eight known states with nuclear weapons. That number is certain to increase in the near future. The logic of the noble Lord's argument is that it should increase. He is telling the rest of the world that the only way to secure influence in the world is to have nuclear weapons. If that is a lesson for us, it is also a lesson for the other 150 nations in the world.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, and the noble Lord, Lord Birdwood, both talked of the necessity for four Trident submarines for minimum safety. But is it not the case that by the end of this year only two Polaris submarines will be operational? Is it not also the case that today the "Renown" is in the dockyard at Rosyth attempting a refit which is endangered by leakage and that by the end of the year the "Revenge" will also be there and it is doubtful whether it can be refitted? That will leave just two of them. Are noble Lords saying that for the next three years before Trident comes on stream this country will be vulnerable? It does not seem to me that that argument stands up for the fourth Trident.
It is depressing to note that there does not seem to have been a recognition of the new world in which we are living. We are still talking about nuclear weapons being a deterrent. But did they deter the Argentinians? Did they deter Saddam Hussein? Did they deter in the Vietnam war or in Afghanistan? Moreover, are they deterring what is taking place in Yugoslavia, and did they deter the illegal invasion of East Timor by Indonesia? In all those cases nuclear weapons were owned by those states—that is, both those supporting the resolutions of the United Nations and those taking their own line—and in no case was any deterrence apparent; of course it could not be.
Let us take, for example, the case of Iraq. Only two years ago it was being armed by this country. The gentleman who is now Secretary of State for Social Security was in Baghdad negotiating for Britain to help in the arming of Saddam Hussein.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, that is not correct. At the time there was a joint supply of weapons to Iraq and Iran under the guidelines that had been issued earlier by my right honourable friend the then Foreign Secretary.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I invite the noble Lord to intervene once again to say what was happening about the supergun. We are still waiting to
612
hear to what extent members of the Government knew about it. That knowledge is already being gravely questioned.
I want to point out that there is a powerful military and industrial complex throughout Western countries which is actively and purposely arming states which may become nuclear states or which may, as they are doing today, obtain increased fire power from conventional weapons. That does not go—after all, Britain is the second largest arms exporter in the world —with any conception of developing peace and harmony in our troubled world. There does not seem to have been any consideration of the new world situation that we face.
We hear that the United States has now switched its targeting from Moscow and the Eastern European states to the third world. How does that help peace? Surely the £20 billion that has been spent on Trident could be much more wisely invested to deal with poverty in the third world and persuading third world countries that it is not nuclear arms that will give them influence; it is co-operation, with our help, to build up their standard of living. I welcome the appearance of my noble friend Lord Judd on the Front Bench. I feel confident that he will support what I have just said about the investment in peace to destroy poverty.
The world faces new dangers. Surely we can look to our country and government to take a lead in controlling and eventually disposing of nuclear weapons which we all agree pose great danger to the peace of the world. We have let down President Gorbachev and thus have split up the controlling command of Soviet nuclear weapons; but if, instead of modernising our nuclear weapons and increasing them to 512 warheads, we had endeavoured to help the former Soviet nuclear scientists to transfer their skills to civilian production, we should have been working for a much safer world than we have done by giving a lead, as my noble friend Lord Rea pointed out, in weakening the non-proliferation treaty and appearing to be cynical in our adherence to it. As he pointed out, it is our responsibility to reduce our nuclear weapons if we are to persuade other people to join that non-proliferation treaty.
I want to mention one particular issue of which I have given notice. In addition to the Trident programme, on 16th November Britain conducted its 44th nuclear weapons test in Nevada. That flies in the face of current moves towards disarmament and can only increase the anxiety felt around the world that the nuclear weapon states, including Britain, are failing to take responsibility for curbing nuclear proliferation. Twelve months ago, 74 of the 118 signatories to the 1963 partial test ban treaty voted in favour of moving towards a comprehensive test ban. Only the United Kingdom and the USA voted against. Why? If Britain and the United States had offered to conclude a comprehensive test ban with the Soviet Union while it was a single command, there was a good chance that we could have entered into a new age of controlling the spread of nuclear weapons. The threadbare argument advanced for Britain's continued nuclear testing—that it is necessary to improve safety and that a comprehensive test ban is not verifiable—is no

613
longer credible. Nuclear testing is for developing new and more refined nuclear weapons. That goes right against the whole ethos of the non-proliferation treaty.
I believe that the Government have found that out in the past few days while Mr. Hurd has been in India and was told that India would not join the nuclear non-proliferation treaty because it did not feel that we were abiding by it. India considered that we were being hypocritical. That hypocrisy is a danger to the future peace of the world.
6.5 p.m.
Lord Ironside: My Lords, if there is a case to be made against any weapon, surely it is to be made against the Soviet-designed SS20 Sturgeon with its 10 independently targeted warheads and range of 4,500 nautical miles, fitted to Typhoon-class submarines, together with all the variants fitted to other Delta, Golf and Yankee class boats about which we have heard so much in recent years. They total some 74 and are assigned to the Northern, Black Sea and Pacific fleets. If there is a case to be made, it is a case for Trident as fitted to the Vanguard class boats.
As I have done before, I declare my interest in the Trident system, which covers the broad range of missile handling, platform engineering and support. The recent ominous proposal made by President Yeltsin—that the strategic portion of the Black Sea fleet should be under central control—is an admission of the nuclear ballistic missile capability of that fleet, despite statements from other sources—perhaps Ukrainian—that the Black Sea fleet is non-nuclear. Whatever the truth, there is a strong reason why we should not look at the missile alone.
What I have to say will be in support of the system, and Trident is part of a whole-ship system. The Vanguard platform is dedicated to the Trident missile, and what is vital to them both is our submarine building capability, our design and manufacturing capacity, our naval base and refit capacity and, last but not least, the manning capacity of the boat.
We are fortunate that we have the resources to compete on quality rather than quantity terms and that we are in the quality race and not the arms race now and, consequently, have the ability to field the minimum strategic and flexible deterrent capability which will meet our foreseeable defence needs, at least until the known nuclear threat has been eliminated. That is in no way happening yet and is not likely to happen until the former Soviet nuclear strategic and tactical arsenals have been denied to the successor breakaway states, together with launch sites and other facilities, and have come under a central control with powers of negotiation.
As the Secretary of State has said, we must address the problems of the substantial strategic nuclear arsenal that will be around for 20 years or more. Good political intentions may exist, but capability remains, and it is about that we must worry.
The one development which has made Trident into a credible deterrent, quite apart from the warhead advantage, is the standoff capability, coupled with the
614
high speed submarine platform. When in 1980 the Soviets introduced their SS20 missile with 10 multiple warheads, the years of Polaris's credibility became numbered, and those who followed the case for collaboration rather than independence, as the French have done, will see that we have made the right, cost-effective choice by opting for the Trident II D5 missile.
I come back to the point that we must match equipment to resources available and quality needed. I believe that there is nothing obscene or reprehensible in having powerful and flexible systems and equipment for nuclear deterrence, as we have to watch the threat which remains in the nuclear field. The case for the D5 missile was clearly laid out in the 1987 open document to preserve credibility against the new defences in the ex-Soviet Union, which are still there, with control supposedly in the hands of President Yeltsin and General—or is he now Marshal?— Shaposhnikov.
The cruise missile alternative which would have been based on the US Tomahawk was rejected because it was restricted to firing within the confines of the Norwegian sea, whereas Trident has all the North Atlantic for concealment. The cruise missile was also rejected on grounds of technology, the necessity for a larger submarine force and poor in-flight survivability. The only other possible contender, which was the French M5 missile with all its uncertainties and cost penalties, was rejected.
I believe that the Trident-Vanguard system should be seen in the context of strengthening the underwater warfare capability of the Royal Navy and in the context of ensuring that we maintain the submarine building capacity we have and that we complete the new Clyde naval base facilities and those at Rosyth to meet our long-term requirements. Also, we should maintain nuclear design and manufacturing facilities as long as the nuclear threat remains.
Elimination of the threat will only be achieved through negotiation from a point of strength. Therefore I believe that the Government's choice of maintaining the Trident missile and Vanguard system is right and that it is also right to have four boats so that one can be on patrol all the time.
6.11 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, this afternoon we have heard quite a lot about the case against Trident, and that is the reason for our debate. I do not wish to spend a great deal of time elaborating further because it has been touched on in some areas far better than I could do. Perhaps I may quickly canter through the main arguments that I can see against Trident.
First, Trident as a nuclear weapons system is a threat to human life: whether it goes off on purpose or accidentally, the net effect will be to kill millions of people. I do not believe that anyone in your Lordships' House could wish that on our planet. Secondly, its possession by this country is effectively a signal to every other country in the world that it is a good thing to have. That is therefore an incentive to its proliferation.

615
Thirdly, it is expensive and many people would argue that it is a waste of money. Fourthly—and this is one of the areas on which not many speakers have touched strongly—it distorts defence thinking. It distracts us from looking at the real threat to the security of our nation and prevents us looking at the most effective ways of dealing with threats to our security.
Another reason that has not been touched on so far by any other speakers, so far as I am aware, is that the philosophy of the possession of nuclear weapons distorts our whole energy policy. I hope that most people, unless they are deranged, would agree with Reagan and Gorbachev that the ideal is to get rid of all nuclear weapons right around the world. I am continually frustrated by people who will not address that question and say, "Well, it is impossible, we can't do it; therefore we must have nuclear weapons and we must make sure that ours are bigger and better than anyone else's". I hope that the people using that argument will start addressing the real problem: how do we, as human beings, work with other human beings around the world to rid our planet of nuclear weapons? I am sure that if we all addressed that question we should soon find a satisfactory answer.
I suggest that, although we might soon find an answer, we should not take precipitate action. That would send the wrong signal to our friends and potential enemies. In the past 10 years we have seen two examples where our intentions and those of our allies were misread by effectively military dictators. The net result was that our servicemen died in the Falklands and Kuwait. We must all address that scenario and re-dedicate ourselves to considering how we can prevent that kind of thing happening again.
We are in an election year and we know that this debate is set within the context of electioneering. I remind your Lordships that since the war we have had Labour and Conservative Governments but it is only during the past eight years since 1983, under a Conservative Government, that we have seen our servicemen losing their lives because of aggressive action that was taken against our interests. I hope that the British people will think about that when it comes to polling.
One of the things that annoys me a little is the way in which some speakers mentioned the workers at Barrow in their argument for a fourth Trident boat. That comes rather badly from Government Benches that have seen two slumps and two major rises in unemployment in this country but have sat back and done nothing about it. They offer to the workers at Barrow at best a few years' work for the sake of building a fourth Trident submarine, which in real terms is not strictly necessary.
I shall not argue about whether we should have a three or four boat fleet. We need to address the future of the workers of Barrow more effectively than just offering them another boat. At best that would make their jobs secure for a few years. Rather, we need to think in terms of developing a long-term future for the workforce at Barrow. When I say "long-term" I mean in terms of 10, 20, 30 or 40 years, not the three, four or five years of which the Government speak.
616
I have touched upon the need to protect and defend, and to prevent death among our servicemen. However, at the end of the day we have a much wider responsibility. We have a responsibility to many millions of men and women around the world to prevent their deaths by even the accidental, far less the purposeful, use of nuclear weapons. I hope that we can use this debate as a process of education and a process of trying to find some way forward which enables us to get rid of nuclear weapons all around the world by the year 2000. That was agreed as a laudable and achievable objective by President Reagan and President Gorbachev.
6.20 p.m.
Viscount Mersey: My Lords, this is for me a repeat performance of a debate in which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, and I crossed swords 11 years ago. That debate occurred on 20th July 1981. Both of us had made our maiden speeches and we were making our second speeches in this Chamber. We had therefore both drawn the two shortest straws and were speaking respectively second last and last in the debate. In that debate I made two errors of forecasting. First, I forecast that there could not be a continuous Conservative government in this country from 1981 to 1992. Secondly, I forecast that the Soviet Union would be as great a threat in 1992 as it had been in 1981. That, of course, is not the case and we cannot speak now of a similar Russian threat. However, what we must surely speak of is a similar Russian capability. Today, whoever is in charge in Moscow, we have in our oceans the following Russian ballistic missile submarines.
We have 12 Yankee class, 48 Delta class and six colossal Typhoon class boats, each of which is twice the size of Trident. Each comprises 26½ thousand tonnes of naked power with 20 missile tubes per boat. There are seven MIRVED warheads per tube, each of 120 kilotonnes. Typhoons can in addition fire through their torpedo tubes 200 kilotonne weapons. In all, I have calculated that Russia has 66 nuclear ballistic missile boats. I believe my noble friend Lord Birdwood made the total about 60, while my noble friend Lord Ironside made it more like 74. However, both of them omitted the additional capability of the cruise nuclear missile boats, of which there are 61. I therefore calculate that the total is 127. That represents an awesome military capability. It is the more awesome because it is at the moment uncontrolled.
In the nuclear debate in another place last week my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence described how he had received from the Russians the shortest lived assurance of all time. It came from a General Lobov. When he was asked who was in charge of nuclear weapons, the general replied that he was. However, two days later he was sacked. Our old adversary is beset by revolution. Revolutions throw up new leaders then quickly overthrow them. In France at the end of the 18th century Lafayette, Saint-Just, Danton and Robespierre came to prominence before Napoleon. Who is to say there will be no Napoleon in Russia in a few years? A mighty

617
general and emperor could control that huge nuclear arsenal. He might try to placate his people with the great opiate of foreign conquest. Even if the Russians returned to stability and disarmed in a well organised way, they would still have, 10 years from now, 20 times more warheads than we have now.
Trident is our long-term shield. It will protect us against all nuclear aggression over the next 30 years. No one can forecast what type of Russian government there will be in 30 years' time. It is hard enough to forecast the position in 30 days. If we add to the Russian threat the likelihood that Russian nuclear hardware and know-how might be sold to such countries as Libya and Iraq, the situation becomes about as secure as that of Damocles under the sword. It then follows that we must have one Trident submarine on station at all times. That means a four-boat fleet. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, has said that, as have my noble friends Lord Birdwood and Lord Ironside. It is a little more surprising, however, that the Guardian has said much the same thing. The Guardian stated in an article last Thursday:
"Some expert opinion holds that a three-boat fleet could achieve the same result. But the margin for accidents becomes very low. If one boat met with an accident or experienced serious technical problems in refit there would only be one boat on station for half the time. A four boat force provides insurance against an unforeseen emergency".
The same article also stated:
"Cancelling the 4th Trident would save only £500 million of the £19.4 billion being spent on Trident Procurement".
I should like some information from my noble friend on the Front Bench as regards that figure of £19.4 billion. The noble Lord, Lord Rea, puts that figure at £21 billion. I remember that in 1981 the then Secretary of State for Defence, John Nott, told us that the Trident programme would cost £8 billion at 1980 prices. Allowing for inflation I believe that figure is about £13 billion at today's prices. It is certainly not £19 billion. It is even more certain that it is not £21 billion. Therefore there seems to have been an overspend. Could that be connected with what is referred to as the stretching out of the building programme?
Is it not the case that the original programme anticipated ordering one boat per year from 1986? Indeed the Vanguard was ordered in 1986 and the Victorious in 1987. However, the Vigilant was not ordered until 1990 and the fourth boat is still not ordered. I must ask my noble friend why we seem to have dragged our heels. Had we kept to schedule the debate on the fourth boat would be irrelevant as it would already have been three years abuilding in that mighty covered yard at Barrow. In general I foresaw the need for four Trident boats back in 1981. In 1992 I am convinced that that need is even greater.
6.27 p.m.
Lord Annan: My Lords, a number of Starred Questions have been tabled this Session about Trident. Whenever its utility is questioned, the noble Earl, Lord Arran, replies that it is our nuclear deterrent that has preserved peace during the past 40 years and we must have an up-to-date deterrent in the
618
foreseeable future. When he says that, there is always a growl of approval from the Benches opposite. However, that is quite untrue. What preserved the peace during the past 40 years were NATO and the overwhelming power of the American nuclear deterrent. I am glad to say that some parts of that deterrent were deployed in the United Kingdom. This is where I part company from the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney. The noble Lord is a noble, high-minded idealist whereas I am a low, cynical realist.
I believe in the power of NATO and I believe passionately in the nuclear deterrent in America. I also believe that when the archives are opened we may well find that it was President Reagan's initiative—thought in some quarters to be insane—of instigating Star Wars that was the last straw that broke the morale of the Soviet defence ministry.
On those grounds I have a different standpoint on the question of Trident. However, it seems to me laughable to say that our own nuclear deterrent is the thing that has preserved Britain in the past 40 years. Is it really the case that Germany, Holland and the rest of the EC countries, with the exception of France, were markedly less secure and more at risk than the United Kingdom? Is it really argued that the USSR would have attacked Britain alone and risked nuclear retaliation from the United States?
The noble Earl always goes on to say that although the USSR has now split into independent republics, we live in such an uncertain world that Trident is necessary and that we must have four submarines so that one will always be afloat, prowling and ready to turn its nuclear weapons against the aggressor, watching, as Keats put it,
"…with eternal lids apart,
Like nature's patient, sleepless Eremite".
Which way will this nuclear weapon be turned? The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, had the temerity to ask the other day whether it will still be targeted on Moscow. That is a perfectly reasonable question. If not on Moscow where will it be targeted? When I once asked in my ignorance why we had not sent nuclear submarines to the Gulf, the noble Earl, Lord Arran, with his characteristic courtesy and consideration, wrote to correct me. He said that we would not deploy nuclear submarines in the Gulf because under treaty we had undertaken never to use them against any non-nuclear power. That does indeed restrict our options.
I am a historian. I predict that some 50 years from now historians studying Britain in the second half of the twentieth century will judge that this country ruined itself economically trying to keep up with the Joneses in the United States. We need conventional arms, not only for our armed forces but to help our export trade by selling those arms abroad. We cannot sell nuclear arms abroad. Unlike our competitors in Europe we need a navy because we are an island. Other countries in the European Community do not need a navy. That is why our defence costs will always be higher. But keeping the three services going and a nuclear deterrent, and being ready at the drop of a hat

619
to send our forces to fight in wars from Korea to the Gulf, has beggared us. We must learn to beat some of our arms into ploughshares.
Which arms? I do not want to prognosticate about what field marshals or chiefs of the defence staff think on this issue. But when I heard the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, being so categoric I told myself that I must re-read what the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, said should be our defence policy. His speech in the debate on defence last Session gave me a rather different impression. I am quite certain what the reply would be if I put the question to the most distinguished scientific adviser to the Government in this House, the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, who has often said that he can see no possibility of a nuclear strike on enemy capitals ever being carried out. Does one first warn the diplomats in those capitals so that they can evacuate their embassies before we strike?
Of course, there will be all sorts of disturbances in Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and probably in the Far East and Africa during the years following the collapse of the USSR as a major hostile power. But can anyone pretend that the threat to our security is as great as in the days of Stalin, Khrushchev and Brezhnev?
When Sir Nicholas Henderson retired in 1979 from his post as ambassador to France he wrote a despatch in which he said how difficult it was to represent our country when its economy was in such a poor state and when it was rent by so many strikes and disturbances of one kind or another. He emphasised that it is economic power on which ultimately military and political power depend. That is why I say that if future governments turn their attention to making British industry efficient and to investing in industry rather than in unutilisable long-range nuclear weapons, this debate will not have been in vain.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down perhaps I may ask him to clarify one point. The thesis he has offered seems to be that the cost of our strategic deterrent has been the difference between poverty and prosperity. Is he aware that the cost of our nuclear deterrent is between 3 per cent. and 4 per cent. of our total defence expenditure? Is he really suggesting that that is the difference that he has outlined?
Lord Annan: My Lords, I merely say that savings have to be made somewhere. Some people would judge that the savings should not be made so much in conventional forces as in nuclear forces.
6.34 p.m.
Lord Wedgwood: My Lords, following my maiden speech in this House last October the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, asked whether it was not better to have the Royal Scots than the alternative. Also, in the noble Lord's kind and generous comments he mentioned that he did not entirely agree with my every word. Today, with respect to the noble Lord, I am not able to agree entirely with him.
As noble Lords have heard repeatedly in this House and in another place, we are faced with a period of
620
danger and uncertainty. We must be certain that our nuclear forces are credible, comprehensive and cohesive.
Former United States President Richard Nixon wrote in his book Seize the Moment, which went to press only last September, that:
"While we should celebrate the current turn of events, we should not give in to euphoria. In a world of competing states, clashing interests and national conflicts are inevitable".
I found it interesting that the former president went on to say:
"Revolutionary upheavals may change how the world looks, but seldom change the way the world works".
Last week my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence outlined the current nuclear situation in the states which formerly constituted the Soviet Union. He estimated that it would take 10 years safely to halve the current nuclear power in those states. Even then there would be 20 times more warheads than in the United Kingdom. In addition, we would potentially face four aggressors as opposed to one, the former Soviet Union. I am sure that your Lordships all welcome the efforts of my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary in his current efforts to centralise the Soviet nuclear arsenal.
Considerable anxiety over the break-up of the Soviet Union was underlined by a recent article in the authoritative defence magazine Jane's Defence Weekly. It explains that there were 1.7 million skilled weapons technologists in the former Soviet Union, of whom 30,000 were specialists in developing nuclear weapons. As the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, mentioned in his excellent speech, those specialists are a natural target for recruitment by third world countries which are and may be eager to develop a nuclear capability. Although there is no hard evidence to prove that scientists have taken their expertise elsewhere, we can be assured that with the economic chaos in the Soviet Union only time and money will show the brain drain.
That potential proliferation of nuclear capability adds to the considerable uncertainty about a number of emerging nations such as Pakistan, India and North Korea. The example of Iraq, as we have already heard, is only one instance of why the Trident programme is vital to form our own independent nuclear deterrent.
Again, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, and others have mentioned, it has been argued that we do not need to replace the four Polaris boats with four Trident boats and that three will suffice. As noble Lords have heard today, in order for our nuclear deterrent to be credible it must be comprehensive, cohesive and flexible. We can all expect and hope for future arms control agreements. If we are required to make further cuts from the minimal operational capability we shall quickly become less credible to potential aggressors. It is certainly not clear what our future commitments to the European Community will be and whether our independent forces will be reduced as a result.
Noble Lords have also heard today that the potential of nuclear proliferation could conceivably result in elements of our deterrent force being

621
deployed to several theatres of operation. Those are a few of the reasons why it is essential to have at least four Trident boats.
From a cost point of view, the Trident has been bought from the American shelf at a considerable saving to this country. Once in service the Trident system will consume less than 2 per cent. of the defence budget. The price of the fourth boat is very small compared with the overall cost.
Those of us still on this planet in 30 years' time can look forward to a country protected from the fear of nuclear attack on an independent basis during what is bound to be a period of considerable change. It is to be hoped that future generations can enjoy the fruits of a viable nuclear deterrent which has encouraged further arms control agreements and, most importantly, the implementation of strong command and control measures wherever there is a nuclear force. We cannot conceivably expect to achieve these goals without a nuclear deterrent and without Trident.
Yes, my Lords, I finish where I started. I cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney.
6.41 p.m.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, on these Benches we agree of course that while other countries have nuclear weapons Britain must have a minimum deterrent. We agree that the Trident programme should go ahead and that there should be four boats instead of three. But rather than tread well-trodden paths again I should like to concentrate on two major points on which my noble friends and I disagree with the Government's deterrent policy.
The first objection we have is that the Government are following the persuasive advice of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, and are preparing a new tactical air-to-surface nuclear missile system when that role can be performed satisfactorily without significant cost by Trident, as the noble Lord, Lord Birdwood, has said. Whether the sub-strategic role is necessary at all is highly doubtful. The Government have put forward two justifications, which were set out by the noble Earl, Lord Arran, on 21st November as follows:
"As the NATO defence Ministers have recently affirmed, sub-strategic forces are required to provide the necessary political and military link between conventional and strategic nuclear forces".—[Official Report, 21/11/91; col. 1016.]
But even if that were true, which on these Benches we deny, does NATO really need a British sub-strategic system? The Americans and the French have that system. All three Western powers have strategic deterrents as well. But that is not good enough for the Government. They say, "But there might be an aggressor who is not deterred by the three strategic deterrents, who is not deterred by the French and American sub-strategic deterrents, but who might be deterred if in addition Britain had a sub-strategic system". That is ludicrous. It makes no sense at all. The scenario is not credible, and I am glad to say there are signs that Ministers are now dropping this part of their argument for TASM.
The second argument for TASM is also flawed. This is that in a world where nuclear weapons are
622
proliferating the threat of a nuclear attack by a minor power might require a counter-threat from Britain, acting alone; and that Trident is too powerful to make that counter-threat credible. I think that is a fair summary of the Government's second argument. They say that therefore we need another, smaller, sub-strategic system. But that argument ignores the extraordinary flexibility of the Trident system. A single submarine can fly a colossal salvo of 120 warheads, or, if required, it can land a single warhead —at 5,000 miles range if necessary—400 feet from the centre of the target. Meanwhile it can keep its remaining missiles available for the strategic role. Why then are the Government insisting on procuring this air launch system?
I was fascinated to hear the noble and gallant Lord arguing that the submarine might be vulnerable. Let us compare the vulnerability of the submarine which has fired a missile. The noble and gallant Lord said that the missile might be tracked by the minor adversary power; it might be monitored, and the minor power might then send a retaliatory missile in the opposite direction with extreme accuracy and sink the boat before it had time to get away. That is scarcely possible; but let us bear it in mind and let us think of the vulnerability of the alternative suggested by the noble and gallant Lord—the vulnerability of aircraft or airfields the location of which is precisely known by any adversary. Let us consider also the difficulty of basing TASM in a foreign country. Who is going to take it? The Germans are not. Where will it be? Above all, TASM will cost £2 billion or more, whereas if Trident is used, as it can be in this alternative role, it will cost nothing at all.
Of course one's heart bleeds for the RAF, and bled in the 1960s, when it lost its nuclear role with the Vulcans to the Navy with the Polaris submarines. Their hearts were wrung and we sympathise with them, but that is no reason now for supporting the air-launched TASM as against the far superior alternative of the Trident in the sub-strategic role.
I turn now to the second main objection that we on these Benches have to the Government's Trident policy. The Government say that Britain needs a minimum deterrent. So do we: but what is a minimum deterrent? We say it means the capability to inflict unacceptable damage and casualties on any possible adversary. At the present time a single Polaris submarine has this capability. The same will be true of a Trident submarine with the same fire power. It too will be able to inflict unacceptable damage and casualties on any possible adversary. But that is not enough for the Government. For reasons which they refuse to explain or even discuss, they insist that Trident's fire power must be substantially greater than that of Polaris so that we could if necessary, acting independently, penetrate the Soviet ABM defences.
On 14th October in the other place the Secretary of State was asked why more warheads were needed for Trident than for Polaris, and he replied:
"The number of missiles and warheads needed to overcome anti-missile defences, is the determinant".— [Official Report. Commons, 14/10/91; co. 58.]
The Minister of State for Defence for Procurement, Mr. Hamilton, said at a later date that the programme

623
of improvements to the Soviet ABM system reinforced the need for Polaris to be replaced by Trident in the mid-1990s. Now what are the Soviet ABM systems to which Ministers refer? Everybody knows what they are. The Russians have known it for years. There is only one Soviet anti-ballistic missile system. There is only one allowed to it under the ABM treaties. That is the system which defends Moscow. That is what Ministers are talking about.
Even if, absurdly, the Russians abrogated the treaty and began the immensely costly business of constructing new ABMs, the Government would still not need to increase the fire power of Trident (although they could do so very quickly if they wanted) because the Trident submarine would still be capable of inflicting unacceptable damage and casualties.
The Government insist on pitting our nuclear deterrent against the only city in the world that has ABM defences, leaving aside Russia's undefended centres of power. Moscow is no longer the capital of the Soviet Union or the nerve centre of a unified empire. Yet the Government are proposing to spend huge sums on extra warheads with the exclusive aim of being able to destroy one particular city. This is called the Moscow criterion, and it is lunacy. It is no wonder, as we heard at Question Time on Thursday last, the Government are trying to suppress discussion of this subject. It is no wonder that the noble Earl, Lord Arran—I am sorry to see that he is not in his place—tried to prevent me from raising the subject. However, it is a subject that should be raised. It should and will be discussed. As with TASM so with the Moscow criterion; the Government are misdirecting the Trident programme. They are wasting public money; and the electors are entitled to know about it.
6.50 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, there is much in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, which deserves careful consideration, not least what he said about the flexibility of Trident and the dangers of costly duplication. I join with those who pay tribute to the consistent remarks of my noble friend Lord Jenkins and indeed to his integrity and humanitarian concern. I believe that this House, and indeed Britain, are the better for his contribution. I also believe that in this debate we have been fortunate to have the insight and experience of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig. I believe that we have to consider seriously his professional advice.
There has always been an honest, intellectual and moral case for pacifism. However, if pacifism is rejected, we are in an altogether different discipline. One of the greatest responsibilities of government is to define the threats to our society and to guard against them. To fail to meet those threats could effectively mean that all our military expenditure was wasted. But threats will change and vary. Minds set are therefore dangerous. Flexibility is essential. As the noble Lord, Lord Annan, pointed out, no single weapon or category of weapons of itself provides effective defence. Effective defence demands the resources for a complex mix of strategic and tactical
624
military capabilities within the context of a priority commitment to collective security, arms control and disarmament. However, all that must be integrated with effective economic, industrial and social policies and with food security. Healthy social and economic fibre and good national morale are highly relevant to defence.
I am not altogether convinced that there is a clear-cut distinction between nuclear and modern non-nuclear warfare. Let us consider World War Two. Let us remember the fire storms in Tokyo. Think of Dresden, my Lords. In the past year think of the millions at risk of slow starvation, disease and stunted physical and mental development as a result of conflict in the third world.
There have been 150 conflicts mainly in the third world since World War Two. In World War Two the civilian casualty proportion of total casualties was 52 per cent. The UN has recently calculated that in modern so-called conventional wars throughout the third world, the civilian casualty proportion of total casualties is 90 per cent.
We must also remember that nuclear weapons were first produced in the context of a prolonged conventional war. We cannot unlearn what has been learnt, even after we have achieved far-reaching arms control and disarmament. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Monkswell tellingly pointed out that it is war itself which has to be prevented. Hence the importance of collective security and deterrence—principles which I argue will continue to apply in a greatly demilitarised world.
But what of the threats today and the means required to meet them? They are unpredictability, and nuclear, chemical and biological proliferation. My noble friend Lord Hatch pointed out that there are already at least eight nuclear states. Regional local conflicts are out of control, and terrorism, potentially, before long will be on a nuclear, chemical and biological scale. There are 27,000 nuclear warheads in the midst of all the turmoil of the former Soviet Union, 13,000 of them in Russia and the remainder in other republics. There are tactical nuclear weapons at up to 100 sites in 13 different republics. As my noble friend Lord Rea and the noble Lord, Lord Wedgwood, pointed out, there are 3,000 to 5,000 insecure and underpaid scientists and countless laboratory technicians in the former Soviet Union with experience of plutonium production and uranium enrichment and more than 2,000 scientists with experience of weapon design. All that is uncomfortably adjacent to the volatile and explosive Middle East.
Clearly, this dangerous, if not alarming, situation demands a renewed and relentless commitment to strengthen existing non-proliferation measures by, if need be, the introduction of sanctions and by denying those who refuse to sign the non-proliferation treaty the right to buy any nuclear materials even for peaceful purposes. The time is surely ripe for more intrusive inspections to enforce the treaty. All that must surely now be underscored by a long overdue comprehensive test ban treaty and by the urgent collection and destruction of tactical nuclear weapons

625
within the former Soviet Union, where necessary with expertise and funds supplied by countries in the Group of Seven.
Equally, pending effective arms control and disarmament, while this dangerous and unpredictable situation is not the time to undermine our deterrent capability, of which three Trident submarines to replace Polaris are a vital part, it is also not the time to tie up scarce resources inflexibly in a fourth expensive submarine for which the case has yet to be convincingly established, or indeed to increase the number of warheads from 192 to 512 as effectively proposed by the Government.
That is why the Labour Government will not proceed with the construction of a fourth vessel unless they find themselves confronted with cancellation charges which mean that there could be no real savings. However, we are determined—there has been reference to this important issue in the debate—to do everything possible to help to secure a viable, long-term economic future for the people and community of Barrow. Meanwhile, funds are desperately needed for a new Marshall Plan to assist the promotion of economic and political stability in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. A Labour Government will certainly help to provide that.
Before I conclude, because of the immense importance of the issues raised, there are several points on which clarification by the Government is desperately needed. Has, or has not, a definite and final order been placed for a completed fourth Trident submarine? If so, how much would the cancellation penalty charges amount to? What is the case for the fourth vessel? Why is it a priority when well into the next century a vessel could always be on patrol with a fleet of three? If, with its two or three warheads per missile, Polaris is at present able to penetrate the recently improved ABM system around Moscow, why is it proposed to increase the number of warheads to eight on Trident? Is some significant change in ABM treaty limitations anticipated? Has the United States' initiative on global protection against limited nuclear strikes affected the situation? In this context, does the ability to be able to destroy Moscow remain a priority? Why, my Lords? How does that compare with the industrial and military significance of other cities and military installations without ABM defences in the former Soviet Union and indeed beyond?
The Minsk Agreement between members of the Commonwealth of Independent States allocated central command over the former Soviet Union's strategic nuclear forces to the Russian Republic, committed members to observe all the former Soviet Union's arms control obligations and undertook to negotiate further arms reductions with NATO. What progress has been achieved on all that? Similarly, what progress has been made in collecting and destroying the tactical nuclear weapons of the former Soviet Union?
The development of Trident constitutes a major strengthening of the United Kingdom's nuclear deterrent. It is able to carry between eight and 14
626
warheads as compared with two or three on Polaris. Its multiple, independently targetable re-entry vehicles have the capacity to destroy between eight and 14 widely separated targets. As things stand, by the year 2005 British and French nuclear weapons will be equivalent to one fifth of the United States' nuclear forces compared with one twentieth in 1985. Surely, that enhanced deterrent capability provides the United Kingdom with the opportunity, indeed the responsibility, to take a lead in the arms reduction process, a role that it has been sadly reluctant to play in recent years.
Will the noble Earl tonight commit the Government to that course? This month the Prime Minister goes to the United Nations. It would be an ideal opportunity for him to launch a new drive for arms control and disarmament.
7 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, for nearly a quarter of a century the United Kingdom's strategic nuclear force has formed the cornerstone of this country's defence capability. Polaris, which first came into service in 1968 to replace the old V-bomber forces, has maintained continuous deterrent patrols since 1969, undetectable in the depths of the ocean.
Polaris is now approaching the end of its service life. From the mid-1990s the Government intend to replace it with a force of four Vanguard Trident missile submarines, which will extend this country's ultimate guarantee of security well into the next century.
In confirming that intention, the Government's position is four-square with that of its NATO allies. At the Rome Summit on 7th and 8th November, NATO leaders agreed on a new strategic concept for the Alliance, which will enable NATO's defence policy to keep pace with changes in the overall security environment in Europe. The most important conclusion of this new strategic concept was:
"The Alliance will maintain for the foreseeable future an appropriate mix of nuclear and conventional forces based in Europe and kept up to date where necessary, although at a significantly reduced level. Both elements are essential to Alliance security and cannot substitute one for the other".
The new strategic concept later clarifies the nuclear forces that the allies agree are required:
"The supreme guarantee of the security of the Allies is provided by the strategic nuclear forces of the Alliance, particularly those of the United States; the independent nuclear forces of the United Kingdom and France, which have a deterrent role of their own, contribute to the overall deterrence and security of the Allies".
Those who argue against Trident are thus opposing themselves not only to the position adopted by all three main political parties in the UK (admittedly, with varying degrees of conviction), but also to the unanimous views of the 16 NATO heads of state and government. At the best of times, that would seem eccentric. And these are not the best of times. They are times of profound international change, uncertainty and risk, nowhere more so than in the nuclear field. Over a matter of weeks, we have seen the break-up of the world's biggest nuclear power. No one in your Lordships' House will feel a vestige of regret for the collapse of Soviet power. But none should delude

627
himself about the dangers that flow from it, dangers rather left to one side in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins.
What is happening in the East is a profound transformation, with who knows how far to run before a new stability is achieved. The challenges which the new leaderships face are formidable. Democracy remains novel and insecure. The economies of the various republics are all in a more or less parlous condition. Who knows what forces of extremism or nationalism could crowd in if the new order is seen to falter? The old union has fallen apart into its constituent republics; but further fault lines are evident within those republics too. Confusion continues over how the relationship between these new sovereign and independent states should work, and what the new commonwealth should in practice amount to. The republics remain massively over-armed, with Russia much the biggest military power in Europe. The transition to realistic and affordable levels of military capability will require huge organisational and leadership skills.
The situation is without precedent. No one outside the former Soviet Union knows for sure how many nuclear warheads are present there; the best estimates are in the order of 27,000. Perhaps 13,000 of those are strategic: missile warheads and weapons for strategic bombers that could strike the United Kingdom. Those strategic weapons (excluding those at sea in missile submarines) are located in the four new states of Russia, Ukraine, Byelorussia and Kazakhstan.
Under START, and President Gorbachev's undertakings on reductions in tactical nuclear weapons, as much as half or more of the total arsenal should be destined for destruction. But this is a major logistical challenge that will take years to resolve—perhaps a decade or more—even without the revolutionary upheavals now in train.
The rest of the former Soviet arsenal—sub-strategic weapons ranging from nuclear torpedos through air defence missiles to artillery shells—was in earlier days dispersed in some 100 storage sites, across 13 republics of the former union.
Recently, there has been evidence that nuclear weapons in outlying republics were being withdrawn. Such consolidation of nuclear holdings is a step in the right direction. But the fact remains that if the new authorities in Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Byelorussia obtained independent control of the strategic missiles on their territories, all four would instantly become bigger nuclear powers than China, and all but Byelorussia would surpass the United Kingdom. It is, therefore, overwhelmingly important for the West that unified control of these weapons should be maintained.
Recent weeks have seen some encouraging developments in that regard. Russia is now accepted as having inherited the international rights and obligations of the former Soviet Union, symbolised by its assumption of the UN Security Council seat. That continuity of responsibility has been reflected by formal transfer of the presidential nuclear briefcase from Gorbachev to Yeltsin on 25th December—an unusual Christmas present. The four nuclear former
628
republics agreed at Alma Ata to submit START to their national legislatures for ratification. At the same time Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Byelorussia agreed to consolidate all their sub-strategic weapons at central facilities in Russia by July 1992, for dismantling under joint supervision. Ukraine and Byelorussia have reaffirmed their wish to rid themselves by early, specified dates of all nuclear weapons and to accede to the NPT as non-nuclear weapon states.
So much is satisfactory. But other aspects of the situation give rise to profound concern. There has been ambiguity surrounding Kazakhstan's plans and intentions. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has just had some welcome assurances from President Nazarbaev. But we look for a clear commitment to join the non-proliferation treaty as a non-nuclear weapon state. Some 1,800 nuclear warheads are at issue here. Uncertainty prevails over who actually owns the weapons. Doubt persists over how long current arrangements can endure; Marshal Shaposhnikov's appointment has been only temporarily extended.
The hard fact is that expressions of intent, formal agreements, even treaties will be useless unless practical nuclear command and control hang together. We know that the system is strong and resilient, with disciplined forces trained to respond only to properly authenticated messages reaching them in the right format through the right command channels. We know, too, that physical security arrangements "on the ground" are thorough and elaborate. But such arrangements will count for nothing if the society within which they operate, and the armed forces which administer them, fall apart.
The arguments between Moscow and Kiev over the future of the Black Sea Fleet illustrate the dangers all too clearly. Such fundamental differences, as well as the enormous and interlocking economic problems that the new states face, bring out how hard it will be for their leaders to find and maintain common ground in their new relationship as commonwealth leaders.
Within the armed forces, too, processes of disintegration are at work. The system of conscription has virtually collapsed. Soaring inflation has overwhelmed military pay. Hundreds of thousands of troops are without proper housing. Ill discipline and outright criminality are rife. In some instances food supplies have broken down and units are having to barter fuel supplies for food.
Against that background the potential for nuclear proliferation hardly needs pointing out. The prospect of leakage of nuclear materials and components, if not actual weapons, out of the crumbling former union is not some theoretical risk but a real and immediate danger. A migration of nuclear expertise is, if anything, even more worrying. There are literally thousands of nuclear scientists who could make a significant contribution to other countries seeking to develop their own weapons. As the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, and my noble friend Lord Wedgwood reminded us, the risk of proliferation has never been greater.
My noble friend Lord Birdwood mentioned Iraq. Iraq provides a sobering example of how easily a

629
wealthy, determined and unscrupulous regime can progress covertly towards acquiring a nuclear weapons capability. It is a NPT signatory and subject to the IAEA inspections and safeguards that that involves. But the arrangements permitted by the NPT depend on the Iraqi Government's declaration of all its nuclear materials for inspection purposes; and the scale of the clandestine programme dwarfed the legitimate and acknowledged civil programme.
Only following military defeat were IAEA inspectors able to uncover the extent of past deception. Noble Lords will know that incontrovertible evidence has been found that Iraq had developed a crude warhead design which could have become a viable weapon as early as next year.
Leaving aside Iraq and the states of the former Soviet Union, there are a further nine countries which we assess as either possibly possessing nuclear weapons now or having the scientific and technical capability to produce them within five years—and which have at some stage (even if not necessarily in the recent past) shown an interest in doing so.
The Government are active in addressing those manifold risks. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has today been in Moscow, following visits to Alma Ata and Kiev, to press our anxieties at first hand with the new leaderships. President Yeltsin will be in London on 30th January on his way to the meeting of the Security Council in New York which my right honourable friend the Prime Minister will chair and which will provide an opportunity for world leaders to address the issues.
We stand ready to assist the former Soviet states in disabling and dismantling nuclear weapons. US officials are in touch with leaders of new states about this and other issues; we are also in very close touch with the US Administration to co-ordinate our efforts with theirs.
We are pressing for a tightening of the IAEA safeguards regime, including the greater use of special inspections whereby light could be thrown on undeclared but suspect nuclear facilities. But the limits of our ability to influence events must be recognised. We can tackle the potential risks but have no absolute control over whether or not they become actual. We must insure against the worst. Insurance in this context is adequate nuclear deterrence. The Government believe, in common with NATO, that now is not the time to drop our guard. We therefore remain committed to maintaining the effectiveness of our strategic nuclear deterrent for the foreseeable future but at the minimum level necessary to preserve peace.
The noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, referred to nuclear testing. The UK test last November was the 21st since 1963, the year of the partial test ban treaty. In the same period since that date the United States has carried out over 600 tests, the former Soviet Union has carried out about 460 and France has carried out over 130. The tests are needed to ensure that the weapons are safe and effective. For as long as our security depends on nuclear weapons we must continue to test.
630
The noble Lord also made a point about the United States' targeting of missiles. The United States has not switched its targeting to the third world. Perhaps the noble Lord has in mind an independent study, but that study does not represent US government policy.
It may be helpful if I explain in more detail what the Government mean by a minimum deterrent. We plan to replace the four-boat Polaris force with four Trident submarines. The fourth boat provides assurance that over the life of the force there will always be one boat on station at all times. That is the advice consistently given to governments over a period of 30 years.
For the deterrent to be effective, the system needs above all to be able to overcome modern anti-missile defences and still present the prospect of damage which no potential aggressor could consider as acceptable. That is the criterion which provides the minimum requirement for a deterrent to remain credible, not a comparison with the number of warheads or missiles possessed by other countries. That is the point which I would make to the noble Lords, Lord Jenkins and Lord Rea, when they question the increased capacity of Trident over Polaris when it first entered service.
Trident will need to be able to overcome defences that did not exist when Polaris entered service and which could be further improved, even within the current constraints of the ABM Treaty. The improvement known as Chevaline has increased the capability of Polaris, but it should not be forgotten that Trident will need to remain credible well into the next century in the face of all manner of possible future developments. The Government have repeatedly made it clear, contrary to what was implied by my noble friend Lord Birdwood, that we will not use the full capacity of the Trident D5 missile. We will, however, ensure that it carries the number of warheads that is necessary for it to remain an effective and credible deterrent. Anything else would be irresponsible.
The noble Lord, Lord Rea, and others talked about the cost of Trident. I cannot accept the figure of £21.2 billion which the noble Lord mentioned, nor, indeed, the £19.4 billion mentioned by my noble friend Lord Mersey. The current cost estimate of Trident is £9,863 million at 1990–91 prices, of which £5,100 million has already been spent. That current cost estimate represents a total real reduction in Trident costs since 1982 of over £1.8 billion. We expect the running costs of Trident to be broadly similar to those of Polaris. They should be well below 2 per cent. of the defence budget.
The cost of missiles is about £944 million. However, I hope that noble Lords will understand that it would not be appropriate for me to discuss the numbers which we intend to purchase. Furthermore, it would not be appropriate for me to give an estimate of the cost of the fourth boat while negotiations with the contractor are still under way. The cost of fitting out the three vessels under construction is not readily available.
The noble Lord, Lord Rea, also raised the matter of Article 6 of the non-proliferation treaty. For as long as

631
our security depends on nuclear weapons we shall maintain a minimum deterrent. That is entirely consistent with our commitments under the NPT.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, referred to weapon safety following the conclusions of the Drell Report. I can give him the assurance that Trident 2 missiles and nuclear warheads will not come into service with the Royal Navy until they have undergone a comprehensive series of trials, assessments and formal safety approval procedures. As previously announced, a review of UK nuclear weapon safety is under way. The review team, led by the Ministry of Defence's chief scientific adviser, will present its findings shortly. The report will inevitably be classified but a statement of the conclusions of the working group will be made public at the appropriate time.
I have spoken about our strategic capability but the same considerations apply also to our sub-strategic capability. NATO's position is clear. These forces provide an essential link between the alliance's conventional and strategic forces. As the alliance Defence Ministers in the Nuclear Planning Group declared last October, NATO will:
"continue to base effective and up-to-date sub-strategic nuclear forces in Europe".
In the words of the US President:
"We will, of course, ensure that we preserve an effective air-delivered nuclear capability in Europe. That's essential to NATO's security".
That is the background to our commitment to ensure that once our current WE177 nuclear bombs reach the end of their life another up-to-date sub-strategic capability is available to take their place. In that regard and others I find myself entirely in agreement with the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig.
In talking of our sub-strategic capability perhaps I may turn to the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew. He asked why we should not rely on a US sub-strategic capability. Our independent deterrent provides what NATO recognises to be an invaluable second centre of decision-making within the alliance. To do that our deterrent must be credible. To be credible it must include an effective sub-strategic capability.
Trident is certainly a flexible system, capable of a limited as well as an all-out strike. But if we use Trident in that way there are several risks. There is the risk that such use may be misinterpreted as a strategic strike. Also, the firing of even a small number of missiles risks giving away the submarine's position and exposing it to the other side's anti-submarine warfare forces. Thus, even a limited use of Trident for sub-strategic purposes could imperil our strategic capability. A separate system will provide the Prime Minister with a greater range of options in time of war. Moreover, the separate system provides a hedge against the unexpected. As I said to the noble Lord in a Question he asked last Friday, it is unwise to have all our nuclear eggs in one basket.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, perhaps I could intervene to ask whether the Minister is suggesting that a Trident submarine on patrol is more vulnerable than the aircraft and airfields needed by TASM.
Earl Howe: My Lords, as the noble Lord knows full well, we regard the submarine as being less vulnerable than almost any other system. But that does not negate what I said regarding the value of keeping our sub-strategic capability separate from the submarine systems.
The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, mentioned TASM and asked whether it would be extremely expensive. Clearly cost will be one of the factors to be taken into account when we choose between the available options for the WE177 replacement. No decisions are required immediately. The WE177 will approach the end of its service life around the turn of the century.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, described the dreadful consequences of a nuclear attack. Those consequences could just as easily be inflicted on London, but on a much greater scale. Our relations with the fledgling commonwealth of independent states are good. Trident will ensure that even if the worst happens and we return to the bad old days of the cold war, such an attack on this country can be deterred. The question of whether Russian missiles are at present targeted on London is irrelevant. While the missiles exist they can be targeted on us quickly.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, also remarked that there can be no halfway house in the world of nuclear weapons. I agree with him. The Government will ensure that adequate and credible strategic and sub-strategic forces are maintained, though only at the minimum level necessary. The position of the noble Lord's Front Bench is somewhat different. It would keep the pretence of a nuclear deterrent but not the substance, putting our defences in peril.
The noble Lord, Lord Rea, advocated a part-time deterrent. One wonders what kind of deterrent he is thinking of. The noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, asked about disarmament. The new alliance strategic concept published at NATO's Rome summit reaffirmed the need for the alliance to maintain nuclear weapons to protect peace and prevent war. At the same time the strategic concept recognises scope for reductions in which the UK is playing a full part. NATO is scrapping its nuclear artillery and Lance missiles and cutting its nuclear bombs, amounting to an 80 per cent. stockpile reduction overall. The UK is cutting its RAF nuclear strike squadrons from 11 to eight; it is giving up nuclear artillery and the Lance missiles; it is reducing substantially the stockpile of WE177 nuclear bombs and it is removing tactical nuclear weapons from Royal Navy ships in normal circumstances. Moreover, we have said that if in time the United States and Soviet arsenals were substantially further reduced and if there had been no significant improvements in defence capabilities, we would consider how best we could contribute to the arms control process.
I have tried to answer most of the questions put by noble Lords. If I have missed any that are important I shall be happy to write to noble Lords later.
Commitment to nuclear deterrence means a readiness to take the necessary decisions. Only by taking the requisite decisions many years in advance can we maintain in the service weapon systems which are effective and therefore credible as deterrents. One

633
must reckon with an interval of perhaps 10 or 15 years between the decision to proceed and the actual in-service date of a new nuclear system. With such an interval before the consequences become apparent, it is all too easy to hope that the future will contrive to take care of itself. That is the primrose path of the noble Lord, Lord Rea, but it is not one that this Government are prepared to tread. With a geo-strategic revolution still in progress in the east and the menace of nuclear proliferation to the south, we are determined that this country should face the security challenges of the next century with nuclear forces adequate for all eventualities. If at that point we do not have the weapons we need it will be too late. They cannot be pulled out of a hat, or out of mothballs, at time of need. We cannot play with nuclear deterrence, treating it as some kind of marginal activity to be pursued or set aside as the whim dictates. We cannot turn it on and off like a tap. Either we believe in it and do it properly or we are engaged in a charade of self-delusion toying with the very future of mankind.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I am sorely tempted to use the few minutes left me by the noble Earl to reply to the debate. I shall not do so. I believe it is not customary. The noble Lord, Lord Annan, has been kind enough to say that I am an idealist in terms of policy. However, in terms of custom and procedure I am a conformist. For that reason—that it is not the custom to reply to a two-and-a-half-hour debate—I shall not do so.
However, I shall see whether I can find some other way of replying. There are a number of things I should dearly like to say. I shall write and ask, or something of that sort. I thank all noble Lords for participating in the proceedings. It is customary at the end of this kind of debate to say what a high level and interesting discussion it has been. There have been occasions when I felt that that comment was undeserved. Tonight such a tribute is well deserved and I thank all those who have taken part, whether they spoke for or against. I must say that I was rather more impressed with those who spoke for.
In the sure conviction that we shall return to this subject and that the tenor of the debate will move to my side, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Further and Higher Education Bill [H.L.]
7.28 p.m.
The Paymaster General (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(Lord Belstead.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 64 [Grants to councils]:
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 144A:
Page 47, line 14, at end insert:
634
("(c) any such terms and conditions which affect any institution differently from other institutions which are members of the same class shall not come into force until a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, both when we considered this subject in 1988 and when we consider it now, there has been a general sense of misgiving about allowing the Secretary of State a power to give specific directions to an individual institution.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, before the noble Earl starts into his remarks, can I ask whether Amendment No. 144A is the leading amendment in a group or whether it is being moved separately?
Earl Russell: My Lords, this is a single amendment. I beg the Minister's pardon for the lack of clarity. We had a lot of discussion today. We perhaps tried so hard to clarify matters that we failed. For my part in that I am sorry.
I was saying that there was a general misgiving about the power to give directions to a particular institution. When we discussed Clause 53 in Committee, the Minister said that one of the objections to making this power subject to the affirmative procedure was that it would involve the possibility of the instrument being hybrid, which would mean a lengthy procedure. That is a point in favour of it rather than against it. The powers of parliamentary sovereignty are in a mess. In its wisdom Parliament has decided that when it exercises those powers against a particular person or institution and treats a private interest differently from other private interests which are members of that class, it will use all the safeguards which are connected with the Private Bill procedure.
That is a good thing. If the Minister wishes to have the power to give directions or terms and conditions to a particular institution, he is doing something which of its essence is hybrid. Therefore, he should do it subject to the procedure which Parliament has worked out for controlling hybridity and not by the much more arbitrary and uncontrolled procedure of ministerial directive. I beg to move.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the noble Earl has moved this amendment as a single amendment. If the House is content, when the noble Earl has finally finished with the amendment perhaps I may move the next amendment, which is Amendment No. 145. That is the peg on which we shall hang this very large group of amendments. However, I shall now deal with the noble Earl's amendment.
The Secretary of State's powers to attach conditions to grant are a quite normal instrument of policy. Those of us who have been involved in politics over the years can think of literally tens of times when we have known perfectly well that a condition is attached to a grant of some kind. Therefore, unlike the Secretary of State's direction-making powers, which are intended for use under exceptional circumstances and which I know have been the cause of very considerable disagreement in your Lordships' House —and we shall be debating again this evening—in

635
principle it would not be appropriate to subject these condition-making powers in Clause 64 to parliamentary control.
Leaving the principle aside, my real worry is that this amendment is misconceived. Put in more vernacular language, I am not sure that it will work. Clause 64 enables a Secretary of State to attach conditions of grant to a funding council, which may impose requirements to be complied with by institutions falling within a specified class. I endeavoured to indicate at an earlier stage of the Bill the reasons for having that power. One aspect of its use would be in relation to pay and conditions of service settlements.
In that context some institutions might comply with the requirements, which would be the conditions, while other institutions might not. So the conditions may impact differently on individual institutions. But neither the Secretary of State nor anyone else will know in advance whether there will be a different effect on institutions, let alone which particular institutions will be affected differently from other institutions on account of their different reactions to the requirements set out in the conditions. In other words, the conditions would be of a general effect but they would impact differently according to the reaction of the different institutions.
Turning to the noble Earl's amendment, against that background an amendment involving parliamentary approval before such conditions could possibly come into force would be impractical. That is what worries me. In a sense this is an amendment which is putting the cart before the horse. Parliamentary approval would be needed before it would be possible to see what the effect of the conditions was on each individual institution.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, Amendment No. 144A seeks to introduce a safeguard against an abuse of power arising under the linkage between Clauses 64 and 77. If Clause 77 were not to stand part or if it were left out on a Division under Amendment No. 173; or if it were to be amended as proposed by Amendments Nos. 169B and 169C, which I understand have the broad support of your Lordships' House, then there would be no justification for the introduction of this safeguard. However, if Clause 77 were to stand part as drafted, or amended as proposed by my noble friend the Minister, then it would be essential that some such safeguard should be introduced.
It may not be possible to resolve these matters until Third Reading, when there will be time to debate the amendments to Clause 77 at a more civilised and convenient hour. Therefore, it may be that the Government can give some intimation during this debate, if so advised, as to whether they will accept in principle Amendments Nos. 169B and 169C, which, together with my noble friend's Amendments Nos. 170 and 171, might well dispose of a serious constitutional issue concerned with an abuse of power under Clause 77. However, that may only be in a long-stop situation and in the nightmare scenario
636
envisaged by my noble friend Lord Belstead (Official Report, 16/1/92; cols. 449–50.) That situation is not circumscribed by statute.
With great respect to my noble friend—and I say that sincerely and not tritely—he has made no justification for establishing in this Bill any such precedent as to how to order our affairs under our unwritten constitution. Section 134(7) of the 1988 Act provides that,
"The conditions subject to which grants are made … shall not relate to … payments by the council to any specified institution".
Clause 64(2) (a) provides otherwise. I referred to that during the debate on Clause 53 (cols. 453–40.).
As your Lordships know, this is a very serious constitutional problem. The Secretary of State exercises his administrative control by imposing terms and conditions on grants under Clause 64 and by giving directions under Clause 77. The linkage between these clauses, together with Clause 53, constitutes conglomerate powers of control and direction without precedent in peace, war or any emergency. That was conceded by my noble friend Lord Belstead in our debates on Clause 53.
The essence of this problem arises with Clause 77, which is the tail which wags the Clause 64 dog, and in particular as regards Clause 77(2). Clause 77, put in plain English, gives the Secretary of State power to override virtually any decision of the council and in particular a council's distribution of the overall grant between councils.
Speaking for myself, the crucial question is whether Clause 77 is to be amended as proposed under Amendments Nos. 169B and 169C—what I call the Conservative Back-Bench amendments—which include my name and already seem to have met with informal approval in your Lordships' House. Add to them the amendments of my noble friend Lord Belstead—Amendments Nos. 170 and 171—and the composite would perhaps be a very happy marriage. Or, is Clause 77 to be left out? Here lies an issue. The unions want it left out. I have a letter from the Committee of Directors of Polytechnics which wants it left out and I have a letter from the Amalgamated Union of Teachers which also wants it left out. However, in my respectful submission that is not the right approach. The Conservative Back-Bench Amendment No. 169 is a fair resolution of the problem.
In any such situation there would be no inconsistency if Amendment No. 145, amended by Amendment No. 146, were carried into Clause 64. But if Clause 77 were to stand part only as amended by Amendments Nos. 170 and 171—the Government amendments—then an amendment such as Amendment No. 144A might well be appropriate. And why? It would serve as a safeguard against abuse of power; to impose special terms and conditions on any particular institution in the same class and institution. This linkage between Clauses 64 and 77 was described by the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, at Second Reading as producing a monstrous result and by my noble friend Lord Limerick and the noble Lord, Lord Broadbridge, as an overkill. They were views

637
which represented the broad consensus on all sides of the House. I see many noble Lords present who expressed such views.
My noble friend the Minister asked for time to consider and in good faith has tabled Amendments Nos. 170 and 171 to seek to meet the argument. However, those of us whose names appear on the Conservative Back-Bench amendment consider that the full thrust of the argument which rested upon the linkage between Clauses 64 and 77 has not been met by my noble friend the Minister.
So, is it realistic to consider tonight, or at all events to divide tonight, on this or any other of the grouped amendments under Clause 64, all of which are designed to serve in their own way as a safeguard against abuse of power until it is known which, if any, of the grouped amendments to Clause 77 may be accepted by Government, in particular the Conservative Back-Bench amendment?
I apologise for the time I have taken. It is not a simple matter to explain. However, I hope it will be of assistance to your Lordships.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene on a purely procedural point at this stage. The order in which amendments appear might be described as disordered. That is not by any means the fault of the critics of the Bill, but rather the way that the department has chosen to play its hand. The only point I wish to make is on Amendment No. 172A which is in the leading name of the noble Baroness, Lady Young. It is to apply the affirmative procedure to Clause 77.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, has already touched on that by mentioning the element of hybridity which the Paymaster General brought in at Committee stage. My only suggestion of a purely procedural nature is this. I do not know whether the noble Baroness, Lady Young, is going to move this amendment separately. I shall speak to it separately and my submission will be that no question of hybridity arises at this stage. I say that in the hope of shortening matters in case either the noble Earl, Lord Russell, wishes to continue with that or the Paymaster General intends to develop the point in his general argument on his amendment.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, with the leave of the House perhaps I may briefly say a few words. I understood the intention of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, was to move Amendment No. 144A, which is the first amendment on our Marshalled List, as a single amendment—an issue which the noble Earl lucidly and briefly explained—and that we were to discuss it. My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway then said—and I quite understand why my noble friend spoke as he did—that it was difficult to know what to do about the amendments under Clause 64 until we knew what was going to happen under Clause 77.
All I can say in reply to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway is that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, as I understand the procedures of your
638
Lordships' House, has every right to move Amendment No. 144A as a single amendment if the noble Earl wishes to in just the same way as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, gave us notice only a couple of minutes ago that when we get to Amendment No. 172A he wishes to speak to that as a single amendment. Whatever the grouping is, no one can stop any Member of your Lordships' House who feels strongly about an amendment from saying that he or she will wish to speak to it individually when it is reached.
Therefore, I feel that as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, wishes to take this amendment singly we ought to take it. However, may I give your Lordships an assurance before I sit down. I can respond to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway by saying on behalf of the Government that if and when we have disposed of Amendment No. 144A I shall certainly move government Amendment No. 145 pretty briefly. That will be the peg on which we shall hang our portmanteau debate on Clauses 64 and 77. During that debate it will certainly be my intention to come clean—or as clean as I possibly can—in answer to any of the amendments put to me, including Amendment No. 169C.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I owe the Minister an apology. When we spoke on the telephone at midday today, he was right. I shall respond very briefly to a considered reply which he gave to my amendment and for which I thank him. I take the point about general conditions impacting differently on particular institutions. As I understand it, though I speak with timidity in so complicated an area, that is not actually covered by the hybrid procedure. It was not what I was trying to make this amendment bear on.
I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, that we are not yet ripe to reach a resolution in this matter. I brought it before the House so that it could be considered. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Belsteadmoved Amendment No. 145:
Page 47, line 14, at end insert:
("() Such terms and conditions may not be framed by reference to particular courses of study or programmes of research (including the contents of such courses or programmes and the manner in which they are taught, supervised or assessed) other than the duration of such courses or programmes.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as your Lordships will well remember, we had a lengthy debate on Clauses 64 and 77 in Committee, at the end of which I undertook on behalf of the Government to bring forward amendments which I believed would satisfy the concerns expressed. That is the intention of Amendment No. 145, which I move now, and of Amendments Nos. 170 and 171, to which I also speak, which are similar government amendments to Clause 77.
Clause 64 remains founded on the proposition of the Education Reform Act 1988 that the Secretary of State needs a condition-making power, and Clause 77 is founded on the proposition that he needs a direction-making power. The condition-making

639
power is to promote policy developments in higher education. The direction-making power is to give the Secretary of State a longstop power of intervention in order to protect the taxpayer's interests in the considerable sums of public money flowing to higher education in the form of grant to the funding councils.
Perhaps I may say a few words about Clause 64. Its scope, I know, continues to cause concern. Section 134(7) of the Education Reform Act fetters the Secretary of State's condition-making powers by precluding him from attaching conditions in relation to the funding of individual institutions. It precludes the Secretary of State from setting as a condition that university X or polytechnic Y should receive a particular amount of funding. Is the position the same under the new structure represented by Clause 64, and in particular subsection (2) (a)? That is a reasonable question for any noble Lord to ask. I believe that it is the same under Clause 64 as it was when we left the Education Reform Act in 1988. If subsection (2) is read as a whole, I do not see that paragraph (a) can give rise to a power to attach conditions institution by institution. The paragraph is about attaching general conditions which apply equally to all institutions within a class or description. It is also about different impacts on institutions according to whether they meet the criteria specified; in other words, it is about general conditions but individual compliance. However, the key point is that while there may be a different impact on institutions, the Secretary of State cannot possibly know which ones in advance. That is the difference—the crucial difference —between these conditions and ones which would specify a particular level of funding for a particular institution.
A number of questions were raised about the Secretary of State's power of direction when we discussed Clauses 64 and 77 in Committee. Some noble Lords suggested that, rather than giving a direction in Clause 77, the Secretary of State should simply sack the chairman, the chief executive and other members of the funding council. Quite apart from difficulties in establishing whether the circumstances leading to a potential direction were such that individuals could be deemed to be "unfit to discharge the functions of a member of the funding council", I have to say that, in any case, such a course of action would be no less draconian than giving a direction under Clause 77. It would be more disruptive to the other business of the funding council. Under Schedule 1 as drafted, it would not be subject to parliamentary scrutiny.
We nonetheless had a spirited and fundamental debate on Clauses 64 and 77. As a result, I undertook, on behalf of the Government, to table government amendments which would, I thought, respond to criticism from many noble Lords of the open-ended nature of the powers conferred in the Bill by imposing important constraints. Amendment No. 145 and Amendments Nos. 170 and 171 provide that the Secretary of State may not frame conditions or directions by reference to particular courses of study or programmes of research. That includes an institution's ability to offer particular courses or
640
programmes. It applies to their content and it covers the way in which they are taught, supervised or assessed.
Lord Flowers: My Lords, before the noble Lord moves on to explain his amendments, will he be kind enough to explain the significance of the word "otherwise" in Clause 64(2) (b)? It seems to me that that word negates the significance of what he has just said.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I do not agree. Subsection (2) can apply only to the giving of directions of a general nature. The general directions will then impact individually on individual institutions according to their reaction. That is my reading of subsection (2). Perhaps I may return to that point in a moment if there is anything to add.
The amendments provide that the Secretary of State may not frame conditions or directions by reference to particular courses of study or programmes of research. That includes an institution's ability to offer particular courses or programmes. The amendments make certain that there can be no question of a Secretary of State prohibiting an institution from teaching a particular course. The Secretary of State could not intervene in the subject emphasis, for example by insisting that a history degree should concentrate on British history. Nor could he intervene in relation to any particular political, economic or sociological emphasis being given to the teaching of a particular course.
While it had never been the intention of the Secretary of State to do any of those things, the amendments do meet the concerns expressed by putting beyond doubt that neither the Secretary of State nor his successors could possibly do so. I believe that with Amendments Nos. 145, 170 and 171 the Government have moved very significantly to meet the concerns expressed both at Second Reading and in Committee about the scope of the Secretary of State's necessary condition and direction-making powers. Against that background I commend them to the House.
Before I sit down perhaps I may say a few words to the noble Lord, Lord Flowers. I should like to hear why he is putting a particular construction on that word. If the noble Lord can assist me with that when he speaks I shall do my very best to give him a reply.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I hope that this does not count as my contribution to the debate but I am still slightly lost as regards the Minister's contribution. Did I understand him to say that he would deal with his comments on the other amendments after they have been spoken to by other noble Lords? I had rather assumed that he would speak on those amendments as part of his introductory remarks. Am I right that he will speak on those later? Is that his proposal?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene to answer that question. Under the rules of the House the Minister has the right to reply at the end of the debate. I thought that it would be my job to try to reply to the many amendments in this group and

641
explain why the Government liked them or did not like them and to say whether they were prepared to do business on them or not to do business on them. It is tricky for a Minister to speak to amendments before they have been moved.
Earl Russellmoved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 145, Amendment No. 146:
Line 5, leave out ("other than the duration of such courses or programmes.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I take the Minister's point about responding. It will be widely recognised as to the convenience of the House and therefore in order if the Minister should have leave to respond to the debate from time to time as points arise.
I should like to thank the Minister for giving me advance notice of the government amendment. Parts of it are excellent. I warmly welcome the non-interference with the academic content of courses. I did not suspect the Secretary of State of actually wanting to take that particular power. But I think that it is thoroughly good to have it spelt out in the Bill that he should not have it. It is not good for Secretaries of State to have that power; it might tempt them in the future.
However, the exception in the government amendment is what really worries me. It refers to,
"the duration of such courses".
Therefore the effect of an amendment which was heralded as a concession, and which does indeed contain a concession, is nevertheless to confer on the Secretary of State a power that he did not previously possess. The total effect is at least arguably worse than it was before. I say that because, under the government amendment, we give the Secretary of State a new power. My objection to that power is, first, that he is not competent to possess it. That is illustrated in part by the actual wording of the amendment. It is the wording of someone who is more familiar with American than with British universities.
I once spent about an hour with my departmental secretary discussing a similar wording in the student poll tax regulations. We were completely unable to make it apply to the facts of the case. The Secretary of State comes to us from the Department of Health. Therefore, he will be familiar with the restriction that Ministers do not make clinical judgments. It is my argument that, similarly, the Secretary of State should not make academic judgments. If the Secretary of State for Health was able to decide by directive, as part of his claim to be accountable for public money, which conditions should receive operations and which should not, I think that there would be considerable concern. I believe that the cases are parallel.
I admit that it is at all times proper for the Secretary of State to consult, to request, to ask and to persuade. He may if he wishes to do something, like changing the duration of degrees, consult with the people concerned in the manner described by the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, in Committee. There will be a considerable urge to comply. Over the centuries, the academic profession has not been a particularly heroic one.
642
Martyrdom has not been one of its great urges. It has at all times had an urge to conciliate the powers that be if possible. But refusal remains a right.
The Secretary of State has in fact attempted to persuade on precisely the question of the length of degrees. It is not something which arises absolutely out of the blue. Perhaps I may quote from the annual report of the Council of the British Academy, which arrived on my desk last Friday. The British Academy is not precisely a revolutionary body. The Council observed that:
"The Academy also made representations to the Universities Funding Council about their letter encouraging universities to consider innovations such as the introduction of two-year degree courses and a four term year. The following points were made: British Degree courses were if anything too short—shorter than in many other countries (which had already caused difficulties within the EEC regarding equivalence of academic qualifications); to make them shorter still would increase the pressures for specialisation in schools, whereas a greater breadth of sixth-form studies was needed; the addition of a fourth term to the academic year would have serious consequences for the research of members of staff; a proliferation of MA courses to supplement undergraduate studies could be expected to follow".
It is no part of my purpose to ask the House to decide who is right; it is simply my purpose to ask the House to note the existence of a disagreement and to consider who is competent to settle it. As I think that passage shows, the Secretary of State has, through his agents, attempted persuasion and failed. Therefore, he now attempts to lay before us powers which would authorise him to take away the right of refusal. I do not know whether he intends to use those powers or whether he intends to use them as a negotiating instrument to gain a consent which would not otherwise have been forthcoming. But, in either case, it is an attempt to override professional judgment.
I shall not assert for a moment that professional judgment is infallible. I believe that every professional will understand the story of the judge's children who saw crate after crate of champagne being carried into the house and asked, "Mummy, what are all those bottles for?" She replied, "Daddy has been upheld in the Court of Appeal." We are all subject to professional review and we all know the anxiety that it may create. But the Secretary of State simply does not know what constitutes degree standard.
My second proposition is that what is proposed will diminish the quality of the degree and its standing. The hallmark of a degree is the approval of a coherent, academic community which is able to recognise a standard which is not absolutely identical and which, like the European exchange rate mechanism, fluctuates within narrow bands. As soon as a degree is awarded under a directive under the Bill, it will carry a certificate that it is not hallmarked. I do not see why such a degree should be recognised in any other country. If President Mitterrand were to exercise such a power, I do not see why I should be bound to exercise a degree conferred under it.
My third point is that what is proposed is, I think, a major constitutional impropriety. Here the academic community would be most unwise to make out that it is only its own fight. The Minister may reply that he who pays the piper calls the tune. No doubt that is

643
correct; but he is unwise to exercise that prerogative if he happens to be tone deaf. I can imagine a tone deaf music hall patron concerned for the productivity of his orchestra directing it to play all the slow movements in Beethoven's symphony at double the mark tempo.
In Committee, I referred to the parallel point of the authority of military commanders over operational decisions in the field. I sensed a slight resistance from the opposite side of the House. Perhaps people thought that I was being fanciful. But in the Independent last Thursday I read that civil servants intervened in the operational decisions of the management of the Gulf War and convinced the generals that they were hell bent on caution.
One final barrel: it is a matter of pleasure to me that we have a Prime Minister who is a cricketer. I congratulate him on his election to the MCC. Any power over the laws of cricket which he may properly exercise as an individual member of the MCC, I am happy for him to exercise. But if he should put before us a Bill to allow him by ministerial directive to change the LBW laws, I hope that there will be people here to cry, "No ball!" I can imagine the comments of an Australian umpire faced with an appeal under such a law. I beg to move.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, Clauses 64 and 77 have generated widespread concern. Advice that I have received, upon which I shall expand in a moment, in relation to Clause 64 leads me to the conclusion that that clause is not so pernicious as some of us at first suspected. I shall try to indicate why I believe my noble friend the Minister may well be correct in the interpretation which he has offered in response to the questions posed by the noble Lord, Lord Flowers.
I should like to focus first on Clause 77(2) which is the truly unacceptable and illiberal power which goes far beyond the 1988 Act. Before doing so, however, I should like to pay tribute to my noble friend who has worked hard in relation to those two clauses. I have read carefully the observations he made in Committee, and I must say that his amendments to the clauses are as good as his word in relation to the debate in Committee. It may well be that that proves sufficient in respect of Clause 64, but, unfortunately, with Clause 77 any number of amendments serve only to betray the fundamental deficiency of the clause. Deficiency may not be the word because it has such a high degree of overkill that even when considerably amended it is still a dangerous clause.
Clause 77(1) repeats exactly the wording of Section 134(8) of the 1988 Act. That wording may or may not be desirable, but the fact that it stands in the 1988 Act may reconcile one to it to some extent. Clause 77(2) introduces entirely new powers of intervention in the affairs of a particular institution. That is explicit in the subsection. These are unrestricted powers which are therefore unacceptable. The word "overkill" may be applied. That must surely be a paradigm case of the Henry VIII type clause—to use the terminology which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, has employed on a number of occasions.
The objection, even with the amendment proposed by the Minister, is a substantial one. It means that, if
644
not this Government, the next Government, or if not the next Government, some future Government, will be given the instruments to intervene in the affairs of particular universities. Why do the Government want the new amendment? The answer must surely be because of a recent case in a university located well to the west of here which to spare blushes we must term the University of the West. There it was necessary on financial grounds to intervene. The noble Lords, Lord Dainton and Lord Flowers, had made it clear that the provision of accounting officers may give sufficient powers to deal with such events; but, mindful of the Secretary of State's wish that he should have a power of intervention as a power of last resort, Amendment No. 169C deals with that issue.
Those of us whose names stand to Amendment No. 169C, which should perhaps be read in conjunction with Amendment No. 169B, have taken the issue and assumed that the Secretary of State needs power of intervention when something has gone seriously wrong financially. That is the point. We can accept that if a university is going bankrupt or is on the brink of going bankrupt through maladministration or some such thing, it is conceivable that the Secretary of State should have powers of intervention, and that clause gives him those powers of intervention. He has, in effect, to make a declaration that something is wrong. He then has the complete power to move in as he chooses. I do not see what more he can reasonably ask. The only restriction is that the grounds for intervention should be default in the financial affairs of the University of the West, or whatever.
I apologise that the word "after" in the amendment is superfluous, but that is not an important point. Subsection (3), which relates to judicial review, may be an unnecessary addition to the amendment because the power probably exists in any case.
We may accept Amendments Nos. 170 and 171 tabled by the Minister. They could stand together with Amendment No. 169C. I refer also to Amendment No. 169B. They clarify Clause 77(1) in that it should not refer to any specific institution. I hope that that amendment gives the Secretary of State the powers of intervention as a power of last resort which he seeks. I shall be interested to hear from my noble friend what further grounds the Secretary of State could conceivably have for wishing to intervene personally in the affairs of a particular institution.
I should like to return to Clause 64(2) because, as I say, I have been advised that that provision is not as pernicious as I and other noble Lords think. The nub of the problem is that it differs from the wording of a comparable section in the 1988 Act; namely, Section 134(7), which provides:
"The conditions subject to which grants are made by the Secretary of State to either of the Funding Councils shall not relate to the making of grants or other payments by the Council to any specified institution".
It would be nice if the provision remained in that form. Why the change? To some extent the Secretary of State is fighting past battles. It clearly relates to the judgment of Mr. Justice Simon Brown in the case involving the Association of College and Polytechnic Teachers in the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court. From that judgment it appeared that it was

645
difficult for the Secretary of State to intervene in practice, as had been hoped, when he had made a general condition and an individual university had fallen out of line.
I turn now to Clause 64(2). I am advised, and my noble friend the Minister has just stated, that we construe "each" to mean all. I hope that he will correct me if I fall into any kind of error because what I say in relation to Clause 64 is predicated upon that assumption. If that is the case, and I believe it to be so, it is possible for me to support, and in that case assist my noble friend, in the construction of "otherwise". Since this point is so important, I shall read the advice that I have received from a legal colleague in my college. He writes:
"I think 'otherwise' is unobjectionable, the point, as I see it, is this—that in paragraph (a) 'each' is used in the sense of 'every', and so 'each institution falling within a class or description specified', would be every institution offering (say) degree courses in history, and let us suppose that there are 20 of them. But grants are made by the council"—
here we come to paragraph (b)—
"to a "particular institution", so that the grant to a particular institution which does offer a degree course in history will inevitably be subject to 'terms and conditions' in respect of an activity carried on by that particular institution, to wit history".
I am not sure that it is easy to follow such matters on the wing. I believe that I now see the inwardness of Clause 64 in that respect. I am happy with my noble friend's observations.
However, I am sorry to say that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, made an important point. If we believe, as I now do, that Clause 64 says what the Minister intended it to, then I am afraid that his amendment, which of course was made at the express request of noble Lords—I refer to Amendment No. 145—carries with it a sting in the tail. That is where I believe the noble Earl, Lord Russell, is right, because he goes on to say that it would now seem perhaps superfluous to say,
"Such terms and conditions may not be framed by reference to particular courses".
They could not possibly be framed by reference to particular courses of study if that means in particular institutions, if we accept the assurances offered to us by my noble friend the Minister; but then we have in the amendment,
"other than the duration of such courses or programmes".
I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me that the "other than" now excepts,
"the duration of such courses or programmes"
from the assurance which Clause 64 gives. We are getting into quite a tangle. If we believe the Minister —as I unreservedly do—on Clause 64 of the Bill, then his helpful amendment perhaps has a deleterious effect. That is clearly a complexity.
The main point of my observations—I apologise to the House for speaking at some length—is to indicate the danger of Clause 77(2). I hope very much that my noble friend the Minister and his ministerial colleagues will be able to accede to what has been effectively argued by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway and accept Amendments Nos. 169C and 169B.
Lord Adrian: My Lords, I support Amendment No. 169C. I have not so far contributed to the debates on Clauses 64 and 77 but I was involved three years ago in the debates on the Education Reform Bill. I listened as carefully as I could to what was said at Second Reading, in Committee and now on Report. I have heard the Minister's arguments in support of Clauses 64 and 77 and the wide powers demanded for the Secretary of State. I too have sympathy for the argument that the Secretary of State must have reserve powers to deal with nightmare scenarios, even if I doubt that they will be used frequently.
I am also grateful to the Minister for his willingness to go some way to meet the anxieties that have been expressed. His Amendments Nos. 145 and 171 do that. However, I am afraid that for me they cannot go far enough and hardly could, as legislation by exclusion is not a satisfactory way of dealing with ministerial powers.
Arising from his arguments, I have one question for the Minister: where, on the face of the Bill, is there any indication that the powers asked for in Clause 77 are reserve or long-stop powers? I would not expect those words to be on the face of the Bill, but I cannot believe that it is beyond the wit of the draftsman to indicate some equivalent in legislative language. I get no impression from Clause 77 as it stands at the moment, or as it is proposed that it should be amended, that these are reserve powers. Have I missed that elsewhere in the Bill? If not, what objection is there to some reassurance that the powers are meant to be long-stop powers on the face of the Bill?
I believe that Amendment No. 169C, proposed by my noble friends Lord Renfrew, Lord Campbell of Alloway, Lord Beloff and Lady Young, meets that case. It specifies, as we heard, the circumstances in which the Secretary of State may make directions and it allows for judicial review of his actions, should they be controversial. I shall certainly support that amendment, if it is pressed, although I very much hope that it will not be necessary and that it will commend itself to the Government.
Baroness Young: My Lords, we have had an extremely valuable intervention from my noble friend Lord Renfrew on Clause 77. As I attached my name to two amendments, Amendments Nos. 146A and 171A—the first being to Clause 64 and the second to Clause 77—I wish to speak briefly to them and then deal with another amendment grouped with them, Amendment No. 169A, which raises an entirely separate point. As we have only one opportunity to speak on Report, I cannot let this opportunity pass because the amendment is grouped with the other amendments.
I wish to begin by thanking my noble friend Lord Belstead for bringing forward his amendments. I know very well how much effort he personally put into producing them. It would be churlish of me in the extreme not to say that they are welcome and I am grateful. I believe that all of us who have been following matters agree.
Unfortunately, the amendments do not go far enough. I shall not repeat all the arguments that have been given, I agree with what the noble Earl, Lord

647
Russell, said in an earlier debate, as well as with what my noble friends Lord Campbell and Lord Renfrew said earlier.
It is perfectly true that both my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and his colleague Mr. Alan Howarth have made it clear that they do not intend in any way to interfere with academic freedom. However, at the end of the day it matters only what is on the face of the Bill; it is not what the Minister says or what anyone else's interpretation may be. The sad fact is that the amendments, which my noble friend has brought forward, do not go far enough. They are amendments by exception and I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, that this is not a satisfactory situation.
Clearly, there are loopholes and my amendments cover three of those which affect academic freedom. There is the issue of the admission of students. I do not suggest that the Secretary of State will introduce quotas or something similar, but there are those who are concerned that it is a possibility. There is the appointment of academic staff. I do not suggest that the Secretary of State is considering this, but as I understand it, it would be a possibility. As to the point about the duration of courses raised by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that again, it seems to me, needs to be addressed and it is covered in my Amendment No. 146A.
I do not know quite what is the worry of the Government about the duration of courses. I wonder whether it is the recent report from the Advisory Council on Science and Technology which suggested that a number of science courses ought to be extended from three to four years. If that is the worry, it seems to me first that it is not unreasonable that the funding councils have some flexibility to respond to recommendations which they believe to be in the long-term interests of the country. However, whether or not that is the case, the Government would surely have the ultimate control over whether or not courses became four years through the funding councils. That would be the appropriate way to deal with the matter. It is the way, I believe, in which similar situations have been dealt with perfectly satisfactorily in the past. So the present condition-making power is not necessary.
I shall listen with great care to what my noble friend has to say on Clause 64. If the problem can be met, as my noble friend Lord Renfrew said, it would be a great assurance. However, as everyone has said, Clause 77 is the real worry, particularly subsection (2). My noble friend Lord Renfrew explained clearly what Amendment No. 169C means. I believe that this is an opportunity—and I hope that my noble friend will consider it carefully—to meet the twin concerns. The Government are concerned about financial accountability. That is something which I fully understand. No government of any political complexion will not require a long-stop power, especially if they give something like £5 billion to higher education. Therefore there needs to be some explanation.
On the other hand, there is the real concern about academic freedom. Our intention in Amendment No. 169C, and the accompanying Amendment No. 169B, is to meet that point. If the amendment is not drafted
648
entirely correctly, we would like my noble friend to take it away and consider it carefully. I believe it would meet what seem to me to be perfectly reasonable anxieties of the Government. At the same time it would meet important and reasonable anxieties of higher education.
I wish to speak briefly to Amendment No. 169A, which raises a completely different issue. That issue is also important. That amendment has been grouped with the amendments we are discussing, but it concerns an issue which has not been discussed at any length in Committee or before. The purpose of the amendment is, I hope, clear. It is that directions must not apply to funds to universities derived from non-government sources.
Those of us who took part in the long debate on the 1988 Act will realise that we have been round this course once before. However, this is an extremely important issue for the universities. It is, to me at any rate, encouraging that universities have been so enormously successful in raising income from a large variety of sources. Public funding remains the main source of income but now, because of the high quality of universities' research, they have been able to attract considerable funding from industry and commerce, charitable bodies and overseas organisations, as well as from research councils and government departments. It is, however, particularly the money that is raised privately that is important.
It has been an extremely important part of all our discussions that the funds that are derived from non-government sources remain separate and are not taken into account in all these matters. I cannot believe that my noble friend and his colleagues do not want universities to raise money privately. The universities benefit from that and that process must be in the interests of higher education generally. It is perfectly apparent that if, having given the money, donors believe some part of it will be taken away or donors will be told how the money is to be spent, they will simply not give the money. Many people who have worked to raise money and who have given money will feel that they are being let down. In the future fund raising will be almost impossible.
I hope that my noble friend will think hard about Amendment No. 169C. I hope he will consider carefully whether he can introduce a provision on those lines on Third Reading. I also hope my noble friend will consider Amendment No. 169A, which concerns a separate issue.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Annan: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, remembers that in Committee I referred to the duration of courses. I refer in that connection to the amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. My remarks were occasioned by the fact that the Secretary of State was reported as saying that he wanted to have the power, if necessary, to stop departments of architecture extending their courses to a period of about seven years. There is a question of principle here. I wish to

649
give an example to the noble Lord. The example might also be of interest to the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone.
I do not know whether the noble Baroness spoke for her party or only for herself but I recollect her saying there was great merit in abolishing A-levels and going over to a system of an international baccalaureate which would involve more broadly based courses. There are strong arguments for doing so in the sense that many people believe excessive specialisation in sixth forms is one reason why too few pupils continue to study maths and science. Consequently there is a shortage of such students in higher education. Let us suppose that that policy were to be put into effect by a government in the future. What effect would it have in the universities? It would certainly have no effect at all on the professional studies of lawyers or of architects because they do not study at school anything which is specifically in their line of country. However, the policy would certainly have an effect on medical and engineering students.
Medical students need to spend two years in the sixth form following pre-clinical studies as a necessary prologue to the pre-clinical studies which they carry out in their first year in medical school. Will the Minister say whether he thinks it is right that the Secretary of State could intervene and say, "We cannot afford that kind of thing", disregarding the opinion not merely of universities but also of professional organisations—for example, the medical council and the engineering institutes?
I asked the Minister another question in Committee but he did not reply to that in his long list of replies to the points made at that stage. I referred to another case. I asked whether it would be reasonable for the Secretary of State to point out to universities that for some years he had noted the admirable example of the University of Buckingham, which offers a BA degree which only takes two years and which has been accepted by the Privy Council. However, there are four terms in each year. In other words that course comprises eight terms as opposed to nine terms. Will the Secretary of State be empowered to say, "I am afraid I must ask all universities to go over to that pattern"? There may well be a strong case for him to say that. Does the noble Lord think it is right that the Secretary of State should have such a power?
I have a further point to make. I warmly welcome what the noble Baroness, Lady Young, has said. She was absolutely right to say there are certain areas in universities in which the decisions of academic staff are sacrosanct. In 1968 or thereabouts, for example, the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals had the great good fortune to have as its chairman Sir Derman Christopherson. He had to deal with the whole question of the participation of students in university government. There was a great deal of confusion but he managed to persuade the National Union of Students at that time to agree to a concordat. There were three areas in which no student would have the power to sit on a committee or even have the power to offer advice or participate in the decisions taken by committees. The three areas were
650
the admission of students, the appointment of academic staff and the running of examinations. As I understand it, the noble Baroness, Lady Young, has said that if we are to have government by exclusion, those areas should be excluded. If it would be considered wrong for students to participate in those areas, it would also be wrong for government to participate in those areas. I hope the Government will understand that these points are not trivial. They are at the heart of university governance.
I now turn to the financial aspect of intervention. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, read in the newspapers this morning what Sir Peter Swinnerton-Dyer was reported as saying. Sir Peter said there had been a scandal in the University College of Cardiff. A self-indulgent and self-important principal had caused that institution to run into debt to the tune of millions of pounds. Sir Peter said that the Universities Funding Council or the University Grants Committee—that body changed its title during the period in question—had perfectly good powers to deal with that situation. However, it was not those bodies that failed to deal with it. The Secretary of State, for reasons of his own, declined to intervene decisively in that matter. I say to the Minister that the Universities Funding Council has the powers to deal with these matters.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, in speaking to this group of amendments I begin by welcoming the fact that the Government have put down amendments to Clauses 64 and 77 which are at least an improvement on the previous situation. I very much agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Young, that it would be churlish not to welcome them. However, I must make it absolutely clear that so far as concerns these Benches they do not go nearly far enough. Even with the amendments the Bill upsets the long-established and widely accepted careful balance of powers and responsibilities between the Secretary of State, the funding councils and individual institutions. No convincing reasons have been put forward by the Government as to why those long-established arrangements should be changed.
We have heard a great deal about powers of last resort and long-stop powers. I must agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, said on that aspect. We have also heard about nightmare scenarios. On that point the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, was a little more generous to the Government than I can be. I shall not repeat what I have already said on the subject in Committee and in the debate on Clause 53 during Report Stage last week other than to say that it seems ludicrously far-fetched to imagine that funding councils whose members and chairmen are appointed by a responsible Secretary of State should go seriously off the rails at the same time as individual institutions might go off the rails in terms of becoming financially irresponsible.
I should like to put a couple of questions to the Minister in relation to what he said in relation to Amendments Nos. 145 and 171. On Amendment No. 145 he began by saying that the Government needed the changes in relation to the condition-making powers which the Secretary of State wants in order to

651
promote policy developments. He went on to say that there was no difference between the current proposals in the Bill under Clause 64 and those in the 1988 Act. I cannot remember which clause he mentioned but I think that it was Clause 134(7). If the 1988 Act is perfectly adequate why do we need those changes? I wonder whether the Minister would explain that. Perhaps he could also explain, if there is a difference, what the amendment adds. I remain a little confused on this matter.
I was also slightly confused by what the Minister argued in relation to Clause 77 in respect of direction-making powers. The noble Lord referred to something I said in the earlier debate on the matter in Committee when I argued that if a funding council went completely off the rails it must become apparent that the chairman of that funding council was unfit to run it. No properly appointed chairman who was doing the job as he or she should would allow that to happen. Therefore, it would be the first duty of the Secretary of State to replace that chairman. The Minister said just now that that would be more draconian than making directions. I find that confusing and cannot believe that the Government really mean that.
I return now to the other problems with the Government's amendments. If all that the Government can do is to come up with an amendment to exclude certain areas from being subject to direction it means that everything which is not listed in the exclusions is vulnerable to ministerial intervention, as other noble Lords have already said. What the Government should have done instead is to specify in the Bill the exact grounds on which the Secretary of State should have the power to intervene.
Even with the amendments the Government will still have sweeping powers to interfere, if they choose, in the way in which individual universities are run. It is not good enough to say, "Ah, but we have no intention of using those powers except as a last resort", as the noble Baroness, Lady Young, has already said. It is not possible to anticipate or determine what some future Secretary of State with a particular axe to grind might do about, for example, the kind of students who should or should not be admitted, the kind of academic staff who should or should not be appointed, or about departments which the Secretary of State has taken against and wishes to close. Lists of exceptions cannot encompass every possibility. An interfering Secretary of State could always find ways of exploiting loopholes.
Turning to the other amendments which have been tabled, I strongly support Amendment No. 146A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and others. That amendment at least extends the exclusions to the admission of students and the appointment of staff and removes specific interference in the duration of courses. I accept entirely that if we are to expand higher education and make it accessible to a greater number of students there are cost constraints on courses becoming longer. However, I believe that the Government already have control over course duration in terms of the public funding they
652
provide to the funding councils. If that is incorrect perhaps the Minister will put me right when he responds.
With respect to Clause 77, which is causing most concern although I am not as sanguine as the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, was in relation to Clause 64, the crucial amendments are Amendments Nos. 169A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and Amendments Nos. 169B and 169C in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, and others. All three amendments have the support of these Benches. Unless Amendment No. 169A is accepted the Government could issue directions in respect of funds derived from sources other than the Government. Here I should declare an interest as head of an institution which has recently launched an appeal and is raising money from a number of trusts and foundations as well as from the private sector. It would be wholly unacceptable for the funds that my college has raised from those sources to become subject to direction by the Government. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Young, I suspect that were that to happen most donors would be reluctant to give financial support and that those sources of funding would dry up. I entirely agree with what the noble Baroness said.
We also welcome Amendments Nos. 169B and 169C because they impose constraints on the Secretary of State interfering in the work of individual institutions and they make explicit the right of universities to resort to the courts when the Secretary of State exercises his last resort or long-stop powers under Clause 77.
If the Government are serious in what they say about the limited use they wish to make of such 'powers they will surely accept the amendments. However, while supporting the amendments we believe that the best solution of all would be to leave out Clause 77 altogether. Therefore, while we support the amendment put down in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, and others, we remain unconvinced that Clause 77 serves a useful purpose. We believe that it is inconsistent with the democratic traditions of this country in which we favour giving as much autonomy as possible to public bodies; consistent, of course, with their being properly accountable for public funds. Government by diktat from the centre is unacceptable in a society which values pluralism. The powers of Ministers must be constrained in the interests of devolving responsibility to those directly concerned with running public institutions.
I hope that at the very least the Government will accept the amendments in the group we are now debating to which I have drawn particular attention. However, it would be far better to be sure that the precious values of academic freedom were protected by abandoning Clause 77 altogether. As the noble Baroness, Lady Young, has already said, it is what is on the face of the Bill that counts, not the promises of current Ministers that they will not misuse those powers.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I should like to support everything that my noble friend Lady Young

653
said in dealing with the three amendments to which she particularly referred. I can put what I have to say both shortly and simply. One of the most irritating features of governments of all shades and colours is the assumption which they so frequently seem to make of "We know best". During the time that I have spent in both Houses of Parliament I have wondered why governments should frequently create so much unnecessary trouble for themselves.
Far be it from me to make any irreverent or disrespectful comparison between a committee of vice-chancellors and a hornets' nest, but I cannot see why an important government department should apparently be willing to take on a body of such people and to unite them with such ease. The Government, in taking their present attitude—here I should like to say that I entirely exonerate my noble friend Lord Belstead from what I am about to say because he has obviously had a major struggle with the forces of darkness in achieving the progress that he has—are saying two things: we greatly respect academic freedom but it is necessary for us to stay in control, if not of everything, then at least of something.
We have given up control. The amendment which my noble friend has moved has abandoned specifically —and on the face of the Bill one must welcome this —the possibility of using certain powers which it was previously going to have. If I understood my noble friend correctly, as I hope I did, I thought he said that the Government could not, would not have used those powers. I strongly suspect that the powers which remain in the Bill fall very much into the same category. I cannot understand how the Government can persuade themselves that it is wise to say that they must keep control over such things as the duration of a course at the same time as voluntarily giving up the power to control either the content of that course or the manner in which it is taught. That seems to be slightly eccentric, to say the least.
Then there is the point that, apart from the admission of students and the recruitment of teachers, they want to hang on to the power to direct subjects covered by funds which are provided from other sources. I agree particularly with my noble friend and with the noble Baroness who has spoken from the Front Bench opposite that there is absolutely no justification for that.
To take powers which, as the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, said, will probably never be used and which are just there as a kind of safety net, as a long stop, is a habit which has been endemic in governments for years. In my experience, none of them has been able to make a reasonable and respectable justification of such a course.
I plead with my noble friend to listen, if not to me, to the words of my noble friend Lady Young, who said it all and who reasonably and calmly urged upon the Government the need to escape from the consequences of their own folly.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, we have not spoken since the noble Earl sat down after his first amendment, and we just want strongly to support the changes that are proposed. To go further than that,
654
this is all about academic freedom, which is absolutely priceless. If that is lost the heart and soul of university life and what academic life is all about are lost. There may be some catastrophes, there may occasionally be things that go wrong, but that is a small price to pay for academic freedom and for not introducing intervention from the centre.
What this amounts to is that we should go very strongly indeed not for the powers of the Secretary of State which would be limited only in certain specifics but for the powers of the Secretary of State which should be limited to certain specifics, that he should not have an overall power to intervene except for certain named matters but that he should have no power to intervene except in certain specific cases. There is a world of difference between the two, and in the end academic freedom will rest on getting this right.
If the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, was right that the Minister had said that it would be more serious to sack the chairman of the funding council than to intervene in the university, it means he can have no idea of what academic freedom is about. If they think that getting rid of the head of what is, after all, a quango—personally I am not against them, but most people are—compares in importance with interfering with the rights of academic institutions to run themselves it is quite clear that the Government do not understand what we are talking about.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, before the noble Lord rises to reply, I should like to add my support in particular to Amendment No. 169C. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, referred to it as a Conservative Back-Bench amendment, but it has also been commended by the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, from the Cross Benches and by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, from the Opposition Front Bench.
When we were debating Clause 53, which is analogous to this, the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, said to me that the Government wanted,
"long stop powers to intervene in the event of something going very wrong with one of the colleges and the funding council accounting officer failing to fulfil his responsibilities". —[Official Report, 16/1/92; col. 449.]
A little lower down he said:
"It is most likely that what I have in mind would involve an institution getting into financial difficulties".
If those are the Government's concerns, I cannot understand why they are not fully met by Amendment No. 169C in particular, and I very much hope the Government will come round to that view when the noble Lord comes to reply.
9 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I should like to point out to the House that we are debating a matter which affects not only higher education, the subject of this long debate, but also the way in which the British Government operate in respect of this important branch of the nation's activities.
The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has been rightly complimented on his willingness to listen to your Lordships on previous occasions and on the work that undoubtedly went into producing the three amendments that he has himself put forward today.

655
However, I was struck, as perhaps were other noble Lords, by the fact that in speaking originally to the first of his amendments he gave it as his opinion that it would have satisfied the anxieties which your Lordships expressed on an earlier occasion. By now he is well aware from the speeches that have been made from all quarters of the House, and from the amendments on the Marshalled List, that the assumption that these amendments would do the trick was wrong. One therefore comes to the fundamental question. I believe that it affects the way in which British Government operate. Why was no effort made between the Committee stage and the Report stage to achieve agreement on amendment which would satisfy those anxieties?
The noble Lord, Lord Peyton, referred to this matter in a somewhat jocular fashion. But, seriously, the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, representing the universities, had made it clear that it would have been willing to participate in a discussion to try to meet the Government's needs and the anxieties expressed about Clause 77 but the offer was not taken up. The Minister must explain to the House why it was decided to proceed in that fashion.
If it were argued that it was difficult to consult such a body, is it not normally the case that when a set of institutions comes under scrutiny for the purpose of legislation its representatives are consulted? One may or may not like what the Department of Health does but one cannot say that the BMA and the royal colleges are never consulted. One may not always agree with some of the views of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor but he consults as a matter of course with the Bar Council and the Law Society.
Why should higher education be excluded? There were other less formal methods if it were felt that that was too great a government commitment. The noble Lord or other Ministers of the department could have consulted his noble friends on these Benches who have some contact with and experience of the academic world. I do not say that he should have consulted me, but I could have told him that I had been asked by the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Oxford, which is one of the those institutions—perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, as Chancellor, will support me—to make it plain that the University of Oxford does not accept the view that the amendments go far enough to satisfy its anxieties about academic freedom. I could have imparted that information. I am sure that there are others with closer and more recent contact in the university world who could have explained that.
Instead we now debate at length—I apologise for adding to it—a series of amendments which have been grouped together. I can see that there were certain arguments for the grouping but there are also arguments against it. The amendments suggest different ways in which the problem could be approached. The most satisfactory way for many of us —I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, made it clear—is by Amendment No. 169C, which makes it quite clear that powers are given in order to intervene in the interests of the public purse, and for no other purpose. That is one method.
656
The other is to take the exclusion route. I warned your Lordships at Committee stage that legislation by exclusion is not likely to be satisfactory. However, if one takes the exclusion route, one says, "Let us accept the amendment put forward by the Minister that courses will not be interfered with and let us add to it things which are of equal and sometimes greater importance to the universities than courses". We have to consider what has happened in other countries where governments put money into universities. Experience in this country and abroad suggests that, while politicians are rarely anxious about the content of courses and do not understand or know much about them, they have been known to interfere with the way in which students are chosen. They have been known to interfere—the recrudescence of neo-Nazism in Europe reminds us of it—with the criteria which have enabled individuals to be appointed to or, in the German case, to retain university positions.
The position was made perfectly clear in your Lordships' House at previous stages. If the Secretary of State does not have time to read Hansard of the House of Lords, there must be people in that department—rightly now occupying Sanctuary Building, since it needs sanctuary—who could précis the debate for him, and say, "This is what the universities appear to be anxious about. This is the kind of amendment or procedure—either by exclusions or concentrating on finance—which will be acceptable to them".
Instead of that, we have brought before us, and must debate, two or three amendments from the Minister which, as numerous speakers have pointed out, do not meet the case. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, may therefore be right to express the hope that everything will be put right on Third Reading. I would argue that it could have been put right by now and that to wait for Third Reading to make sure that academic freedom is not tampered with by this or any future government is trying the patience of this House to an excessive degree. I hope therefore that there will be a genuine acceptance by the Minister of the points made, particularly those made by my noble friends Lady Young and Lord Campbell of Alloway.
Lord Flowers: My Lords, perhaps I may respond to the request from the Minister that I explain my question to him during my interruption to his speech. Before I do so I should briefly say that, although I support all the amendments in this group—because I think that they all help in some way to deal with the problems about which we are worried—I support especially Amendment No. 169C. That amendment attempts to deal positively with a matter which, in my view, the Government have signally failed to deal with negatively, because it cannot be dealt with negatively. I should like most sincerely to thank the movers of the amendment and especially the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, whose drafting skills are apparent in its wording. I hope that the Government will find it possible to accept an amendment which allows the Secretary of State to intervene when to use the words of the amendment:

657
"there has been a want of due care in the conduct of the financial affairs"
but not otherwise; and which requires him to consult the appropriate funding council and receive representations from the institution concerned. Without that, in my book at any rate, he would be guilty of injustice and maladministration.
If the Government are not prepared to accept an amendment along those lines, it seems to me that noble Lords will be entitled to draw the conclusion that the Secretary of State —as many noble Lords feared—intends to interfere in academic matters. The length of a course, admission of a student or appointment of a teacher or researcher are academic matters which he has no business to venture into.
The Minister asked me to explain to him my question about the use of the word "otherwise" in Clause 64(2) (b). I still find the drafting of that part of the clause most obscure. I feel that it is very bad drafting. However I have now consulted my noble friend Lady Warnock on the Bench behind me. She is much better at logic than I am. She ought to be as a philosopher. She offers the following paraphrase, which, with her permission, I shall read out. It is very brief:

"(a) The Secretary of State may impose requirements which each institution has to meet before any support has been given to the activities it carries out; and

(b) apart from that, no conditions may be imposed".

That is clear enough compared with the tortuous wording of the Bill.
Assuming that the noble Baroness has got it right, which I am sure she has, I withdraw my question to the Minister. I also accept what the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, had to say. I therefore agree that Clause 77 is the more important item. Fortunately, most of my intended comments refer to that clause in any case.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, we are where we are because Mr. Justice Simon Brown decided that the Government could not any more accept conditions precedent. If we want to know what the Government are likely to do if they get their policy and their way, we can look at what they were doing before that they will stop doing and we can look at what they say they want to do if they get those rights back again.
What they did before was to withhold money from those who would not operate systems of appraisal. That is what they did before and they will stop doing it. In Committee (at col. 1033 of the Official Report of 16th December) the Minister said:
"Another example of the use of a condition precedent might be for the Secretary of State to say to the funding councils that they should not release a particular portion of funding to institutions which do not over time receive a satisfactory report from the unit which the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals and the Committee of Directors of Polytechnics will be establishing to look at institutions' internal quality control systems".
Therefore, you do not get the money if you do not satisfy the system of internal quality control. That is something else which the Government want the power to do.
We can guess that one of the main reasons for the Government wishing to retain the power is because they want to do something about the existing length of
658
courses. We assume that they want to reduce their length. One advantage of a debate of this kind is that the Minister can tell us what the Government want to do about courses. The Minister has not told us that. When he moved his own amendment which includes a sentence that is the subject of a subsequent amendment taking out that sentence, we thought he might tell us why he wishes to see the inclusion of that sentence. However, he did not do so.
Most academics and universities oppose the Government having the powers which they seek in their amendments because they believe that they will affect course content, research programmes, teaching methods and examination standards; in other words, all the things which the Government say they do not wish to influence. If we did not believe that the compulsory institution of a system of appraisal would affect course content, research programmes, teaching methods and examination standards there would have been no opposition. If we thought that the quality control criteria might not affect course content, research programmes, teaching methods or examination standards we should not oppose that.
Several noble Lords have already argued that a reduction in the length of courses—for example, the introduction of two-year degree courses—would not be acceptable because it would affect course content, research programmes teaching methods and so on. In other words, academics and institutions of higher education oppose those kinds of powers only on academic grounds. The Government may say, "We do not believe those arguments; we believe that you are more concerned about your workload". However, that is the nature of the debate.
Therefore, I wish to ask the Minister what will happen if this amendment is passed, the Bill becomes an Act, and the Government start to use those powers as regards the duration of courses. For example, let us suppose that a university believes that what it is being told to do will affect academic standards. Would it merely have to say that and the Government will then back off saying, "We are sorry. We did not realise that it would affect academic standards"? Or, does it have to go through a system of judicial review? Does it have to persuade a judge to say, "You are quite right; it affects academic standards". In other words, there will be a long and protracted debate about whether or not the Government's actions affect academic standards. What is the procedure for resolving those future disputes?
Finally, can the Government give examples of reductions in the length of courses which do not affect academic standards or any of the particular, precise uses which they intend to make of those powers of conditions precedent which they believe will be academically free? That is what I ask the Minister.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I am totally lost as to what is our procedure, as I believe I indicated implicitly to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, when I spoke earlier. We are discussing a wide-ranging group of amendments but the only amendment now before us which has been moved is the Government's

659
amendment. I take it that the two amendments to the amendment were also moved, but that has not been said.
My difficulty with regard to what is taking place is that I accept that the government amendments, suitably amended, are better than the Bill as it was. However, they are very much third or fourth best compared with the outcome which I seek; namely, the acceptance of Amendment No. 169C. However, I am not clear—and I hope the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, will tell us when he replies—about how we interpret a tacit acceptance of the earlier amendments if we do not want them but do not wish to vote against them, given that the Bill as it stands would be even worse.
There are at least two amendments in this group which have not been spoken to. Do I understand that they no longer count in the group? That is further complicated by the fact that normally when one speaks to a group of amendments the person moving the amendment states to which amendment he is speaking. That means that if the first amendment is carried, the other amendments in the group which are being spoken to will also be carried. That cannot apply to this case especially as the Minister said that he was not speaking to all the amendments.
I need the Minister's help on this matter because it affects how some of us will vote in due course or, indeed, whether we should vote. I was even more confused by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, when he said, having spoken to an amendment which has not yet been moved, that he did not propose to move the amendment even though I had indicated, and my noble friends had indicated, that we should vote for that amendment.
I do not criticise the Minister because he was anxious to have an integrated debate and I supported that. I am now completely lost as regards our procedures and I felt I should raise that problem at this stage.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down perhaps I can ask him, on the question of procedure, whether he understood the position for which I was seeking to contend; that is, that it was virtually impossible to vote on these matters tonight. If the Government indicated how they viewed the various amendments then the matter could be resolved at Third Reading. However, it may well be that it cannot be resolved tonight.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, first, perhaps, I owe the House an apology and a word of explanation regarding matters which arose from the speech of my noble friend Lord Beloff. He asserted that nothing had been done between Committee stage, which was before Christmas, and Report stage, the final hurdle of which we are dealing with this evening, in regard to Clauses 64 and 77.
The watchwords, when we were discussing these matters in Committee, were the two words "academic freedom", repeated this evening from the Front Bench of the Liberal Party, by noble Lords opposite and by other noble Lords. As I was in charge of the Bill in your Lordships' House, I felt strongly and said to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State that we
660
needed to bring forward amendments which would fulfil the undertakings I had given at the previous stage. Incidentally, it was suggested at that stage that it was a pity that I had not brought forward amendments then. I felt therefore that we should get on with the matter and not undertake endless consultation, desirable though that may be.
However, I say to my noble friend Lord Beloff that it was not as though there had been no consultation. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State discussed Clauses 64 and 77 with the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals before Christmas and, whenever it was possible, I had informal discussions with Members of your Lordships' House regarding the work that we were doing in trying to bring forward these amendments, of which Amendment No. 145 is the one I am presently moving and the peg on which this long debate has hung.
Secondly, perhaps I can say a brief word in regard to Clause 64. I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, who, in both an elegant and kindly way, not only asked me a question but gave me the answer to a question I had been unable to answer. The noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, is correct, not for the first time in your Lordships' House. Although there are some details which I could add if I read out a page of brief, I do not believe there is much that I should add.
However, I must answer the direct question posed by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, regarding why Clause 64 is included. I take that head on and reply that Clause 64 is different from Section 134 of the Education Reform Act 1988 and is included to put beyond doubt the Secretary of State's power to make general conditions which may have a different effect on individual institutions. That impact can be different although the conditions are general.
The wording of Section 134(6) and (7) was effectively discredited by the judgment in the case brought against the Government by the Association of College and Polytechnic Teachers. It is about setting conditions precedent. The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, can forget more about industrial relations than I shall ever learn, but I hope he will forgive me when I say that there is one matter on which I would cross swords with him. If the noble Lord talked informally around the House on different Benches, I do not know that he would find many noble Lords who would join him in saying that setting a condition precedent before wage settlement negotiations is necessarily always a bad thing.
Perhaps I may go on to the meat of my answer. First, I remind your Lordships that this evening I spoke to at least three amendments on academic freedom.
Our intentions on this side of the House were to try to meet the apprehensions of your Lordships as regards Clauses 64 and 77. I have heard the reaction which there has been to them; namely, that your Lordships almost universally have accepted the amendments but have said that they do not go far enough.
As I listened to the debate I remembered the immediate reaction of some of your Lordships when I gave an undertaking in Committee before Christmas.

661
It was that not only were the Government not going far enough but that any amendment put down should also exclude conditions and directions in respect of the type of students to be recruited in institutions of higher education and the type of staff to be appointed. Amendments Nos. 146A and 171A, in the names of my noble friends, Lady Young and Lord Renfrew, address that particular point.
It seems to me that any legitimate intervention by the Secretary of State under powers in this part of the Bill is almost bound to impact on students and staff in one way or another. There are also circumstances in which it is possible that the Secretary of State may have a perfectly legitimate policy which would do the same. For example, my noble friend Lord Cavendish, dealing with that part of the Bill which affects students with disabilities, has made clear that the funding councils will be expected as a condition of grant to ensure that they have specialist advice on the education of students with disabilities. That statement by my noble friend was much welcomed.
Funds have been earmarked in the past by Secretaries of State for Education in respect of staff restructuring and what are sometimes known colloquially as "new blood posts." All are legitimate policy interests for a government to pursue through these powers. The difficulty is that all are framed by reference to students and staff but they relate to staff and students generally and not to individuals.
However, there is one particular circumstance in which the Secretary of State might be said to have an interest in an individual. It concerns a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, and others in Committee; namely, the question of accounting officers. The head of a publicly-funded higher education institution is the accounting officer for the public funds made available to that institution by the funding council. The accounting officer of the funding council is responsible for the funds put at its disposal, but it is the Secretary of State who is ultimately responsible to Parliament and to the taxpayer for the Government's higher education policy and the funds provided by Parliament to support it.
The existence of the institutional and funding council accounting officers cannot give the Secretary of State an absolute guarantee in financial matters which are their responsibilities. It has been known (reference has been made to it this evening) for institutional heads sometimes effectively to fail in responsibilities. In such cases action by the funding council has been able to resolve matters happily.
As I have said, the power of direction is needed against the remote possibility of what I have described as a nightmare scenario, with the funding council accounting officer failing to fulfil his responsibilities as well. If the head of an institution were to be found in dereliction of his duties the Secretary of State's overriding responsibilities to Parliament are such that he needs the power to influence the public funding of that institution subject to parliamentary scrutiny, provided for in the Bill.
Lord Annan: My Lords, should we really legislate on nightmare possibilities?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I can do no more than to say that at the end of the day, given the responsibilities of the Secretary of State, to Parliament and the general public, for taxpayers' money, that it is necessary. The ground was gone over exhaustively in 1988. It is not for the first time that I say that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, who dealt with that part of the Bill on that occasion, made it clear that the direction-making power would only be used in very exceptional circumstances. I fully acknowledge that that should be the limit of the Secretary of State's powers in relation to individuals.
However, that is already the case. It is important to bear in mind the context of these powers which are essentially about public funding and accountability. The accounting officer example that I have just given is precisely about that. The appointment of other individual staff and the admission of any individual students is clearly not.
The Secretary of State could not, under any circumstances, use his condition-making powers to effect the appointment or admission of an individual. That, I am advised, would require conditions to be made in respect of the activities of individual institutions concerned, but that is ruled out under Clause 64 of the Bill.
With regard to directions, any attempted intervention by the Secretary of State in the filling of a particular staff post would, except where the post carried major responsibility for the administration of funds provided by the council such as that of the accounting officer, be so far removed from the Secretary of State's funding responsibilities that it would almost certainly exceed the legitimate scope of his powers. The Secretary of State would be riding roughshod over the autonomy granted in these matters with the universities under their charters and their statutes and the polytechnics and colleges under their instruments and articles of government.
I have gone into detail because it is for those reasons that, although we are in no way unsympathetic to the anxieties which have been expressed about staff and students, the Government did not themselves put down amendments about either students or staff.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, and my noble friend Lord Beloff have their names to Amendment No. 146, which would remove the reference to the duration of courses in the amended Clause 64. It is important to emphasise on this point that conditions under this power could not of themselves determine the length of higher education courses. That can only be done by the institutions. Rather, this power is about the funding of courses where there are legitimate questions concerning the effective use of public funds. The higher education White Paper emphasised the Government's commitment to expanding higher education. It also made clear that while the Government remain committed to awarding higher education a fair share of public expenditure, the continuing drive for greater efficiency would need to be secure. That would not happen if additional resources merely served to fund the same number of students on longer courses.

663
The White Paper made clear that the Government see no case for an increase in the average length of courses. The power contained in Amendment No. 145 enables the Secretary of State to exercise influence in this area through funding while in no way allowing him to tell institutions what they may or may not do. The power would also enable the Secretary of State to earmark funds for specific purposes in respect of course patterns.
The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, asked whether I would give examples. At the Secretary of State's request the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council is at present making available £1 million in 1992 for 1993 to support a pilot scheme.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, I would be greatly obliged if the Minister would explain further what he said about the Secretary of State's power over the duration of courses. Do I understand him to say that he cannot actually determine the duration of courses but merely refuse funds for the extension of a course? Or has he a direct power to forbid the extension of a duration?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I said more or less exactly what the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, has just repeated—that the power which I am seeking to include in Amendment No. 145 would enable the Secretary of State to exercise influence in this area through funding but would not allow him to tell institutions what they may or may not do in that respect.
The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, asked whether I would give examples of any beneficial use of this power. The answer is quite a simple one. At present £1 million in the next financial year is going to support a pilot scheme involving the provision of accelerated and intensive routes to degree courses. I understand that the response from the higher education institutions in the form of bids for those funds has been enthusiastic. Often specific initiatives of this kind are needed to promote new types of provision. That would be put at risk by the amendments put down by the noble Earl and by my noble friend Lord Beloff.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I do not think I said that I wanted the noble Lord to think of one advantageous example. I wanted something that did not affect academic freedom. If it is said that there cannot be a three-year course, does the noble Lord not agree that nothing could be more effective than saying that one can only have the money for a two-year course? Does that not do the trick?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the noble Lord is seeking to lead me onto the ground where it would not be possible for the Secretary of State of the day to decide at all on what the effects of funding would be. That is a fairly basic matter to which we shall probably come again on later amendments. For the moment I rest on what I have said. The noble Lord asked for examples that would be beneficial and sensible. I have given him one which is extremely beneficial and extremely sensible.
There is a third and penultimate area with which I should like briefly to deal. Amendment No. 169A
664
relates to the use of funds. I can confirm that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State's condition and direction-making powers concern the administration of public funds. That answer derives from Amendments Nos. 147 and 172 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, but we are also close to Amendment No. 169A to which my noble friend Lady Young spoke. Put simply, I am advised that the Secretary of State could not require the funding councils to act in breach of their statutory duties and so the Secretary of State could not require them, whether under a condition or a direction, in turn to impose conditions on institutions which related to the use to which they put funds derived otherwise than through the council. That would be prohibited by Clause 61(4). In the case of an individual institution which refused public funds, any direction from the Secretary of State to the funding council could relate only to funds received previously from the council.
Amendment No. 169A in the name of my noble friend Lady Young is slightly different because it seeks to confine the application of a direction to financial support from grants made by the Secretary of State. In practice of course the overwhelming bulk, if not all, of the funding councils' funds will come from the Secretary of State. If the funding councils receive funds from other sources, which they most certainly do not at present, the Secretary of State could not direct that those funds could be used in a manner inconsistent with any conditions subject to which they were made available; and there would surely almost certainly be such conditions.
That leads me finally to Amendment No. 169C. Noble Lords have without exception said that they attach importance to this amendment. I have been urged from all sides of the House to look upon it favourably and to treat it in a variety of other ways, all of which would be beneficial, the top of the list being to take it away to see whether agreement can be reached on it. There are aspects of the amendment about which I am not sure and on which I have some worries. First, the specific addition to the amendment that the powers exercisable by the Secretary of State shall be subject to judicial review arguably does not add very much to the clause. Indeed I am advised that the Secretary of State's powers under the Bill would be liable to judicial review. To single out one power could be confusing because it would give the impression that the exercise of other powers was not liable to judicial review. Therefore, arguably there is a criticism there.
Secondly, I and the Government want to be sure of the exact scope of the wording "substantially funded". Those words appear in line 4 of Amendment No. 169C which refers to,
"an institution substantially funded by one of the higher education funding councils".
Thirdly, I must say to my three noble friends that I think the test in the amendment of,
"reasonable cause to believe that there has been a want of due care",
is a pretty narrow and restrictive power. Although I am not at present standing at the Dispatch Box and saying for that reason the Government wish to turn

665
away from that particular form of drafting, nonetheless I think that it is a form of drafting at which we would want to look very carefully.
Finally, there is an aspect of the amendment which is absolutely fundamental. I put it very simply for my own benefit. While I accept that any direction would most likely be in response to an institutions's financial situation, it is in the nature of the power we seek in Clause 77 that it would come into use only in the most exceptional circumstances. That is why the government amendments attack the matter by seeking to limit the nature of any direction which might be given, whereas Amendments Nos. 169A and 169C would limit the circumstances in which a direction could be contemplated.
However, in uttering that criticism I realise that that is exactly the point upon which many of your Lordships feel that the Government are not right and that the amendment is. Therefore, in conclusion perhaps I may try out this suggestion on your Lordships. If the Government—and this is the offer that I make this evening—are seriously to consider Amendment No. 169C, but with the reservations which I voiced (and there may also be some other reservations), I suggest that we should do so, without commitment, seriously and in discussion with those noble Lords who are interested in the matter.
I should point out to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that that would mean that the Government could not possibly move Amendments Nos. 170 and 171 to Clause 77. In the circumstances, I could give an undertaking now that when we reach that stage I would not move those amendments. Nevertheless, I had to move Amendment No. 145 because it is, from the procedural point of view, the peg upon which the whole debate hangs. I shall shortly press the amendment and await your Lordships' reaction.
Lord Peston: My Lords, perhaps the Minister could clarify a point for me. If we do not make any effort to divide the House on Amendment No. 145—and I am not an expert on procedural matters so I have to accept what the noble Lord says—I take it that he would not use that as an indication that any of us consider that that would be a good outcome. I presume that he is merely using it procedurally in order to give us more time to sort out matters before we meet again for further discussions. That would be the only commitment if we do not divide the House and decide not to intervene further in the matter. Am I right in thinking that the process suggested is purely technical?
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I rise only to speak in relation to the offer made by the Paymaster General. It leaves the situation in a highly unsatisfactory position. On Second Reading the noble Lord said that he had not been able to find a suitable narrowing formula. In fact the amendment in his name that has been tabled today is one that could have been framed at any time. The most junior clerk in the department could have given instructions to draft it to the most lately recruited officer in parliamentary counsel's office. That was not done. Nor was this
666
perfectly simple amendment put down in Committee. On the contrary, what was done was at the very last moment. In order to buy off opposition, the noble Lord offered to bring forward an amendment on Report. That was shortly before your Lordships rose. He said that it could not be brought forward before Christmas. In fact, it was available at the very end of the Recess so that those who had been critical of the provisions were deprived of the opportunity of taking counsel.
The noble Lord the Paymaster General, again faced with formidable opposition, now says at the last moment that he will consider, without any commitment. In my respectful submission, in view of what has happened, that is unsatisfactory. I hope that your Lordships will divide on the amendment.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, perhaps I may ask for clarification. Before doing so, with the greatest of respect to my noble friend, I must say that I find this position all but intolerable. I agree with every word said by the noble and learned Lord. If he had not said it, I would not have had the courage to say it. I find it intolerable.
Secondly, is my noble friend taking on board Amendment No. 169B, a Conservative Back-Bench amendment that has found favour throughout the House? We did not know that it would, but it has. That applies also to Amendment No. 169C. I find it unacceptable that I should be, so to speak, beaten down a little at every stage. I am content that the Government whom I support should take the matter back.
Baroness David: My Lords, perhaps I may ask one question to make clear what the Minister is offering. Is he going to take back Amendments Nos. 169A, 169B, and 169C and possibly Amendment No. 146A? Many of us are not clear what he is taking back.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, if I have the leave of the House, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway have uncharacteristically been a little hard this evening. In Committee, I gave an undertaking that I would try to meet the anxieties which were expressed by bringing forward amendments on academic freedom. That I have done. They have not received the approbation of the House. I have said openly that government amendments to Clause 77 cannot be moved if we are to look at the other amendments.
I am advised that I can withdraw Amendment No. 145. That would leave the Bill as drafted. If we did that, that would be playing fair with the House. Perhaps I may say to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway that I am not seeking to move or jockey the House in any particular direction. The Bill would be left as drafted, but there would be an undertaking that I would look at the amendments which had been tabled by your Lordships to Clause 77. In particular, I would look at Amendment No. 169C because that attacks the problem from a direction that is different to that of the Government. Your Lordships expressed

667
some mirth when I said that it had entered my consciousness that the House felt that the amendment was doing it the right way and the Government were not. Therefore, on this aspect, I have said that I shall take the amendments away, particularly that one. On behalf of the Government, I offer to leave the Bill as drafted and not change it one iota but to look with the greatest care in the context of my speech at the amendments, which are mostly to be found on page 7 of the Marshalled List.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, the noble Lord the Paymaster General has moved his amendment, to which further amendments have been moved. They will first be put to the House by the noble Lord on the Woolsack. The noble Lord the Paymaster General cannot now try to stymie all the opposition by withdrawing his own amendment. That can come later but it cannot come at this stage. In my respectful submission, it is quite wrong to threaten your Lordships in this way.
Baroness David: My Lords, the Minister answered two of my questions. He said that he would take back Amendments Nos. 169A and 169B as well as Amendment No. 169C. He did not respond to my question about whether he would also take back Amendment No. 146A.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, if I have the permission of the House to speak for perhaps the last time, it is to say that I shall consider this. I have spent a considerable time explaining that I am not in the least unsympathetic on the Government's side as concerns the apprehensions over the effects on staff and students of the powers in this part of the Bill. The Government themselves, however, did not, for the reasons I gave, put down amendments because we believed that any powers in this part of the Bill were almost bound to impact —often beneficially—on students and staff. The answer to the noble Baroness, Lady David, is, yes, I shall look at the position and I hope that she will look at what I suggest.
Baroness Young: My Lords, perhaps I may make a procedural point which may help the House. For my part, I wish to take up the offer of my noble friend to look at the amendments. I realise the caveat he made and the strength of feeling of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, and my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway. However, the way in which the House works is that we return for the Third Reading in two weeks' time. I am quite certain that my noble friend has taken the clear message from all parts of the House from every single Peer who has spoken. Unless we receive satisfaction, we shall return to the matter at Third Reading. For this evening, I shall be happy to accept the offer of discussion made by my noble friend and then we shall see whether we can achieve agreement before the Third Reading.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, in view of what the noble Baroness has said, is the offer of the Paymaster General to take the amendments away another way of saying that he is prepared to recommend that the amendments be accepted? Taking them away is no
668
commitment, it only means that the amendments will be considered. If that is what the noble Lord means, then it is not going very far.
Earl Russell: My Lords, for the sake of clarification, will the Minister move Amendment No. 145 or not?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, as I said when I spoke previously, my intention is to withdraw my amendment and to leave the Bill as at present drafted.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, I wish to make the point that if, as suggested, the Minister is able to give an element of commitment, rather than simply agreeing to look at the suggestions, I hope that the House will not oblige the noble Lord to press the matter to a Division if it is technically difficult for him to withdraw the amendment. I feel that, if he would give that indication, then the House could accept that he would prefer to withdraw the amendment.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the Question before the House is on Amendment No. 146 as an amendment to Amendment No. 145. I believe I heard the Minister say he would look again at Amendment No. 146A, which stands in the name of his noble friend Lady Young. In that case it is incumbent upon me to withdraw Amendment No. 146 and to welcome the Minister's undertaking to look at it again. However, I ask him to look a great deal more sympathetically than was the case when he replied a few minutes ago.
The Minister relied again on the question that concerns the legitimate use of public funds. However, there is the matter of whether the Minister obtains a degree for the use of public funds. The argument put to him is that if what he obtains does not have the approval of the academic community, it is not a degree, in which case the Minister would be paying money for nothing. I hope the Minister will look again at this matter very carefully as I cannot see any compromise without a concession on this point. For the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 146, as an amendment to Amendment No. 145, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 146A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 145, not moved.]
[Amendment No. 147, as an amendment to Amendment No. 145, not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): My Lords, the Question is that Amendment No. 145 be agreed to?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment No. 145, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 65 [Supplementary functions]:
[Amendments Nos. 148 to 150 not moved.]
Clause 66 [Assessment of quality of education provided by institutions]:
[Amendment No. 151 not moved.]
Lord Daintonmoved Amendment No. 151A:
Page 48, line 25, leave out paragraph (b) and insert:

669
("(b) establish such expert competent committees as they think fit to give them advice on the discharge of their duty under paragraph (a) above and such other functions as may be remitted to the committees").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, your Lordships may by now be somewhat weary of my interventions on the subject of the maintenance of quality which carries with it the notion of quality assessment of British universities. I make no apology for returning to this matter, for if quality declines so will everything in higher education. Everything that both this Bill and the 1988 Act sought to achieve will be rendered nugatory. Entrance to higher education in the future will be short changed. The existence of Clause 66, and especially subsection (2), suggests that the Government share this view.
Government Amendment No. 152 acknowledges one of the points I made in Committee; namely, that an assessment committee or committees should comprise a majority of competent people who are up to date in knowledge of what goes on in best university practice and in teaching and research around the world. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, for that concession. Alas the Government, against their own repeated protestations that they do not wish to see bureaucratic structures imposed on funding councils, have nevertheless insisted that a single quality assessment committee should be brought into being.
What is even worse, in the Government's Amendment No. 152 a further prescriptive and damagingly restrictive principle has been introduced; namely, that no member of the council may serve on the quality assessment committee. It is almost as if the Government were in this vital matter determined to attenuate the connection between the council and its committee, whereas all experience shows that awareness of the quality of the institutions with which the committee will deal must always be in the forefront of the minds of the council members. That cannot be achieved unless some council members are involved in the quality assessment. I believe that it should be one of their most important duties.
When I sought reassurance on those points at Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, said that he could not go so far "on his feet" and would write to me. Because I knew that the Government were not sympathetic to my view it was necessary for me to reintroduce my amendment, which now stands as Amendment No. 151A.
Having said all that, I should now like to propose a solution which would avoid including inappropriately bureaucratic mechanisms on the face of the Bill, to which I understand the Government are opposed in principle. It would simply give the funding council the duty specified in Clause 66(1) (a) of ensuring provision for quality assessment. The council could then carry out that duty in ways which it judged best, which I am sure would evolve over time and might well involve other councils. It will not evolve over time to meet emergent needs if it is set in tablets of stone on the face of the Bill. After all, we must remember that councils already have powers to establish committees for any purpose. Therefore,
670
without that subsection they could do all that they wish to ensure quality assessment by the means which seem best to them.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, will feel able to respond positively to that suggestion between now and Third Reading. I beg to move.
10 p.m.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, there is no difference between the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, and the Government on the need for the funding council to exercise robustly its duties in relation to ensuring the assessment of quality in institutions. However, where we do not see eye to eye is in relation to whether it is right for legislation to require that the funding councils establish a series of expert committees as the principal means by which the funding councils fulfil their responsibility. Perhaps there is some misunderstanding about the proposed nature of the single quality assessment committee proposed in the Bill, and it might be helpful if I set out the background.
The duty upon the funding councils will be to assess the quality of higher education at institutions. The Secretary of State's guidance will make clear that such assessment will need to cover all subject areas. That is a necessary prerequisite if, as is currently the case, assessments of quality are to inform the funding decisions of the new councils. Assessment in all subject areas and the results feeding into funding decisions is, after all, not a new proposal. It is currently the practice, as the noble Lord knows better than I, of the universities and polytechnics and colleges funding councils. That coverage is also necessary in order for potential staff and students to have a complete view of the quality of what is provided by higher education institutions.
The question is what mechanisms should the funding council use for the purpose of securing the assessments. Currently the PCFC has a programme advisory group for each of its nine programme areas. As part of their task of advising the council, they consider the evidence which is available on the utility of provision in each institution in their particular field. Their recommended allocations take account of those quality judgments. The senior HMI for the subject area concerned attends each meeting of the group and reports on the findings of HMI in respect of each institution offering the subject.
That is a perfectly sensible way for a funding council to operate and would be one possible approach for the new councils to adopt under Clause 66 as it stands. However, there are other ways in which the councils could proceed. As the duty to assess rests with the councils, they should be allowed to construct the most appropriate structure.
The noble Lord mentioned one of the options which he would favour, namely that the clause should be truncated and simply provide for a funding council without any frills. The difficulty with that is that it would not be possible for me to move the next amendment, which was tabled partly in response to a proposal from the noble Lord, Lord Peston, at a previous stage of the Bill that current practitioners in higher education should be included on the quality

671
assessment committees—which the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, was kind enough to say that he also approved of—and that there should be a majority of those involved in higher education on the committees.
The last point—and I am personally sorry that it is part of the amendment which I am going to move to Amendment No. 152—is one point of which I know the noble Lord disapproves. He has expressed his disapproval.
Amendment No. 152, which I shall soon move, responds to the debate which we had in Committee by referring to the desirability of those members being currently engaged in the provision of higher education, and strengthens the independent voice of the committee by providing a majority of members not to be members of the council.
The Government believe that the requirement on the councils to take independent expert advice on the principles of and approach to quality assessment has been widely welcomed. Although I know that the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, feels there should not be the provision that a majority of members should not be members of the council, we are actually responding to what has been said by a majority of Members in this Chamber who felt the opposite.
Lord Dainton: I am in some difficulty because I am not sure whether I should speak now on my objection to Amendment No. 152 or whether I should wait until it has been formally moved.
Lord Belstead: I think perhaps the noble Lord should wait.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Lockwood): My Lords, I have to point out that, if Amendment No. 152 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 153 and 154.
Lord Belsteadmoved Amendment No. 152:
Page 48, line 29, leave out from ("committee") to end of line 32 and insert:

("(a) shall be persons falling within subsection (2A) below, and

(b) shall not be members of the council.

(2A) Persons fall within this subsection if they appear to the council to have experience of, and to have shown capacity in, the provision of higher education in institutions within the higher education sector and, in appointing such persons, the council shall have regard to the desirability of their being currently engaged in the provision of higher education or in carrying responsibility for such provision.").
The noble Lord said: The noble Lord, Lord Peston, was concerned at the previous stage of the Bill that there should be on the quality assessment committees a voice for current practitioners in higher education. This amendment meets that particular point. The second effect of the amendment is to require that a majority of members of the quality assessment committee shall not be members of the funding council. As I have acknowledged, although I know that this is not the wish of the noble Lord, Lord Dainton—and I understand the reasons why—it is a
672
matter which was favoured in Committee by my noble friend Lord Limerick and supported by a number of other Members. After considering the arguments carefully, the Government have concluded that a statutory requirement of this kind would provide an important guarantee of the independence of the committee's operations and advice. I beg to move.
Baroness Blackstone: I should like to welcome this amendment. The noble Lord the Minister has said that this is in response to an amendment moved at an earlier stage by my noble friend Lord Peston. I think this is a considerable improvement on the Bill, and we are grateful to the Government for bringing it forward.
Earl Russell: On behalf of these Benches I should like to add my voice to the welcome offered by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone.
Lord Dainton: I should like to make two points, based on practical experience. I am very anxious that we should avoid setting the scene so rigidly as to provide just one quality assessment committee and secondly that the committee should not have members of the council on it. That would impede the work which the council will have to undertake. My experience of serving on the University Grants Committee leads me to two conclusions. The first is that there is no point in their discussions at which a knowledge of an intimate kind of the quality of the institutions with which they are dealing is not necessary. It is always required. Secondly, a council of this kind has to find its own ways to adapt to changing situations. That is why I feel I have to speak against the notion of one committee specified the Bill. I prefer to see that removed and the council allowed to find its own way and react in a flexible manner to situations which none of us can foresee.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, perhaps I may reply to the noble Lord, Lord Dainton. I have heard the noble Lord argue the point outside the House. With his almost unique experience from UGC days, the Government would be ill advised not to listen to him.
The noble Lord believes that we are locked into a single committee. When we discussed the noble Lord's previous amendment, I stated that the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council has a programme advisory group for each of nine programme areas. I am not sure, therefore, that we are locked into an entirely rigid position. For instance, we envisage it as one sensible way of going about the task of quality assessment.
I have already referred to the point about not having members of the quality assessment committee on the council. I know that I have not satisfied the noble Lord on that matter.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 153 and 154 are pre-empted.
[Amendments Nos. 153 and 154 not moved.]
Lord Pearson of Rannochmoved Amendment No. 154A:
Page 48, line 35, at end insert:
("(4) Before the Secretary of State makes any grant under section 64 above each institution shall draw up and publish its arrangements for monitoring and reporting on the quality of the education that it provides.
(5) Such arrangements shall ensure that each faculty in each institution, shall publish:

(a) detailed profiles and indicative reading lists of the courses they provide,

(b) the names of the external examiners appointed to those courses,

(c) the teaching load of the faculty members concerned,

(d) graded pass lists for those who receive their awards as a result of attending one of the courses in question, together with lists of those who have failed,

(e) where appropriate (d) above should be given on a collegiate rather than institutional basis,

(f) the destinations of their students one year after receiving their awards.

(6) Such arrangements shall also ensure that each institution shall publish a report on the application of the provisions of section 43 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 relating to freedom of speech on campuses.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment follows and amplifies one tabled by my noble friend Lady Cox and myself at Committee stage of the Bill. My noble friend is now in Stepanakert, the capital of Nagorno Karabakh, which is under siege by Azerbaijan, delivering her second consignment in a fortnight of medical supplies. That is why the noble Baroness's amendment is not on the Marshalled List today. I am sure that your Lordships will wish her well in her very courageous mission.
I wish to make the usual disclaimers about the precision of the amendment's wording. I apologise to my noble friend Lord Renton for the fact that it does not yet reflect the excellent point he made in Committee that it should be the funding councils rather than the Secretary of State which require the reporting envisaged. I thought that it might be helpful to separate the debate on the amendment, which is intended to contribute to academic quality in our future university system, from the debate that we have just had about academic freedom. I would, however, again remind your Lordships that the academic freedom about which we care so much is not honourable unless it carries with it an unwavering commitment to academic quality.
In the debate on the amendment tabled in the name of my noble friend Lady Cox and myself in Committee, several noble Lords were good enough to support the concept that institutions should be required to monitor and report on the quality of the education they provide. However, some noble Lords believed, or hoped, that the examples we gave where quality had failed were somewhat idiosyncratic. Doubts were also cast as to whether an amendment along these lines should be on the face of the Bill or whether its requirements should be left to the funding councils and to their quality assessment committees.
I believe that those requirements should be on the face of the Bill. I notice that a majority of the members of the proposed quality assessment committees are to be providers of higher education. In other words, they would be largely self-regulating in their daily work.
674
My experience on the Council for National Academic Awards and its committees over the past nine years, often as the only non-academic present, is that it would be helpful to them to have firm guidelines such as these from which to work.
As to the idea that our examples were idiosyncratic, we would deny that strongly. Indeed, I have some further areas of anxiety to share with your Lordships today. They underline my doubts as to whether quality in our universities is all that so many noble and academic Lords in this House obviously believe. I should confirm that my doubts concern mainly the subject areas covered by the humanities, social sciences and teacher training. In giving those examples, I wish also to touch on the question of waste. I maintain that wasteful courses cannot claim academic rigour and therefore quality. I state that quite separately from pointing out that it is bad for young people who may wish to enter the world of work to be allowed to spend the three or four preceding years in enforced idleness.
For instance, I draw your Lordships' attention to a current advertisement for a history teaching post at an Oxbridge college. The job carries a salary of over £30,000 per annum for the basic 24 weeks of term or less than half a calendar year. In addition, the successful applicant will have free furnished accommodation, free heating and light, free meals all the year round and a few other allowances and perks. For that, he or she will be required to give tutorials on a one-to-one or one-to-two basis for not more than 15 hours in each of the 24 weeks of term time and also give up to 16 lectures per annum. Any additional college duties will be rewarded with a further stipend.
I know about research and scholarly activity which teaching fellows are supposed to carry out but I should have thought that many, if not most, people who are not academics would find those terms of employment a little unbalanced. It is the kind of example which makes some noble Lords sit up and think when told that our university system is at breaking point for lack of funds.
One wonders how seriously to take the claim when it is set against the pay and conditions of similar professions. For example, one could consider the pay and conditions of ward sisters in the National Health Service. It might be thought that they are at a similar level in their profession as are tutorial fellows at Oxbridge. Ward sisters in outer London earn up to £17,600 for a 47-week year. For each of those 47 weeks they work a minimum of 37½ hours. They often work longer and at unsocial hours. Their responsibilities, which often include making decisions that may affect whether a patient lives or dies, are every bit as great as those of the tutorial fellow.
But it is when one comes to talk to many university students that one begins to fear that much of what goes on in our universities may be very wasteful. Over the past few weeks I have spoken to many students who feel that they are wasting much of their time. The worst case I found is that of a student at one of our leading universities—not Oxbridge—who is required to attend two lectures and one tutorial per week. He is also required to write two essays per 10-week term.

675
I suppose that I shall be told that that is yet another idiosyncratic example. I am quite sure, however, that when noble Lords talk to students, particularly in the subject areas that I have mentioned, much will be found that leaves them uneasy. Indeed, I have come across a group of about a dozen students who proposed to write to The Times saying how bored they were on their course and asking for its duration to be halved. I advised them not to write their letters until they had their degrees.
Another area which worries me is the waste and irrelevance in most of the business courses in higher education. That fear was confirmed by an article in the Daily Telegraph of 6th January this year which revealed that the Small Firms' Lead Body is calling for a major shake-up in the way in which business managers are trained. The article reflects what I was told, for example, by a girl who recently obtained a degree in economics from the London School of Economics. There she had three 10-week terms a year with only 12 hours per week of contact with teaching staff—360 hours per annum at a cost to the taxpayer of some £4,000. She is now a trainee accountant and has been sent by her partnership to a private college called Financial Training in preparation for her accounting examinations. The 10-week course there delivers 300 hours of personal tuition for about £1,500.
I know that the "student experience", as it is called, is widely considered to be of great value. But I wonder whether those figures do not suggest that there may be sometimes too much of it to be good for academic rigour and quality.
There is at least one other indicator which suggests that some of our universities, far from being starved of funds to the extent that they cannot do their job properly, may still be too comfortably off at taxpayers' expense. The number of first class degrees —if the latest edition of The Times Higher Education Supplement is to be believed—awarded by our universities has gone up by 10 per cent. in the past two years. It seems to me that that statistic forces our universities either to admit that they are more than adequately funded or that the quality of at least their first class degrees may be going down. Be all that as it may—and I think that it is the case—this amendment does not seek to make judgments. It does not attempt to interfere or proscribe. It merely seeks to make sure that the funding councils and their quality assessment committees are fully aware of what is going on so that they can take any action that they feel may be appropriate.
Finally, the amendment would require institutions to report on how successful they are being in securing freedom of speech on their campuses. The trouble with Section 43 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 is that it goes no further than requiring institutions to draw up a code of practice. When freedom of speech is denied, it is left to individual students to take action. Although there have been many cases where freedom of speech has been denied since the 1986 Act, only one case has been brought to court to test it. The case was won by the student but costs were awarded equally and not against the college authorities. That has not
676
encouraged other students to take action. I believe that if institutions were required to publish their record in that important area of academic quality and freedom, they might take their duty under the 1986 Act more seriously. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, has a great gift for enlivening our proceedings. He reminded me a little of a certain kind of old-fashioned shop steward holding forth on the proceedings of the Palace of Westminster. It is a fairly common illusion outside the Palace of Westminster that when we are not in the Chamber we are not working. I hope that I need not say to any Member of the House that that is not so.
The noble Lord quoted the case of a person teaching for 15 hours per week. It is a rough but fairly reliable rule of thumb to say that 15 hours of teaching is equivalent to about a 50-hour week. The noble Lord also made the profound mistake of confusing a vacation with a holiday. That is the time at which you do your work.
I also comment briefly on the noble Lord's point about the number of first and second class degrees. There has been a considerable amount of correspondence about that in the Times Higher Education Supplement, some of which the noble Lord may have seen. About 15 years ago a considerable body of anxiety developed because firsts were a great deal easier to achieve in some subjects than in others. It was twice as easy to achieve them in the sciences than it was in the humanities. There was a widespread feeling that that was an anomaly. On the whole, that is being corrected by making it easier to achieve firsts in the difficult subjects rather than harder in the easier ones. That explains the statistics to which the noble Lord drew attention.
Lord Addington: My Lords, as regards the number of hours which undergraduates work—and I hope that the distinguished academics will support me on this matter—when a student is set one hour's tutorial, he is expected to prepare for it. I can remember that that meant reading large chunks, if not the whole, of several books for one tutorial. Moreover, if a person has to be sat down and spoon fed by taking dictation in a lecture hall to get through his work at university, he should not be there in the first place.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, the noble Lord who opposed the points made by my noble friend battened only on the figures as regards hours of work. He made an extremely good case. However, he rather gave the impression that everything is perfect and that there is no need to look at anything. That is the impression which he gave by dealing only with that part of the argument. By giving no consideration to the other points made by my noble friend, that is the impression he gave.
As I understand my noble friend, he is merely saying that the people who are in a position to make the decisions as to whether the money paid and the hours allocated to the work are correct should have some statutory reason for looking at the matter rather more carefully than perhaps has been the case in the

677
past. That seemed to be the message which my noble friend wished to convey. Unless one can put one's hand on one's heart and say that everything is perfect and that there is no need for the people who must make those adjudications to look at matters rather more carefully, then this amendment should be looked at more sympathetically than did the noble Lord in his debate-winning speech.
Lord Annan: My Lords, I sympathise with those remarks. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, is entirely right about the kind of work involved if one teaches 15 hours a week. I agree with the view that at Oxford and Cambridge one would expect the undergraduates to be able to work on their own and not be spoonfed. Nevertheless, the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, has a great deal to commend it.
There are some good reasons why universities should be expected to set out those basic conditions. Most universities that I know set out some, but by no means all. I wonder how many universities actually publish the teaching load of the faculty members concerned. I wonder how many state the names of the external examiners appointed to the courses. Of course they are always published in the Reporter or wherever the official proceedings are, but they are not always evident to the students.
The other point with which I have sympathy concerns a period I well remember in 1963 when I was chairman of a committee looking at teaching in the University of Cambridge. When we did some sample surveys on three faculties we discovered some disturbing statistics; namely, that there were people who were college officers earning a stipend additional to their university stipend but teaching only three or four hours a week. I sympathise with the feeling that some publicity on those matters is a good thing.
There is nothing in the amendment which impinges upon academic freedom. It is a simple statement of facts. The noble Lord perhaps deserved to receive some elucidation from the noble Earl, Lord Russell, but I for one would not be against an amendment of this kind.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, it is a question of what one puts on the face of the Bill and what one does not. Having said that, my noble friend Lord Pearson has once again raised important matters concerning accountability within higher education institutions. Let me say at once that the Government are at one with him on the need for institutions to maintain the quality of what they do and to publish information relating to that so that their performance can be looked at.
In a sense my noble friend's cry that what is being done must be clear is being attacked from two different directions in the Bill. In one direction the Government's proposal is that institutions should, themselves, establish a quality audit unit to monitor the standards of quality assurance mechanisms within institutions. Whether or not encouraged by the Secretary of State's reserve power to require the establishment of such a unit by the funding councils, the institutions have responded positively to the
678
responsibility envisaged for them. They are proposing that the unit should arrange visits to each and every institution to examine quality assurance systems and structures, together with ongoing monitoring. The reports of those visits would be published, and the three representative bodies have accepted that an institution's public funding could ultimately be affected by an unsatisfactory report if adverse aspects are not corrected.
At the same time, the funding councils will appoint external assessors to report on the quality of provision within institutions. They seem likely to look at aspects of quality assurance as well. Those reports, too, will be published along with annual sets of performance indicators covering a wide range of measures.
Without following the noble Lord down the road of all the proposals he mentioned, perhaps I may say that clearly some of the areas covered by the amendment need to be in the public domain. Higher education institutions educate students, and it is right that performance indicators should include data showing how well they do it. The first destinations are also an important indicator.
Finally, with regard to freedom of speech, I understand the point made by my noble friend that, despite the provisions of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986, enforcement is a problem.
On that point it may reassure my noble friend that the Government have initiated consultations with parties concerned in education over the effectiveness of the freedom of speech legislation. At this stage I cannot say what conclusions will be drawn from the consultations, but I can confirm that Ministers at the department are alive to the issues and will take careful note of what has been said here today.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I am most grateful to noble Lords who have contributed to this debate, particularly those who supported me more than I expected. I am very grateful for that. I am also grateful to noble Lords who were critical of my intervention. My only hope is that if the spirit of this amendment can in the end be enshrined in good practice, a little light will be let in and everyone will be able to make their own judgment on who was right on the subject. I beg to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Annan: My Lords, the noble Lord told the House that he advised students who wrote to him not to write a letter to The Times. My advice would be that they should do so. They could not then possibly be failed!
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Russellmoved Amendment No. 155:
Leave out Clause 66.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in this amendment we propose to leave out Clause 66, which relates to the quality assessment committee. In Committee I described this clause as an umpire that could only give one side out. I said then that I could not mention such umpires, but I can now without any breach or abuse of parliamentary privilege. Mr. Gavaskar, commenting on the Indian tour of Australia, remarked that

679
they were playing against 13 men. That is the way in which some of the academic community feel about this clause.
I am not going to enter any further into the argument with the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, as to whether the threat to quality comes primarily, as I believe, from the lack of funding or, as he believes, primarily from the negligence and sloppiness of the profession. It is sufficient to my purpose to ask the House to note that that dispute exists and, having listened to both of us a few moments ago, I do not believe that the House can be in any doubt that a dispute exists. It seems to be contrary to the principles of natural justice to have a dispute existing and be able to hear only one side of it. The committee could not get an accurate view of what is going on.
The House may be greatly relieved to hear that I am not going to develop at great length the argument that the Secretary of State is not competent to assess academic quality. We have already spent long enough on that tonight. However, as a point of history, the House should note what a colossal moving of the goalposts this is. Until very recent times the Secretary of State had not thought himself competent to make an assessment of quality. It had been made by the academic community. It was not his business. So his attempting to do it would be under-described by calling it "moving the goalposts". It is not only moving them but like turning rugger goalposts into hockey goalposts in the process.
It is a real example of the creeping bureaucracy to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, has many times drawn our attention and what the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, has described as the unending tendency of governments of all parties to believe that they know best. Inevitably —because they cannot judge everything individually —they will fall back on quantitative indicators. While there are some things that such indicators can tell one, there is a very great deal that they cannot. It is a little like conducting a beauty contest simply by collecting the measurements of the contestants and never letting one's eyes fall on them. It is a rather limited form of perception.
My biggest argument against this clause is that it has the effect of making the Bill, in the nice 17th century phrase, felo de se; because it is a clause which contradicts the central thrust of the Bill. I am convinced that the Minister would hotly resist me if I were to say that the main thrust of the Bill was to reduce quality. He would not be able to resist me equally were I to say that the main thrust of the Bill is to increase what the Government mean by efficiency; in other words, to reduce unit costs. The Minister has admitted that many times. It appears to me to have something very near a synonymous quality with reducing quality.
There is a certain offensiveness here about the contrary assumption because it involves assuming that money is spent by higher education institutions in a way without any relevance to their primary purposes. Therefore, less of it may be spent without affecting their primary purposes. That is quite a far-reaching assumption. Anybody who is going to make that
680
assumption needs to put before us a good deal more evidence for it than the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, has done.
I shall not argue at great length any more—
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, at Committee stage my noble friend Lady Cox and I put forward other examples which included a whole institution—which appears to have gone off the rails at the moment —and no less than three subject areas which at present seem to be seriously questionable. Therefore, I would not want judgment on this matter to be confined to the few remarks I made this evening.
Earl Russell: My Lords, as I recollect that debate, the chief points made by the noble Lord and the noble Baroness concerned freedom of speech. On that there is agreement on all sides of the House. I accept that the noble Lord also found a certain number of academic Marxists.
Lord Annan: My Lords, I do not think the debate was purely on freedom of speech. It was on a department, or departments, prohibiting students from taking a different point of view from their teachers and that the whole reading lists, and everything else, was constructed to bring them to one conclusion and one conclusion only. Not one individual teacher—a department.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I think that nobody defends any such practice. There are cases in all professions where something goes wrong. I am certain that the noble Lord will not wish to maintain that his own profession is immune. I do not wish to maintain that my profession is immune. However, I think that efficiency, as defined by the Minister, is creating such a threat to quality that we are getting very close indeed to the point where it would be better if the job were not done at all.
If the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, or anyone else, wants to deprive us of all funding, they have that right. We might then be free to go off and do a job where we would be better appreciated. Meanwhile, so long as we are trying to do the job we must have the tools, or else we cannot. I beg to move.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, I do not entirely follow the logic of the noble Earl, Lord Russell. It may not be for the first time, but generally I get his drift at the very least. He has argued with the greatest consistency throughout our discussions on the Bill that he is anxious that sufficient resources may not be assigned in order to ensure that quality is maintained. That is a very legitimate anxiety.
However, Clause 66 is about quality assessment and I do not in the least understand how it would suit the book of the noble Earl if quality assessment were left out of consideration. It seems to me that the noble Earl is perhaps giving up the ghost. It would be of the greatest sorrow to all of us if he were to give up the ghost in any sense. I hope that he will continue to inspire us with his observations. I do not think that he should give up, as it were, on quality and I am sure that he should be supporting quality assessment. Like him, I have some unease about the approach taken by

681
the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch. Fortunately, however, the noble Lord's amendment is not immediately under discussion at this time, and so one need not take that point further.
It is appropriate that the universities should be subject to scrutiny in terms of quality, which is the principle established by the clause. I very much hope that on further consideration the noble Earl will agree with me that if we are concerned about the provision of resources, as indeed we are, it is appropriate that the end product should be monitored. That is precisely what the clause ensures.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: My Lords, I am also surprised that the noble Earl has suggested that this is somehow a move on the part of the Secretary of State to attempt personal assessment of the quality of teaching in universities. I remind him that the proposal in the Bill requires the funding council to set up a committee on the assessment of quality and not in any sense to involve the Secretary of State directly or his immediate civil servants in the process. Indeed I should like to reassure the noble Earl that there has been considerable consultation with the bodies representing higher education institutions about the process of quality assessment.
The pilot assessments of quality are taking place this month. Only about 10 days ago I was involved in training the first batch of assessors. I should like to reassure the noble Earl that they are people drawn from the universities and from the current polytechnics. The process has carefully drawn equal numbers from each of the existing sectors. They do not in any sense come from outside the system. People engaged in and experienced in teaching in higher education will be performing the assessments. I endorse the remarks of my noble friend Lord Renfrew. It is extremely important that the organisations in higher education should be assessed in the way the Bill proposes.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am disappointed that the noble Earl has chosen to move this amendment. The deletion of Clause 66 would mean that there would be no statutory requirement upon the higher education funding councils to assess quality in higher education. I join my noble friend Lord Renfrew in being concerned that in this sense the noble Earl has given up on quality. I know that the noble Earl has not in any way given up on quality.
The assessments under the clause will have three broad purposes. They will inform potential students and employers through the publication of reports, they will enable the institutions to take account of the independent and objective views of those carrying out the assessments and they will inform the funding methodology of the new councils. I accept that assessment is about far more than a simple and mechanistic quality funding equation—I am thinking of the point I made previously. Carried out effectively, it should help to improve quality as higher education expands. There is a serious quality issue involved.
Before I sit down I should like to make a point of which I am sure noble Lords are aware. It is, however, worth putting on the record. The Secretary of State
682
will not be responsible for these assessments. The funding councils will be responsible. The White Paper made very clear that experts drawn from HMI and institutions would be needed to carry out the assessments and my noble friend Lady Perry has just told us about the pilot assessments that are taking place.
I realise that there are two points of view about Clause 66. I express the hope that, having given the matter an airing, the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank all those who have spoken. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, about scrutiny. There is nothing wrong with scrutiny. But the noble Lord did not answer the point about the umpire who can only give one side out. The Secretary of State is not subject to scrutiny. The argument that the Secretary of State is offering a major threat to quality is one which the quality assessment committee cannot assess. I take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Perry; namely, that this will be done by a committee. But, again, such a committee cannot say what, in the opinion of many of us, desperately needs to be said.
I also take the point made by the noble Baroness that there has been consultation about Clause 66. I believe that she knows as well as I do that that consultation has come nearer to achieving agreement in some quarters than it has in others. However, I cannot understand the indifference to the problem of funding. Talking about academic freedom while funding is at its present levels seems to me a case of fiddling while Rome burns.
I thank the Minister for conceding, at the second attempt, that I have not given up on quality. I am struggling as hard as I can to preserve it. By his funding policy, I feel that the Secretary of State is thwarting my efforts at every turn. If I succeed in preserving it, it will be despite the Secretary of State. That gets under my skin. I commend the amendment to the House.
10.46 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 155) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 17; Not-Contents, 56.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

McNair, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Ogmore, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Redesdale, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Rochester, L.

Grey, E.

Russell, E. [Teller.]

Hamwee, B.

Seear, B.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Kirkwood, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Adrian, L.

Beloff, L.

Annan, L.

Belstead, L.

Arran, E.

Bethell, L.

Astor, V.

Blatch, B.

Balfour, E.

Blyth, L.

683

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Kimball, L.

Butterworth, L.

Lawrence, L.

Caithness, E.

Long, V.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Lyell, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Carnock, L.

Marlesford, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Cross, V.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Dainton, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Porter of Luddenham, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Reay, L.

Ferrers, E.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Flowers, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Gridley, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Guildford, Bp.

[Teller.]

Harvington, L.

Trumpington, B.

Henley, L.

Ullswater, V.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Vivian, L.

Holderness, L.

Waddington, L.

Hooper, B.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Howe, E.

Young, B.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
10.55 p.m.
Clause 67 [Higher education corporations: constitution and conduct]:
Lord Addingtonmoved Amendment No. 156:
Page 51, line 22, leave out ("or student nominee").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendment No. 156, which stands in my name, as does Amendment No. 158, and to the other amendments in this group. In them, we readdress issues which we have talked about on several previous occasions on this Bill, relating to both the higher and the further education sectors.
The basic question is whether we want a sizeable opinion. Some of us would say we want a working amount of student representation provided in the Bill, while others say that one student nominee is sufficient. I suggest, for a variety of reasons, that students are effectively the lifeblood of any institution of education. Thus, the number currently represented in the Bill is not sufficient. I beg to move.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, at Committee stage the area of this amendment was also discussed in relation to representation of other categories of person on the corporations of universities. Some of us found that an inconvenient juncture because we feel with great vigour that students are part and parcel of the university. They are its core, it is the students and the teachers who together constitute the university. There are those in other categories who may have their role to play and account should be taken of that, but the members of the university are the students and the academic staff. For that reason, there is a fundamental principle here to which the noble Lord, Lord Addington, rightly drew our attention.
My own Amendment No.158A is similar to that of the noble Lord, and it is also in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris. I do not see a great deal between the amendments; the subject could be debated in great detail, but perhaps it is too late to do so.
684
It is worth stressing that in the 1988 Act, as I understand it, there was provision for student membership as well as membership from other categories. Many of us are entirely in sympathy with the intention of the Government, which the Minister made clear, that in general terms representation on corporations of higher education institutions should be less itemised. That is in the sense that there are one or two here, one or two there and one or two from somewhere else. That is fine, but we need one or two students.
The matter was extensively discussed in the debates on the 1988 Act and there are other noble Lords present who remember them, although I cannot do so at first-hand. In the debate at Committee stage, the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, quoted Mr Robert Jackson. In 1988 he was Minister with responsibility for education and he then emphasised that the Government valued highly the participation of students in governing bodies of institutions.
I am sorry that the Government give indications not perhaps of not valuing it highly, but valuing it no more highly than other categories which they have swept away. I have no objection to that, but Schedule 6 to the Bill is extremely parsimonious. On the possibility of student participation, it refers to,
"at least one and not more than seven (referred to below … as the 'co-opted members') shall be persons nominated by the members of the corporation who are not co-opted members".
If we follow through the rather tortuous wording of the Bill, that is the back door by which students may be admitted to higher education corporations. They may be co-opted by the real, "pukka" members of the corporation. That is not good enough, and it is why my amendment, which is not substantially different from that of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, takes for students an exact parallel with the wording for teachers. Paragraph (2) (b) states:
"up to two may be teachers at the institution nominated by the academic board".
I have tried to follow that wording entirely and suggested that up to two may be students who would be nominated by the student body.
In Committee a number of noble Lords said they did not want student representatives as opposed to nominees. I believe that point is taken care of. The persons concerned would not necessarily be the student president or delegates. They would be full-time students elected by members of the student body. I should be sorry if the Minister, on behalf of the Government, saw fit to gainsay that principle at this stage now that the noble Lord, Lord Addington, has conveniently separated this issue from those which complicated it in Committee.
11 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, in supporting this group of amendments, I also strongly support what has just been said by the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew. On the general issue I do not know what I can say that others have not said, or that I have not said myself, as all the arguments on behalf of student representation on governing bodies have been marshalled, paraded, recalled to the colours, remustered and re-presented time after time.

685
The issue of the membership of both further and higher education corporations was discussed extensively in Committee and again on Report. The overwhelming majority of noble Lords who spoke from all sides of the House have been in favour of the principle of student participation. The basic arguments in favour of student involvement remain unchanged and I shall not repeat them.
Students are, in the language of the Government, consumers of education. As I would prefer to think of it, they are members of a community which prides itself on preserving its academic autonomy and its democratic procedures. As such, students surely deserve a say in the running of those institutions at the highest level. In Committee concern was expressed over the term "representatives". Noble Lords questioned whether this might mean that students would be mandated.
In the first of the amendments in this group, as it now stands, it is clear that a student nominee is what is being considered. After the 1988 Education Reform Act the DES issued model articles of government for higher education corporations. Article 6.2 stated:
"Members of the Board of Governors, shall not be bound in their speaking and voting by instructions given to them by other persons".
It is fairly clear that student nominees selected by other students cannot be mandated. They will be proper, ordinary, straightforward, up and down the wicket, common-sense members, like every other member of the corporation.
Government spokesmen have also made use of the argument that students will be on governing bodies anyway, as institutions will feel it necessary to include them. That, in my respectful submission, is a weak argument because, if the Government really believe that and can see the benefits of student involvement on governing bodies, they will surely not oppose this amendment.
It is, of course, not for me in any way to attempt to lead the mind of the Minister. However, if, when considering this group of amendments, the Government were prepared to look kindly on Amendment No. 158A, they might feel that was perhaps on balance preferable to the wording of Amendment No. 158. They might feel similarly that Amendments Nos. 160A and 160B might command slightly wider support than Amendment No. 160. However, that is a matter for the Minister to consider. The general thrust is surely clear. Students are currently serving as representatives of their fellow students on most governing bodies in higher education to everybody's entire satisfaction. These amendments seek only to retain their hard won status quo. Students on governing bodies have done well. Let us not now take away from them what they are all so rightly proud to have won.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Morris, for giving his views on student nominees. I know the arguments have been put forward before at all stages of the Bill. However, if a student is not nominated by other students, he will not have the benefit of the trust of the students in the
686
institution concerned. They may not think that he represents their views. Therefore it is most important that a student nominee should be elected by the members of the institution of which he is a member.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: My Lords, it is unfortunate that the amendments are grouped together because they make different points. Amendments Nos. 156 and 158 refer to an individual student nominee, whereas Amendment No. 158A in the name of my noble friend Lord Renfrew suggests the freedom, rather than the requirement, for a corporation to appoint up to two full-time students of the institution. I believe that that is an important distinction.
The president of my own institution's student union has on several occasions mentioned the difficulty he finds in being alone in a group of articulate and experienced adults who are members of the board. He has frequently said how much he wished that there were more than one student present at board meetings. The freedom to appoint two representatives is an important point and I should be sorry if as a result of the grouping that point were lost.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I should like to support my noble friend. Frequently two categories of student will be represented—the undergraduate and the postgraduate. Their interests are very different and what they can contribute to the discussion is very different though equally valuable. We need to carry both with us in the major changes which may be necessary in education from time to time in the next 20 years. Therefore, I strongly support the proposal that we should be thinking in terms of two representatives from the first because of the difference of view that needs to be represented.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, we had an interesting debate in Committee about the Government's proposals to remove the statutory right of legal authority nominees, teacher nominees, general staff nominees and student nominees to be members of the governing body of a higher education corporation. A number of arguments were put forward, particularly in favour of student representation, and I undertook to convey them to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. I see that it is the right of students to be nominated which the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, now seek to restore.
My right honourable friend has considered the views expressed in Committee carefully but he has concluded that the provisions of the Bill should remain as they are. Several noble Lords referred to the quality of the contribution made by students and, as we have always acknowledged, I am sure that is the case in many instances. There is nothing in the Bill that will prevent a governing body having the benefit of that contribution and, as I said in Committee, the indications are that most governing bodies will wish to retain student members. Governing bodies are free, if they wish, to ask the student body to nominate someone and then to co-opt that person as a member

687
should the governing body wish to proceed in that way. I do not accept my noble friend's remarks about pukka or not pukka representatives.
The Government's intention is to reduce the element of prescription and to give greater flexibility to governing bodies to determine their way of working. After three years' operational experience that is a sensible way forward. As I mentioned in Committee, both the Committee of Directors of Polytechnics and the Standing Committee of Principals of Colleges have welcomed the increased flexibility. I can add that the chairmen of the governing bodies of polytechnics have also welcomed the increased flexibility.
I do not doubt that governing bodies will take the necessary steps to ensure that they are fully aware of the views of the various parts of the institutional community. The Government believe that they can be trusted to do so without having statutory requirements for nominees placed upon them. In view of those arguments I must resist the amendments.
Lord Peston: My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt the noble Lord and I apologise for doing so. It never occurred to me that he would reject the amendments. That is why I did not speak earlier, so that we could get a move on. I am astonished.
Does the noble Lord remember his own remarks last week on the model articles and instruments for FE colleges and can he make what he said then fit in with what he has just said? It did not occur to me that this would be a contentious issue and I do not know whether the noble Lords who have moved the amendment are about to divide the House, but if they do not do so I shall certainly divide the House if this is the best we are to receive by way of answer on the issue. The noble Lord's answer does not meet any of the matters which have been put before your Lordships in the past few weeks. This really will not do.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I cannot quarrel with the noble Lord, Lord Peston, if he wants to divide the House. I have told him that my noble friend wants to keep the flexibility and he does not want to be prescriptive. We can disagree on that maybe.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I do not think the noble Lord understands what I am saying. I am trying to work out why we bother with any of this sort of thing if he simply says, "I don't want to do something". Some of us are rather more used to rational argument and a certain give and take. I have not heard anybody support the Government's view on this matter. Is that not something that they might take into account?
This is not like the major issues we have been discussing. This is a minor but rather important matter that I thought was not in the remotest sense contentious. That is why I am slightly angry.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, if I may intervene, I did not come in earlier but I must say that I have spoken to a number of polytechnic directors who, were they here, would resist this series of amendments. I am not in the least surprised by what
688
my noble friend the Minister has said about the support he is getting on the position the Government are taking.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister could help me. I recognise this is not the particular amendment with which we are dealing now, but the associated amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, which is to the schedule, is to provide for two students. If I understood the Minister right, he said the reason why the Government were against this was that they did not wish to be prescriptive; yet they have in the schedule that up to two may be teachers. That is prescriptive. I cannot follow the logic of the argument.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, dealing with the noble Lord, Lord Peston, first, I did say that I had consulted and we had had some response to that consultation, and also I gave two reasons. I have given them twice, and I hope the noble Lord has absorbed them.
In respect of the amendments of my noble friend Lord Renfrew, as I have just indicated, the Bill already makes provision for students to be co-opted members of a higher education corporation. It does not restrict governing bodies to any particular method of determining which students to appoint. A governing body may appoint students selected by members of the student body if it so wishes. Therefore the amendments would not appear to be necessary to permit the appointment of student members in line with the governing body's wishes. However, they put those student members in a different category for appointment. They would no longer be co-opted members, and because of that they would themselves be able to participate in the nomination of co-opted members. We believe that to be undesirable.
The Bill presently makes provision for co-opted members to be nominated by independent members and any teacher members nominated by the academic board. The Government believe that that is the right group of members to nominate co-opted members, and it should not be extended to include students.
With regard to what the right reverend Prelate said, the two teacher nominees are not representatives; they are nominated by the academic board. That is the difference.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I wonder whether he could clarify why students should not participate in the nomination of co-opted members. Of course they will be a small minority if we are talking about two only, and there will be many more independent members, so the views of the independent members are likely to prevail when it comes to any final decision about who co-opted members should be. I am puzzled as to why students should not make a contribution towards such a discussion and such suggestions. Perhaps that could be clarified.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, my understanding is that it is felt that this particular area

689
is one where maybe students would not be able to make much of a contribution because it would be in the nomination.
Lord Flowers: My Lords, it does not seem to be understood by the Government that students' presence on governing bodies of universities and other higher education institutions is not simply to give the students something; it is also to give universities something. Students are the most important element in the university. They have to be carried with one, whatever one does. The university is there for them, first and foremost. They can be carried with one most successfully, if one has a few, perhaps two, sensible students—and in my experience they are usually sensible students—who take part in the discussion. More important than taking part, they understand the discussion and can take the message to their fellow students saying, "Don't get excited about this. What is intended is as follows". They explain. They are the communicators between the governing body and the student body; and they do a very good job.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, it is Report stage. I can respond only once more. If the noble Lord had been following the debates, I have acknowledged all those qualities which have been referred to frequently during the conduct of the Bill.
Lord Addington: My Lords, to say that I am a little disappointed at the Government's response is probably the understatement of the decade. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish, for taking the issue back and discussing it. However, I am afraid the answer is not good enough.
The noble Baroness, Lady Perry, stated that my amendment referred at least to one representative. That was a fallback situation to ensure that there was a nomination. The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, was a second bite. In my opinion, two would be the minimum number to make student representation practical. The amendment made sensible provision for those two students.
They are modest amendments. They have had wide general support. There is no real case for stating that students do not make a good contribution in this respect. I cannot understand why the Government have not accepted the amendment, or put forward their own amendment to meet the problems that have been raised by Members on all sides of the House. I have no option but to seek the opinion of the House on the matter.
11.17 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No.156) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 29; Not-Contents, 43.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L. [Teller.]

David, B.

Adrian, L.

Flowers, L.

Annan, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Blackstone, B.

[Teller.]

Dainton, L.

Grey, E.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Guildford, Bp.

690

Hamwee, B.

Ogmore, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Peston, L.

Judd, L.

Redesdale, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Rochester, L.

Lawrence, L.

Russell, E.

Lockwood, B.

Seear, B.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Tordoff, L.

McNair, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Arran, E.

Howe, E.

Astor, V.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Balfour, E.

Kimball, L.

Belstead, L.

Long, V.

Blatch, B.

Lyell, L.

Blyth, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Marlesford, L.

Butterworth, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Caithness, E.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Carnock, L.

Reay, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Seccombe, B.

Craigmyle, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Cross, V.

Strathclyde, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Ferrers, E.

[Teller.]

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Trumpington, B.

Gridley, L.

Ullswater, V.

Henley, L.

Vivian, L.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Waddington, L.

Holderness, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Hooper, B.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
11.24 p.m.
Schedule 6 [New Schedule 7A to the Education Reform Act 1988]:
Lord Cavendish of Furnessmoved Amendment No. 157:
Page 75, line 42, leave out ("twenty-one") and insert ("twenty-four").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend, I beg to move this amendment. In doing so I shall speak also to Amendment No. 159.
In Committee, in responding to the amendment of my noble friend Lord Limerick, Amendment No. 277A, I informed the Committee that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, after considering various representations, was prepared to table an amendment which would restore the maximum size of the governing body of a higher education corporation to its present level and make consequential changes to the permitted number of co-opted members.
This amendment seeks to make the necessary changes. In fact, I believe that my noble friend has noticed that, after consideration, the Government have retained his original wording. The increase by only two in the permitted number of co-opted members, rather than three, which might appear more appropriate, serves to correct an anomaly in the 1988 Act whereby the total of all permitted categories of member exceeded by one the maximum permitted size of the corporation. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 158 not moved.]
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthornmoved Amendment No. 158A:

691
Page 76, line 4, after ("board") insert:
("( ) up to two may be full-time students of the institution to be elected by members of the student body;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, a number of noble Lords on this side of the House indicated to me that they would have had difficulty voting in favour of Amendment No. 156 because it dealt with transitional arrangements and was of no great general significance; but they would be willing to vote in favour of Amendment No. 158A, and we have already discussed the substantive issues relating to it. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I support the amendment but I am not anxious at this hour to enter the Division Lobby. I may have been willing to do so at a previous stage but I am not anxious to do that now.
As my noble friend is taking back one or two points for consideration, albeit without commitment, I ask him to consider this matter on the basis which we discussed previously; namely, that students should take part because they are the essence of it all. So long as they are not representatives - and that has been discussed - but are elected by members of the student body, in what better way or in what other way can we ensure their participation? They should take part. If the Minister accepts that, how are they to do so if the amendment or something like it is not accepted?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, when I dealt with the group of amendments which included Amendment No. 156, I covered the ground rather carefully on this matter. I informed the House that we have no difficulty as regards wanting student participation but we do not wish to prescribe. We wish to give the governing bodies the flexibility about which I have spoken.
I shall read carefully what has been said but I regret that I cannot give my noble friend any assurance beyond that. I am sorry that I cannot move from what I said in the earlier part of the debate.
11.30 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, we are in some difficulty in that this amendment was grouped with Amendment No. 156 and indeed is linked with that amendment. It is the custom of this House not to press amendments that are linked. That is not necessarily the case where matters are grouped that are different from the original amendment. But we are in some difficulty on the linkage between this and the previous amendment.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, perhaps I may comment on what the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, says. If it were the case that he, and in particular the noble Lord, Lord Addington, were to find it more convenient for this amendment to be withdrawn in order that it may be brought back at Third Reading, I should be happy to follow their guidance. If it is in order for the noble Lord, Lord Addington, to comment, I shall be happy to follow guidance.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I was under the impression that we were dealing with the whole group as an issue. If I had been informed that noble Lords opposite preferred the amendment of the noble Lord,
692
Lord Renfrew, I should certainly have given way in favour of it. However, I am in favour of bringing the amendment back at Third Reading if it is in order to do so. It is an important issue.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, I am not in a position to advise anybody on the procedures of the House. If it is in order that the amendment be brought back at Third Reading, I shall be happy to withdraw it at this stage.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I too am not convinced that it is in order. For the few years I have been in the House I thought that when amendments were linked and one was defeated, they were all defeated, just as the reverse is the case; that when they are linked and one is carried, the rest are carried with it —though in this case there would be a slight logical difficulty in doing that.
I have nothing against the amendment. In fact, my noble friend indicated that he preferred this amendment to the one on which we voted. However, as a matter of procedure I am not sure that we can either vote on it or speak of coming back to it. Perhaps we could be advised on that.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Lockwood): My Lords, is the noble Lord withdrawing the amendment which has been moved and spoken to?
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, I should like to be clear whether it is in order that it be brought back at Third Reading. If it is in order, I shall certainly withdraw it. It may be that I am not in order in moving it. However, I am a novice in this House and, as the noble Lord, Lord Peston, indicated, it will be helpful if I can receive the guidance of those who understand the rules of procedure, which I do not claim to do.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I have attempted to obtain brief guidance from the House. The amendment can be moved if it concerns a different point from the other amendments in the group. As I understand it, my noble friend can also withdraw it and bring it back at Third Reading.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, I shall seek to do that. It is at present clear to me that it concerns a different point from that in the amendment on which we voted. On that I am confident. I shall withdraw it. That will give opportunity for those who have greater experience than I in the procedures of the House to advise me whether it is proper to bring it back at Third Reading. If so, that is what I shall do. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Cavendish of Furnessmoved Amendment No. 159:
Page 76, line 5, leave out ("seven") and insert ("nine").
The noble Lord Said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend perhaps I may say that I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 157. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 160 to 160B not moved.]
Clause 69 [Government and conduct of designated institutions]:
Lord Cavendish of Furnessmoved Amendment No. 161:
Page 54, line 18, at end insert ("but does not include any institution established by Royal Charter").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 161 seeks to remedy an anomaly which has come to light in respect of the Secretary of State's existing powers and the proposed powers of the Privy Council under Clause 69 to modify the instruments and articles of institutions designated for funding by a higher education funding council.
A number of such institutions were established by Royal Charter and already come within the Privy Council's jurisdiction under the Crown's prerogative powers. Thus, both the existing and the proposed legislation make those institutions subject to parallel jurisdiction under both prerogative powers and statute. It is an anomaly which needs to be remedied, and the amendment seeks to achieve this by removing institutions established by Royal Charter from the scope of Sections 129A and 129B. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 71 [Variation of trust deeds]:
Lord Cavendish of Furnessmoved Amendment No. 162:
Page 56, line 2, leave out ("institution within the higher education sector") and insert ("such institution as is mentioned in subsection (1A) below").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I explained in Committee in response to the amendment of my noble friend Lord Renfrew that the Government were looking again at the scope of Clause 71. My noble friend explained clearly that as presently drafted Clause 71 would provide the Privy Council with a new power to modify the charter and statutes of universities. This was unintended, and the amendment the Government are now tabling confines the power of the Privy Council to modify trust deeds or other instruments only in respect of higher education corporations, or designated institutions other than designated institutions established by Royal Charter. In other words, no university is affected by this provision. I beg to move.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, after so many contentious words this evening it is a pleasure to be able to say that I am advised that the amendment completely meets the difficulties which were raised. I thank my noble friend the Minister for so completely meeting the difficulties in so satisfactory a manner.
Lord Adrian: My Lords, I spoke to the original amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew. I also thank the Minister for a very satisfactory outcome.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Cavendish of Furnessmoved Amendment No. 163:
Page 56, line 5, at end insert:
("(1A) The institutions referred to in subsection (1) above are—
694

(a) any institution conducted by a higher education corporation; and

(b) any institution in relation to which a designation made or having effect as if made under section 129 of this Act has effect, other than an institution established by Royal Charter.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 72 [Power to award degrees, etc.]:
Lord Daintonmoved Amendment No.163A:
Page 56, line 14, after ("may") insert ("after consultation with the committee established under subsection (7) below").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we now move to the question of the designation of institutions as being competent to award degrees, diplomas and certificates. As the Bill now stands, the Secretary of State would be able to designate an institution as fit or unfit to make such awards. This is obviously a very important matter. I need not dwell on its importance. It is particularly important to institutions seeking designation, to potential students and to the public at large who will seek reassurance as to the fitness of any institution to make awards which seem to them to have any value.
There are two mechanisms by which that can be done. The Secretary of State cannot do it himself without advice. There are two ways in which that advice can be offered to him. One is by the device of having a committee set up for each institution; the other is having a committee which can compare and maintain the same standards and ensure that those same standards are applied to different institutions which are under consideration.
It is for that reason that we want a subsection added requiring that the Secretary of State shall establish a committee with the duty of advising him on the exercise of his functions in this designation process and that those persons shall be members who represent the interests of the funding councils and those of the institutions for whom they provide support.
It will be a thoroughly competent committee. The question arises as to whether it should be a standing committee which exists to apply consistent standards throughout to different institutions or whether it should be an ad hoc committee. I have no doubt about the matter. As we know, we lag behind the Scots in almost all matters educational and the Secretary of State for Scotland has already written to the vice-chancellors and principals of the Scottish universities stating that it is his decision, following representations made to him, that the committee should be a standing committee in Scotland.
That is a recommendation. The most important aspect is that there is a proper mechanism, whether it is standing or ad hoc, but preferably standing, to advise the Secretary of State on the application of consistent standards in the selection of institutions which shall be designated as worthy to grant degrees, awards or certificates. I beg to move.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: My Lords, I am advised that this amendment as it stands would apply to institutions already accredited by the Council for

695
National Academic Awards. In other words, it would apply to the polytechnics as they now stand and in which case I strongly resist the amendment.
The Council for National Academic Awards was established by Royal Charter. It has conducted its business impeccably in the past few years in accrediting institutions which in all but the name have been awarding their own degrees. It has accredited them either for research degrees or for undergraduate degrees. To force those institutions to be subject to very long delays to be examined by a new committee before they could become degree awarding institutions would be extremely unfortunate. I am not sure whether the noble Lord intended the amendment to have that result, but I am advised that, in effect, it would do just that.
Lord Dainton: My Lords, I thought that the Council for National Academic Awards was to go out of existence within a fixed period of time. Is it then the suggestion that there will be other institutions thereafter which will seek to be designated to have the power to grant degrees and certificates?
Baroness Perry of Southwark: My Lords, perhaps I may have the leave of the House to reply and to speak a second time. The point I was making is that this amendment as it stands would apply to those institutions already accredited by the Council for National Academic Awards. In other words, it would apply to all the polytechnics. Although I agree with the noble Lord that for the future it will be important to have some mechanism—whether a committee or otherwise—which would deal with new institutions, I would consider it extremely unfortunate, and so would all my colleagues and the many hundreds of thousands of students in our institutions, if there were to be a delay in the process of the polytechnics becoming degree awarding by having to go through a new process of accreditation as proposed in the amendment.
Lord Flowers: My Lords, since I supported my noble friend Lord Dainton, in this amendment may I say that it is not our intention that it should have the effect described by the noble Baroness. If the exact words do have that effect then of course they must be changed at Third Reading, and we shall do that.
My noble friend has explained the purpose of these amendments. Clause 72 as it stands allows the Secretary of State in person, advised only by civil servants or by a "kitchen cabinet", to empower institutions to make academic awards. No doubt in practice he would appoint an ad hoc committee to consider each case on its own merits. But that is not good enough. There should be a standing committee to consider every new proposal and as far as is humanly possible to require a minimum acceptable standard of achievement, or a promise, before the power to offer degrees is conferred. That is the intention of the amendment—to deal with new institutions coming into the degree and qualification-giving circle.
I also have some anxiety about the converse problem. I should be grateful if the Minister would
696
enlighten me. Does this clause as it stands imply that unless an institution has permission from the Secretary of State it cannot offer a particular qualification? If so, that would be a very serious barrier against academic innovation. I shall give two examples. First, some years ago when I was rector of Imperial College we were asked by the Health and Safety Executive to set up short courses for its new graduate recruits. If I remember correctly, the teaching was to be shared between us, the costs to be borne by the executive, and the certificate to be awarded by the college to each student who performed satisfactorily.
Secondly, at Manchester, we introduced a diploma in advanced studies and science in response to the perceived need for intending PhD students to undergo formal courses of instruction during their first year of research. It was a most successful innovation and continued for many years, possibly even until today. I wholly fail to understand why the Secretary of State's permission should be sought in such cases and I hope that the Minister will be able to tell me that Clause 72 would not require that.
11.45 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, perhaps I may say a few words in favour of both the clause and the amendment. I read the clause to mean that the Secretary of State will have power to announce that an institution is now a degree-awarding institution. I do not believe that the problem suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, can possibly arise. The clause provides that, where institutions do not have the power to award degrees, the Secretary of State will be able to designate some of them to be able to do so. I do not see a problem there.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, that, where institutions will be doing so for the first time, it would be much better if the Secretary of State had a committee to advise him rather than, as it were, purely doing it in-house at the DES. However, the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, made a valid point when she said that the polytechnics can in a sense claim that the Secretary of State has had a committee —namely, the CNAA—which has said that to all intents and purposes these are already near to and from now on should become degree-awarding institutions. She made the point that if the polytechnics had to wait for the new committee they might be delayed for a year. I cannot believe that that is remotely what the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, has in mind.
However, that is a minor matter of drafting. Essentially, the clause is about new institutions and the amendment is about advising the Secretary of State on new institutions. If there is confusion in regard to the polytechnics it is purely a matter of drafting. I see no major difficulty with the clause as suitably amended by the amendment.
Lord Dainton: My Lords, it is certainly not my intention in moving the amendment to interfere with satisfactory existing procedures, but the time will come when those procedures are no longer available. Therefore it should not be beyond the wit of man to

697
draft an amendment, if that is the general wish, to provide for the future when there is no CNAA. I would withdraw the amendment if an assurance were given that the necessary procedure would be provided for.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, before discussing the meat of the amendment, perhaps I may confirm that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, is right. The Secretary of State's power is to confer on institutions the power to confer a range of awards as set out in the clause. He cannot stipulate one type of qualification and not another.
Following consultation with higher education institutions, the Government announced on 16th December the criteria against which institutions would be considered for degree-awarding powers, both for taught courses and for research. Those reflect the recommendations in the consultation paper, which were widely welcomed.
In general terms, these are that, for taught-course degrees, an institution needs to be a self-critical, cohesive academic community with a proven commitment to quality assurance supported by effective assurance and enhancement systems. An institution which would qualify to award its own research degrees would need to demonstrate that its arrangements were broadly comparable with those in universities.
The Government's announcement also explained how the Secretary of State would receive advice on whether institutions met the criteria. In line with proposals in the consultation paper, the Secretary of State will look to the CNAA to advise on whether institutions validated by it meet the criteria, up to the CNAA's formal dissolution. In parallel, ad hoc committees will be appointed to provide advice on institutions validated by universities. That approach was also generally welcomed.
The consultation paper had proposed that, if the ad hoc committee approach worked in the short term, it could be retained in the longer term. However, a number of different views were expressed in the responses, and the Secretary of State announced that he wished to consider these longer-term arrangements further with a view to reaching a decision in the spring. The three options are: first, retaining the ad hoc committees; secondly, asking the funding councils to advise; or, thirdly, seeking the advice of the Quality Audit Unit. There are good arguments for each, or for a combination of two or more. But, so far as concerns the principle underlying the amendment, all three will enable an appropriate range of interests to be brought together for the purposes of providing the advice. I can assure your Lordships that an institutional voice will be essential.
The Government see no value in setting down in legislation a structure for advising the Secretary of State on the issue. It is, after all, a new function. It would be far better to wait to see how the ad hoc committees perform and then reach a view. That would also leave open the opportunity for the structure to change over time. In the light of those
698
comments, I hope that I have been able to reassure noble Lords and that they will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Before I sit down, I can say that the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals has proposed to the Secretary of State that the Privy Council should have a role in conferring degree awarding power. The Secretary of State is very sympathetic to that proposal and envisages that he will be bringing forward an appropriate government amendment for discussion on Third Reading.
Lord Dainton: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps he can answer a simple question. Is the intention behind what he proposed, by whatever means it is achieved, to ensure that there are constant criteria which we can all accept, which have to be met by an institution and which will be consistently applied, even though he referred to the fact that there must be ad hoc committees up to the point at which, for example, the CNAA disappears? At that time, will there be every intention of ensuring some continuity and consistency in the application of the criteria?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: Yes, my Lords; I think that I can broadly agree with that. Under this method we have the chance to see how the ad hoc committees perform.
Lord Dainton: My Lords, in those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 163B not moved.]
Clause 73 [Use of "university" in title of institution]:
Lord Belsteadmoved Amendment No. 164:
Page 57, line 10, leave out ("by, or on the direction of or").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 165, 166 and 180. In the light of the debate at Committee stage on an amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, the Government have looked again at the provisions in the Bill concerning university titles. We have concluded that it is not necessary for the Privy Council to have the power to impose such a title upon an institution. As set out in guidance already sent to institutions, the Privy Council's role would be restricted to giving its consent to an application from an institution for a new title. The amendments will put beyond doubt the Privy Council's role in this area. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, for raising the matter in Committee. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Belsteadmoved Amendment No. 165:
Page 57, line 12, leave out ("by the Privy Council or, as the case may be, on the direction of or").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Russellmoved Amendment No. 165A:
Page 57, line 16, at end insert:
("( ) No institution shall be called a university unless its academic staff are obliged by their contracts to engage in research, and given sufficient time and facilities to enable them to discharge that obligation.").

699
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 165B, 165C and 165D. The amendment before the House marks the breakdown of 800 years of partnership between the universities and the state. I hope that it is not an irretrievable breakdown. However, I must admit that I have my doubts on that point. For the whole of the history of universities in England there has, first, been no control on the Crown's power to designate a university.
Secondly, the Crown has taken the opinion of the academic community in deciding whether to designate any particular institution as a university. At no stage in the history of universities in this country has the Crown ever attempted to impose upon the universities its own definition of what is a university. That is now changing. In the concept of the non-research university, which this amendment addresses and seeks to render impossible, the Crown is not merely attempting to impose its own definition of what is a university; it is attempting to impose a definition which appears to many universities to be a contradiction in terms and frequently contradicts the charters and statutes of the universities concerned. It is a deliberate devaluation of the title of university, a little like what Members of the House some 350 years ago protested indignantly against under the title of the inflation of honours.
Let the Crown do what it will to institutions: it has sovereign power behind it in this House; but let it not call those institutions universities. It is a Humpty-Dumpty Bill. It changes the meaning of words.
In passing, I express my agreement with the point about benefactors made by the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew. I can, as it happens, illustrate that point personally. It so happens, with my children growing up, that I was in the process of remaking my will. I was about to bequeath a number of 17th century books which I possess to a college of which I was once a member, but I am not prepared to bequeath any such books to a place which might become a non-research university for it would have no use for them. I may well end up bequeathing those books outside this country.
Where we have non-research universities, I think we shall have a massive exodus of staff, for it is, after all, for many of us one of the main reasons for which we entered the profession. We shall have a considerable loss of students. After all, they tend to prefer teaching which is news to teaching which is not. It is a common and indeed human preference. They will also find that it will be a great deal less interesting.
We talk from time to time about rote learning, and in many fields, including my own, I do not know what value it has. But there is also such a thing as rote teaching. If one is not doing any work of one's own, one is not being forced by new evidence to change one's mind, not being pushed constantly into a state of uncertainty, and so there is a risk of falling into rote teaching. Here we reach a point where we must question whether the Secretary of State, who is, as we have heard before, accountable for public money, is receiving value for money.
700
It must be presumed that there is some value in all the education that is being provided. In some fields —I cannot speak for fields other than my own with any confidence—it may be valuable merely to learn the information; but I cannot believe, for example, that it is of any value to the country for people to learn by rote the reasons why the Parliament of 1614 was dissolved, especially as they would be learning by rote only one person's interpretation of that event rather than another's.
The value of most degrees in the humanities must rest upon the acquisition of critical skills, the ability to weigh arguments against one another and the ability to read conflicting books, and when those things are gone, I do not see what there is of value that is being done. When we reach the point of rote learning and rote teaching, the Secretary of State is spending his money for nothing. At that point a number of our institutions of higher education might as well be closed. It is not as far off as some of your Lordships think.
On Amendment No. 165B I will answer a point which was made by the noble Lords, Lord Renfrew and Lord Peston, in Committee. That amendment directs that a body should not be described as a university unless it has sufficient library and laboratory resources. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, said that it was a mistake to consider the definition of a university in terms of costs. If its costs were not adequately met, it was merely a poorly resourced university. Up to a point, that is true. We are here dealing with the familiar point of whether a difference of degree, when it is large enough, may become a difference of kind. If I experience first a pinprick, then a knife stab, we could say that the difference was only one of degree, but it is big enough to constitute also a difference of kind.
In the debate on the humble Address, I used the analogy of a bicycle without wheels. I do not believe a bicycle without wheels is actually a bicycle; it is a bicycle frame. By analogy, I argue that we are in danger of reaching the point where what we have is not a university; it is a university frame.
There are two points which we cannot sacrifice. One is that there should be a meeting of minds in teaching; the other is that there should be a library in which critical scrutiny of books is possible. Both are severely under threat and in one place at least, which I shall not name, they have disappeared to the point where I believe that the place concerned ought to lose its university status.
Amendment No. 165D provides that:
"No institution shall be called a university without the consent of the Royal Society and the British Academy".
I do not know whether this amendment has found the right way of addressing the problem; probably not. But we can no longer leave to the Crown, represented by the Secretary of State, unfettered discretion over what constitutes a university. The consent of the academic community, which used to be taken for granted, now needs institutional protection. I beg to move.
12 midnight
Lord Annan: My Lords, I see that this is the latest effort by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, to force the Government to increase the funding to universities. I remember that during Committee stage he said that the B.A. degree began to decline in 1985 and that he had been forced to reduce the number of essays that he set his pupils for lack of funds, lack of library books. He warned—
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I did not say I had been forced to reduce the number of essays. I said that there was acute pressure to do so and many people had been forced to do it.
Lord Annan: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Earl. I think he said that if one reduces unit costs, then one reduces the amount of work done. I thought that at that time he was in favour of quality committees as a way of forcing the Government to produce more funds for universities. However, today he moved an amendment against that.
I wish to say to the noble Earl in all sincerity that I do not believe that anyone who has listened to him during the long debate which went on before this Bill has any doubt about his devotion to his subject and to research. He is a master of the history of the Civil War, of the English Revolution, its causes and consequences. That is not an easy field to be a master in. Some of the best minds among British historians have been working in that field for the past 40 years.
I do not think anyone could possibly doubt the devotion which the noble Earl shows to his pupils and his understanding of their difficulties today. However, I hope he will forgive me if I say that he does not seem to me to understand what it is the Government are up against and are trying to do today. As I understand it, the Government are trying to increase the number of people from the age of 16 upwards who can acquire some kind of higher or further education. This will cost a large sum of money. I remember saying three, four or five years ago that the universities had to recognise they were no longer the first priority in funding, and that funding would probably go first to the polytechnics and then to other sectors to train our young workforce. Somehow the money must be found to provide that training and that is why universities have been so squeezed in recent years.
I ask myself sometimes when I listen to the noble Earl what date he would wish to return to as regards funding. Is it 1985? No, it is probably not 1985. Perhaps he wants to return to the funding position in 1979, or 1973 before the oil crisis. Perhaps he would prefer to return to 1968 when money was pouring in to the trough and the dons were swilling it with both feet in the trough. That was the post-Robbins expansion when the money was really flowing. Whatever date the noble Earl chooses, he will find if he consults Hansard of this House that university vice-chancellors and professors in every subject were saying that the funds were totally inadequate for the purposes of the universities, that the brain drain was intolerable and so on and so forth. This happened
702
over the years. These complaints are always made. I do not deny that universities are squeezed today, but I believe that in one sense they have sometimes brought this on themselves by crying wolf far too often many years ago.
I put it to the noble Earl that he makes these complaints but I never hear him suggest how he might alleviate the situation. I know this is a small point but lectures can be put on video. That saves the time of the lecturer. He must, of course, record his lecture and he would have the hour he would otherwise have spent in expounding the lecture to take a class to expound difficult points in the lecture or to answer questions put to him by his pupils.
Then again another way in which one can improve the situation, in the humanities at any rate, is by decreasing the number of options. In the 1930s the options in a history degree were comparatively few. There were options, of course, but once one allows the multiplication of options, one faces difficulties in providing books and in providing the teachers for those options. It is possible for the noble Earl to say that he stands by the Von Humboldt principles of Lehrfreiheit and Lehrnfreiheit; that is to say, the teacher is free to teach whatever he wants and the pupil is free to go to whatever professor he likes.
However, if one does that, one will not be able to have single subject degrees, carefully structured in the way they often are in universities. One will approach something like the American system of undergraduate education where one takes courses, often one may think at random. Whether that provides as good an education as the British system is open to question. However, one has to choose. I do not think the American system is at all economical in the way of using teacher resources. The noble Earl may ask about library books and say nothing I have suggested helps libraries on which many humanities subjects depend. Here one has to do some in-fighting in one's own university and try to persuade people to work with one to influence the resource or planning committee, or whichever committee carves up the cake, however small the cake may be. Often one has to say, "Vice-Chancellor (or Principal), we cannot go on as we are. We must cut down the number of subjects, departments and faculties in our university".
Already, I understand, in the noble Earl's college there is a proposal that the department of mechanical engineering should come to an end. That is a step very much in the right direction. When I read that I wondered whether all engineering departments in King's College might be closed down and the students distributed among Imperial College, University College and Queen Mary and Westfield College, which are bigger engineering schools. If one could do that over a short period of time one would release funds. The noble Earl must not take me up on that point. I do not in any way suggest that I know what should be done in his institution. Of course I do not. I merely suggest that one of the options the universities have been slow to take up is cutting down the commitments which they took on in much more generous and affluent days.
Lord Addington: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way? I hope that he is not suggesting for one second that we are prescribing matters to such an extent that one would know exactly what work one would do before one started a given course. If we restrict the number of options we could ultimately restrict them to such an extent that one would know exactly which essays one would write before embarking on a course.
Lord Annan: My Lords, I do not think that that is so at all. Students will very soon begin to realise that the correct answer is not the one which apparently is the standard one which comes out in the lecture course. Of course not. How does one judge whether students have initiative? One judges them by the kind of dissent which they show from the established view.
One cannot dictate to the Government on the subject of resources. How can one say, as the amendment says, that academic staff should be given,
"sufficient time and facilities to enable them to discharge that obligation".
What the devil are sufficient time and facilities? Again, another amendment states:
"No institution shall be called a university unless its library and laboratory facilities are sufficient for its purposes".
That is an open-ended commitment. No government could possibly accept such a commitment.
Finally, I notice the noble Earl's plea that:
"No institution shall be called a university without the consent of the Royal Society and the British Academy".
I admire the Royal Society more than words can say. The noble Lords, Lord Flowers and Lord Adrian, may correct me if I am wrong, but it was only a comparatively short time ago that it was very rare indeed for any professor or scholar in engineering to be a Fellow of that society. The Royal Society has changed, but if that provision had been in operation in the 1960s, or the 1950s, I wonder what the result would have been. The British Academy is the same. Although the revolution in the teaching of English took place in the 1930s and literary criticism became the main way in which faculties and departments of English taught the subject, only one professor—Professor Frank Kermode—was elected a Fellow of the British Academy until very recently indeed. Under the influence of the good leadership of the present president the situation is now changing. One cannot rely even on those eminent bodies to be the only judge of whether a university is a university.
Finally, on the question of universities, perhaps due to my mother's American blood, I have always been somewhat sceptical of the idea that a university is a sacrosanct body. In America all bodies of that kind are called colleges. You go to college. Of course some, like the universities of Harvard or Berkeley, California, are great campuses of international fame, probably the best universities in the world, but some of the colleges calling themselves universities belong to what in America is called academic Siberia. They are not distinguished places but they perform some function, and nobody is under any illusion as to what the standards in the different places are.
12.15 a.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am sorry to intervene again, but the noble Lord says they perform some function. Could he be more precise about what that function is?
Lord Annan: Yes, my Lords. For instance, some of the campuses in the State University of California are community colleges. Of course they are not at all of the kind of standard to which the noble Earl is used in his institution but I see no reason why they should not be part of the State University of California. It seems to me that here you allow public opinion to judge, and public opinion is very rarely wrong about the differences between different institutions. So I cannot bring myself to vote for this amendment.
Lord Belstead: I always enjoy listening to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and listening to the debates on his amendments, but I had rather a sinking heart when I looked through the Marshalled List and saw this particular group of amendments. I wondered what the merit could be in attaching to the power to award the university title a series of amendments which indulge in nothing more nor less than special pleading for more funding for the university sector.
The spin-off has been that we have been treated to a splendid speech from the noble Lord, Lord Annan, which has been refreshing. I think the strictures which he has delivered have been delivered in a kindly and generous way, but they have gone home.
The fact of the matter is that these amendments will not do. I will content myself with but one example of why I think that. The first of the amendments would require that all academic staff in an institution should be obliged and enabled to engage in research before an institution could adopt a university title. It would require research to be taking place in every single area of an institution's activity and to be carried out by all the academic staff employed in those areas. With very great respect to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that is not reasonable and it is divorced from reality. Although it has been quite fun listening to the remarks about these amendments, if I may say so, I do not think that they are worth the paper they are written on.
Earl Russell: The Minister says that an obligation for all university staff to be engaged in research is divorced from reality. It happens to be the present position, which I had supposed to be some form of reality. It is working at present. You would not guess from listening to the Minister that I am defending the status quo and the Minister is defending a very far-reaching change.
I listened with enjoyment to the noble Lord, Lord Annan. I felt a little like Joe Chamberlain in his Liberal Unionist incarnation. Your Lordships are well aware of the long-standing rivalry between King's and University Colleges. I recently transferred from University College to King's College. I think there was a little institutional competition going on behind the noble Lord's speech.
I shall take up one or two points that he raised. I repeat once again my position on the quality

705
assessment committee. I was prepared to accept it if it were an umpire that could give both sides out. I failed to achieve that in Committee. I am not prepared to accept it as an umpire which can give only one side out.
I know all the points about improvement that the noble Lord makes. I know all about infighting on library resources. I spent most of last term doing it. I do not come to this House and ask for a special directive from the Secretary of State when I wish to do that. That is why the noble Lord has not heard me doing it all that often. He has not been in the right place.
I entirely accept his point that one cannot dictate to the Government on resources. Equally, the Government cannot dictate to universities or other bodies with which they deal how much those resources will buy. To be the purchaser and also able to control the seller's price is a central feature of a command economy and it is the command economy tendency of the Government's working in this area which is doing so much harm.
I take the point that the noble Lord made: that people have said before that funding was inadequate. It was true. But we again have the argument that a difference of degree may become a difference of kind. Up to this term it has been axiomatic among my colleagues with whom I have discussed the matter that, whatever happened to universities, closure was the worst option. This term I no longer find people taking that for granted. Since last November I have participated in some 20 or 30 discussions with academic colleagues as to the point at which closure becomes preferable to continued survival on present terms. I am not sure how far off that point is, but there is an increasingly general agreement that such a point exists.
However, the central point which the noble Lord, Lord Annan, made and which deserves a serious answer was about the commitment to taking an increasing number of people into higher education. That is an all-party commitment. My own party is as committed to it as anyone else. But what we have to be sure about, and I do not believe that at present we can be sure, is that what they are taken into is higher education.
I am reminded of Aristotle's story of Apelles the painter, who was taken hostage. Pressure was put on his captors to release him, which ultimately they did. But before they did so, they cut off his right hand. It was ruled that they had returned Apelles but not Apelles the painter. Therefore a punitive expedition was organised against them and they were put to death.
It is in that spirit that I ask whether, when we provide higher education to people, it is genuinely higher education. If it is not, I have a real doubt whether it is worth while. I have heard the argument that higher education must change for the sake of expansion. Up to a point I can see the force of that argument. But there is a point beyond which it
706
becomes dangerously close to saying that because higher education is so good, therefore nobody shall have it.
I appreciate that I do not have the support of some quarters of the House. However, I am reminded of the story of Robert Cecil, who was hunchbacked. Queen Elizabeth used to describe him as "my pygmy". He once said to somebody who was a known leaker of information, "Which name I mislike not, only for that it is Her Majesty that gives it". It is in that spirit that I say that there are certain matters to which I can consent only because I consent to the majority principle. It is a principle that one cannot invoke too often. This is the third time that I have invoked it since I have been in this House. I hope not to do so again for some time. I must ask the opinion of the House.
12.25 a.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 165A) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 6; Not-Contents, 42.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Rochester, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Russell, E. [Teller.]

Mackie of Benshie, L. [Teller.]

Tordoff, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Adrian, L.

Hooper, B.

Annan, L.

Howe, E.

Arran, E.

Long, V.

Astor of Hever, L.

Lyell, L.

Belstead, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Blatch, B.

Marlesford, L.

Blyth, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Carnock, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Reay, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Dainton, L.

Seccombe, B.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Stockton, E.

Ferrers, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Flowers, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

[Teller.]

Guildford, Bp.

Trumpington, B.

Henley, L.

Ullswater, V.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Waddington, L.

Holderness, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
12.33 a.m.
[Amendments Nos. 165B to 165D not moved.]
Lord Belsteadmoved Amendment No. 166:
Page 57, line 24, leave out ("change, or direct or").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Pestonmoved Amendment No. 167:
Page 57, line 27, leave out ("whose name includes the word "university") and insert ("which is entitled to include the word "university" in its name").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 168. This is the high point of the evening. I do not wish to become involved in a deep philosophical debate on what is a university. I assume, for the purposes of the

707
Bill, that Clause 72, which deals with degree-awarding powers, is central. There are also the degree-awarding powers of the institutions which have charters.
Representatives of the polytechnics have drawn to my attention—it is the reason for tabling the amendment—that Clause 73 deals with the use of "university" in a title. What has been put to me, and therefore I put it to the Minister, is that Clause 73 concerns bodies that apply for, and no doubt receive, a title. The question is, if one receives the title, does one receive anything else?
I took it for granted that, unlike your Lordships when we come here—and I forget the full definition of what we are given—if one receives the title one does not receive anything else. What matters is the degree-awarding power in Clause 72 which is not contingent on the title. However, there is a slight complication to which I shall draw your Lordships' attention. It concerns the last part of Clause 73, which says:
"Any educational institution whose name includes the word 'university' by virtue of the exercise of any power as extended by subsection (1) above is to be treated as a university for all purposes".
I hope in a sense that that last part is as vacuous as all the rights and privileges that we receive when we come here, because none of us has ever found out quite what they are; in other words, that it does not mean anything. The reason I say that is that if it means something,
"to be treated as a university for all purposes",
if one has the title "university", what happens to those institutions who choose—I am not saying any will though I have advised one or two to do so—not to use "university" in their title? Will they not then be treated as a university for all purposes? More to the point, will that in some sense detract from the powers to award degrees in Clause 72?
I tabled the amendment in the hope that I would be told that,
"to be treated as a university for all purposes",
is a meaningless expression; what matters is the power to award degrees, but that that will bear no connection whatever to whether anybody applies for a title and that nothing will depend on whether anybody applies for the title "university". I hope that will be the answer. If not, my amendment will turn out to be a good deal more serious than I at first thought. I am seeking elucidation, but I have also outlined what I hope will be the answer to my question.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I hope that I can satisfy the noble Lord for the reasons I shall give, though I cannot accept the amendment.
Subsection (4) ensures that all institutions which include the word "university" in their title cannot be challenged by the argument that, whatever their name, they are not in law universities. But that is all it does.
Amendment No. 167 would re-introduce confusion into this area by providing that an institution which met the criteria to adopt a university title but which for some reason chose not to do so should nonetheless fall within the scope of subsection (4). Every time such an institution asserted that it should be treated as a university it would be necessary to establish afresh whether it satisfied the criteria applied by the Privy
708
Council in permitting an institution to call itself a university. I do not think that would simplify subsection (4); it would render it meaningless.
However, there is a third and I hope more encouraging point I wish to make. An institution which meets the university title criteria but which chooses to retain its present title will be perfectly at liberty to describe itself in those terms. It will need to consider, among other things, whether the marketing advantages of a "university" title outweigh those of its present title. But it can do so firm in the knowledge that all institutions funded by the new higher education funding councils will be treated in the same way, funded by a common funding methodology and assessed by a common quality assessment unit. It will make no difference for those purposes whether an institution is called a university.
I hope that the assurance I have just given is the one which the noble Lord seeks.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. I take it in particular that under his assurance he means Clause 72. For example, if a body such as the South London Polytechnic still called itself the South London Polytechnic, it would still be judged as an appropriate degree-awarding body. That is the point I have in mind, and there is no doubt about that.
My second question is that in the assurance the Minister gave, I want the further assurance that that is true by statute and not by action on the part of the Secretary of State. In other words, not calling oneself a university still gives one everything one wants under Clause 72 and all the funding as the Bill is written. I did not for one moment think that my amendment was one that should be included in the Bill. What I wanted was a correct interpretation of the Bill for institutions which might decide not to call themselves universities. In other words, am I right in saying that there is no problem? I do not want to prolong the matter.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the noble Lord is right. Whether or not an institution which meets the criteria for a university title chooses to adopt such a title will not affect that institution's power to award its own taught course and research degrees.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 168 not moved.]
The Lord Bishop of Guildfordmoved Amendment No. 169:
After Clause 73, insert the following new clause: ("University colleges
.—(1) Where an educational institution or a body corporate carrying on such an institution—

(a) is within the higher education sector, and

(b) has power by virtue of any enactment or instrument to change its name, and either

(c) satisfies the Secretary of State that it has for a period of not less than five years been conducting courses of study or programmes of research leading to the award of a degree or degrees by any university existing at the date this Act comes into force or the Council for National Academic Awards or an institution which is authorised to include the word "university" in its title

709
by virtue of section 73 of this Act and that it is currently conducting courses of study or programmes of research leading to the award of a degree or degrees by an institution which is authorised to include the word "university" in its title whether by virtue of section 73 of this Act or otherwise, or

(d) is specified in an order made by the Secretary of State under subsection (1) of section 72 of this Act as competent to grant degrees

Then the institution or body corporate carrying on the institution may use the expression "university college" in is name
(2) If it appears to the Secretary of State that any institution or body corporate carrying on an institution using the expression "university college" in its name has ceased to conduct courses of study or programmes of research leading to the award of a degree or degrees by an institution which is authorised to include the word "university" in its title or (as the case may be) is no longer specified in an order made under subsection (1) of section 72 of this Act as competent to grant degrees then he may issue a direction forbidding the institution or body carrying on the institution from using the expression "university college" in its name.").
The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I bring your Lordships back to the title of "university college". I speak particularly for those smaller academic institutions which perhaps do not have as many friends and spokesmen in this House as some of the larger institutions. Sometimes, when I look around the House, particularly at this hour of the night, I wonder whether everybody present is the head of an academic institution, if not a vice-chancellor.
I believe that your Lordships will know the concern. Whereas this Bill is welcomed in general terms because it removes the binary line between the universities and the polytechnics, there is concern among the smaller academic institutions that it is merely transferring the binary line and drawing it under the polytechnics with consequent disadvantages for the smaller institutions. There are many colleges with fewer than 4,000 students whose degrees are validated by universities or the CNAA. Therefore, they are doing work comparable to that of universities.
If they cannot use the title "university college" the anxiety is that they will be perceived to be sub-standard higher education institutions. That could make it more difficult for them to attract students and so disadvantage them. In November the Prime Minister told the annual conference of the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council:
"This Government is about extending the power to choose. We want to see all forms of higher education have the same status and esteem. We want higher education institutions competing for students on equal terms. We do not want choice influenced by some imaginary or historic status. Rather choice should be based solely on the calibre of the staff, the quality of the institution, the attractions and relevance of the courses; the strength of the institution's record".
In the light of that, with which I wholly agree, we look for more flexibility in the use of the title "university college." I have previously pointed out that a number of existing universities started out on life calling themselves university colleges long before they had 4,000 students. It is an avenue which has served us well in the past. I hope that we are not going to close it now
710
Perhaps I may convey to your Lordships an anxiety which has arisen in connection with recent circulars from the Department of Education. One circular, issued on 16th December, indicates that in the light of the plans for a new framework the Minister does not expect to approve further plans for polytechnic status. That has caused some dismay because some colleges seeking accreditation had already arranged for visits from the CNAA. Those visits are now in question. It appears also from the circular that Ministers are saying that any future applications along these lines will have to include facilities for research degrees. It appears as though someone has seen the horses approaching and not only closed the gate, but added another bar on top. That is causing considerable dismay. Will the Minister agree that in fairness and justice it will be better for the present PCFC criteria to continue until the provisions of the new Bill are in place?
I refer more particularly to the discussions I had with the Minister about this matter when he was kind enough to meet me. We discussed my representations to him, which were particularly the anxieties of the Church colleges. However, I want to underline that I am speaking not just for the Church colleges but for other colleges which have the same anxieties. After our meeting the Minister wrote to me saying:
"I have taken this up with my ministerial colleagues in the DES, but I am sorry that I am not yet able to give you an answer".
I had expected to hear something further. Therefore, I was rather dismayed to discover that a circular was issued only last week on this very matter about which I had not been informed—I had picked it up quite by accident—in which it appears that the department has said that the title "university college" is to be used only where a college is a constituent part of a university.
I am sure that the Minister will understand if I say that I am somewhat dismayed that in the middle of conversations with him, and where from his own letter I had expected to hear further, I then discover that a public circular has been issued. I find that very difficult for parliamentary debate. I recognise that the Minister has many responsibilities and I am not in any way implying a personal criticism of him, but I am sure he will understand my sense of dismay over the matter.
In order to help your Lordships, and in particular the Minister, I cite an example of a way in which flexibility can operate without the need for rather rigid rules. The Minister may be aware that the College of Ripon and York St. John, by agreement with the University of Leeds, calls itself the "university college" of Ripon and York. The degrees awarded are those of the university. Students are students of the university and for all academic purposes the college is subject to council and senate regulations. But the college maintains its Christian foundation. It has its own governing body, it appoints its own staff and admits its own students. Therefore, I find it very difficult to know whether that actually fulfils the definition as to whether or not it is a constituent part of the university. That model indicates that there would be much to be gained by having a greater flexibility and openness in the use of this type of university college.

711
I recognise that my amendment may not be the most appropriate way forward, but it is a way in which we could make progress and at least open up the possibility of a much more flexible approach on this issue. It is in that hope that I beg to move.
Baroness David: My Lords, at Committee stage I had my name to a similar amendment moved by the right reverend Prelate. It is only my own slowness that accounts for my name not being on the Marshalled List now.
I repeat my support. The right reverend Prelate has already said everything there is to be said, but I should like to underline that these colleges will be accountable to higher education funding councils in exactly the same way as universities and they will be subject to the same performance indicators and quality assessment procedures. It seems wrong that students in the sector who do not attend universities should be accorded less recognition and status than their contemporaries in the other higher education institutions.
I heard about the circular only today. It is extraordinary that this should have been going on while conversations were still continuing and in the light of what the Minister said at the end of his reply to the right reverend Prelate in Committee. It sounded then as if this matter was still under serious consideration. I hope that we shall have a little clarification, particularly about the college at Ripon. Other colleges are closely linked with universities. Edge Hill is closely linked with Lancaster. It would be nice to have clarification and an explanation.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I support the amendment. We need some definition here. Unless the matter is cleared up and the status of these small colleges is clarified, there is a slight danger of having a left-over of the binary divide.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the admiration of colleges of higher education which has rightly been voiced by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford is fully shared by the Government. Colleges, including the Church colleges, have been extremely successful in maintaining high academic standards and in increasing their student numbers. They have proved particularly successful at attracting those who do not have traditional academic backgrounds.
But the issue we have to address in this amendment is whether it is appropriate for all or some of such colleges to be able to adopt a "university college" title. I sought to explain in Committee that Clause 73 already empowered the Privy Council to approve titles which included the word "university" and that there was nothing in the Bill to rule out a change of title from college of higher education to university college. The issue was essentially an administrative one.
I indicated then that the Government would announce their view on the matter once the Secretary of State had had the opportunity to consider the arguments put forward, in particular by the Standing Conference of Principals, which represents the heads of colleges of further education. Therefore, the amendment moved by the right reverend Prelate in
712
Committee was under serious consideration, as were the arguments coming from the standing conference. The Minister with responsibility for higher education, Mr. Alan Howarth, has in the meantime met a number of college principals to hear their views at first hand. The Secretary of State then announced his decision by way of a Parliamentary Answer which included the text of a letter from the Department of Education and Science to all institutions. I most certainly owe the right reverend Prelate an apology. He should have received a letter from me, as should the noble Baroness, confirming that this decision had been taken. In fact I wrote over the weekend to the right reverend Prelate, but that does not put the matter right.
The Secretary of State's letter to all institutions included these words:
"The Secretary of State has considered the points made on this matter and has concluded that there should be no change in the current policy. Extending the availability of 'university college' to independent institutions which are not part of a university would cause confusion with established 'university colleges'. The Secretary of State believes nevertheless that Colleges of Higher Education which do not qualify for a university title will be able to maintain their successes over recent years".
My right honourable friend felt that to allow all colleges of higher education to refer to the word "university" in their title when they were not actually constituent parts of a university would make it difficult for a potential student to know whether any particular university college was part of a university or whether it was not.
Of course, there are already established university colleges at the universities of Kent, Durham, Lancaster, York and Wales. I should be interested to look more closely at the college of Ripon and York St. John, which was an example given by the right reverend Prelate. If I may, I should like to write him on that issue. I believe that the matters involved are complex and not entirely straightforward. My understanding is that the circumstances of that college are rare.
Perhaps I may emphasise and reaffirm that, in the Government's view, the standard of education in the colleges of higher education is no different from that in the universities and polytechnics. The issue here is simply that an institution's title should clarify the nature of that institution.
In conclusion, I should like to reply to a point made by the right reverend Prelate on the polytechnic designation issue. As regards polytechnic status, I am advised that it is important to remember that, while that will no longer be possible, the route to university status remains open. It is also the case that that requires an institution to have power to award research degrees as well as taught-course degrees. But the research criteria do not require colleges to overcome any hurdles which polytechnics have not already satisfied.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for responding so thoroughly and carefully to the points I raised. I am also most grateful for the fact that he is prepared to look further at the unusual model of the college to which I referred.

713
While looking at it, I hope that he will recognise that it indicates that there should be varieties of approach and not just an over-rigid one. I trust that he will be able to consider that point.
I find the Minister's reponse about the applications for polytechnic status slightly less reassuring. However, at this hour of the morning, I have no option but to thank the Minister and to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 77 [Directions]:
[Amendments Nos. 169A to 173 not moved.]
Clause 78 [Joint exercise of functions]:
Lord Daintonmoved Amendment No. 173A:

Page 58, line 33, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Clause 78, to which the amendment refers, brings us to Part III of the Bill, which relates to miscellaneous and general provisions. The first subsection of Clause 78 allows funding councils to co-operate where this is a perceived advantage. As such, it is not only innocuous but it is also in praise of virtue and against sin. I should imagine that, even without that phrase, the councils would be able to co-operate if they so wished. Therefore, I am not so sure that it adds anything. However, it certainly does not subtract anything.
Subsection (2) cannot be so nicely categorised. The amendment proposes its deletion from the Bill. It gives the Secretary of State, once again, power to direct councils jointly to appoint a single person to investigate the arrangements made by each higher education institution in Great Britain for maintaining academic standards. I was greatly surprised when I first read the subsection and, after some six weeks, I still remain so. It seems to me that the idea underlying it—that is, unless the Minister can give us some assurance—is that, left to themselves, higher education institutions would not strive for the highest academic standards possible within the limits set by the available resources.
I am bound to say that, after a lifetime spent within two large civic universities and in the service of Oxford and Cambridge, I have been made conscious of the strong motivation among academic staff who are striving for quality, which is simply that the better students, whom all university teachers want to recruit, are attracted to those institutions where, other things being equal, the academic reputation is highest. That is the purest example, I suppose, of academic market forces.
How to sustain and improve the good practice needed to achieve those high standards needed to attract students is another matter. Much has already been done in that direction through the well-established external examiner system and the learned and professional societies, which in a wide range of fields such as science, technology, medicine and veterinary studies, are bodies which are also empowered to grant a licence to practise and are therefore especially keen on high standards. Latterly,
714
universities have, in addition, co-operated to establish collective academic audit arrangements, which are working well.
In those circumstances—bearing in mind the duty of quality assessment to which Clause 66, which we have already debated, imposes upon all councils—to give to the Secretary of State the power to appoint, as the subsection prescribes, a single person to assess the arrangements made by each higher education establishment seems to me unnecessary and supererogatory to a degree which can be described only as absurd and counter-productive, unless I have totally misunderstood the intentions of the clause. It is counter-productive merely because it will make those who have to deliver that quality—no one except the teachers delivers it—feel once again that they are not trusted constantly to strive for the best. If that were not enough, there is not one single person living whom I know who is capable of performing the assessment for all the higher education institutions in Great Britain at anything except the most superficial level.
I feel that, ideally, one could do without Clause 78 altogether, but, if we have to have it—we have the encouragement of the councils to co-operate and, as I have said, the first subsection is at least in favour of virtue and against sin—the second is peculiar, and I look forward to hearing some explanation for it. I beg to move.
1 a.m.
Lord Flowers: My Lords, I support the amendment because Clause 78(2) utterly baffles me. I cannot for the life of me understand why a Secretary of State should desire the power to instruct funding councils jointly to appoint a single person to assess the arrangements made by institutions for maintaining academic standards.
The Bill sets up funding councils which have powers in the matter of academic standards, and rightly so, of course; it also obliges them to have quality assessment committees whose job it is to perform assessments of academic standards. What on earth is that single person to do that the quality assessment committees cannot do? The answer must be that that person is to do the job if the funding councils refuse to do it or have it done.
The Bill is riddled with a barely disguised, almost paranoiac, lack of trust in the bodies that it proposes to create. Why should the Secretary of State be willing to trust his specially appointed inspector when he cannot accept the judgment of his funding councils and of their quality assessment committees? Should he not appoint a succession of inspectors each inspecting the work of the previous one? The whole concept is absurd and unworkable. The only solution is to drop it, which Amendment No. 173A is designed to do.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, the noble Lords who introduced the amendment plainly feel that behind the provision there is great distrust by the Government. Perhaps there is a misinterpretation. This has come up before. In legal language a "person" is not a reference to a single person. Section 5 of the

715
Interpretation Act states that the singular includes the plural. "Person" therefore means persons in the plural.
The Government believe that institutions themselves should be responsible for setting up an organisation to scrutinise internal quality control systems and to ensure that they are satisfactory. As the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, who is not in her place, said during the debate at Committee stage:
"The prime responsibility for both quality and standards must rest with the universities themselves, both new and old". —[Official Report, 16/12/91; col. 1116.]
The Government agree with that and, I would add, consider that such a responsibility rests also with all institutions in the new higher education system.
The Government are pleased that the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, the Committee of Directors of Polytechnics and the Standing Conference of Principals have responded positively to the Government's invitation to establish a body to scrutinise institutions' quality control systems. In our view it is far preferable for institutions themselves to ensure that satisfactory systems are in place than for the Secretary of State to have to intervene.
Precisely because the Government look to institutions to monitor internal quality assurance systems the Bill does not provide for a unit of this type to be established. The Secretary of State does, however, need a reserve power in case the institutions do not succeed. Clause 78(2) enables him to require two or more councils to make provision for the assessment of institutions' arrangements for monitoring academic standards; in other words, to establish a quality audit unit.
I am surprised, incidentally, that noble Lords had such difficulty in identifying this provision during the Committee stage debate. The purpose of this clause was explained clearly in the Notes on Clauses. I am similarly surprised that some noble Lords were seemingly not aware of the proposals submitted to Ministers by the representative organisations of the institutions. Those representative organisations made their proposals public in a press release dated 15th October 1991.
While recognising the institutions' determination to create a unit, and welcoming the progress made to date, it would not be right for the Government to assume that the outcome will inevitably be successful. The Secretary of State must retain the power, in the last resort, to ensure that a satisfactory unit is established and he has concluded that the best way of ensuring that is for him to have the power to direct the funding councils, acting jointly, to arrange the necessary provision.
To delete Clause 78(2) would deprive the Secretary of State of an important reserve power that he may need. It would also give the wrong signal to the institutions. The Government hope and believe they will succeed, but if they do not it is right that the institutions should know what alternative the Government intend to pursue.
After the speeches I have heard from noble Lords I believe that there might have been an element of misunderstanding. I hope very much that I have been able to reassure them.
Lord Dainton: My Lords, I am afraid I was unaware of the reference to the work which was done in October 1991. I was completely unaware of the underlying suggestion that it was directed towards encouraging the universities to do this work for themselves. I should like to be reassured that that is the intention and it is only as an extreme last resort that it would be called upon by the Secretary of State, who would direct the councils.
I still do not see why he has to direct the councils to combine to do that. It seems to me that one council might be required to do it for those bodies which it funds and the other council in Scotland would do it for those which it funds. It does not seem to me that it is necessary for them to combine to do it. That said, I am to some degree reassured by what the noble Lord said and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 79 [Efficiency studies]:
Lord Flowersmoved Amendment No. 173B:
Page 59, line 13, at end insert:
("( ) In this section the expression "management or operations" does not include academic activities carried on by an institution.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is intended to remove the possibility that the Secretary of State may interfere in academic matters under the guise of improving economy, efficiency and effectiveness. It excludes any academic interpretation of the phrase "management or operations". The amendment confines itself to that modest action.
However, I wish to point out that I consider the whole clause objectionable because it is unnecessary. I am in no doubt whatever that every university in the land believes that the UFC—or the UGC as it was before—has access to the books of the institution and can, and will, appoint experts to advise it on management or operations if it so chooses. Every university—and I am sure polytechnic—knows it has to provide whatever information is required, provided it does not thereby compromise academic decisions.
Why does the Secretary of State require a clause to provide a power which already exists? Perhaps the Minister will enlighten me, even though the amendment itself is addressed to a more specific aspect of the matter. I beg to move.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, this clause enables the funding councils to arrange studies whose principal purpose is to assist institutions in improving the efficiency with which they manage their finances. This provision is no different from one which currently exists in Schedule 7 to the Education Reform Act as applying to higher education corporations. It merely extends the PCFC's existing powers to all higher education institutions reflecting the removal of the binary line.
The purpose of an efficiency study is to assist an institution in achieving its own objectives more effectively and efficiently, thus releasing resources for other purposes. There is an important distinction to be drawn between looking at what an institution is doing and telling an institution what it may or may not do. This clause is about the first provision I have just

717
mentioned, not the second. It is not about interfering in the autonomy of an institution to decide its own objectives—including academic objectives—or to manage itself as it sees fit.
Therefore the clause really is not about academic freedom. If it had been, the Government would have brought forward amendments similar to others which have been discussed earlier. Rather, it is about the funding councils, which have responsibility for allocating large sums of public money to institutions and for ensuring value for money, having the right to take an occasional close look at how those resources are being managed. In a higher education institution it really would make no sense for such a study not to extend to the management of resources spent on academic activities, and for that reason I cannot accept this amendment. But, as I have said, it is not the function of an efficiency study to seek to determine those academic activities. It is possibly that point which caused the noble Lord anxiety. With the reassurances I have given, I hope he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Flowers: My Lords, in a moment I shall withdraw the amendment. However, I asked the noble Lord why it was necessary for the Secretary of State in this Bill to take powers which already exist. I am sure the funding council can already do everything this amendment provides for, as the UGC and the UFC have done so for a long time.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I have already said this provision is no different from one that currently exists in Schedule 7 to the Education Reform Act—I imagine that is what the noble Lord refers to—and that it extends the existing powers of the PCFC to all higher education institutions reflecting the removal of the binary line. If there is something beyond that I have not understood, I shall have to look into it and write to the noble Lord.
Lord Flowers: My Lords, I shall not press this matter. However, I am not referring to the Education Reform Act. These powers have existed for years and years. They may not be powers laid down by Parliament but they are practices followed by the UFC and by the UGC before it. They are well understood by every university and, I am sure, polytechnic. However, I shall not press this matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 173C not moved.]
Clause 85 [Orders, regulations and directions]:
[Amendment No. 173D not moved.]
1.15 a.m.
Clause 86 [Interpretation]:
Lord Cavendish of Furnessmoved Amendment No. 174:
Page 61, line 45, after ("or") insert ("(in their capacity as a local authority)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Clause 86 provides interpretations of a number of terms for the purposes of the Bill. The amendment concerns the interpretation of "local authority" which at present is defined as
718
meaning a county council, a district council, a London borough council or the Common Council of the City of London.
The common council can act in capacities other than as a local authority and the effect of the amendment would be to provide that the common council falls within the definition of a local authority only when acting in its capacity as such. Where the common council, other than in its capacity as a local education authority, holds property on trust and that property happens to be used for the purpose of an institution which is to fall within the new sector, clearly it would not be appropriate for such land to transfer. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 8 [Minor and Consequential Amendments]:
Lord Belsteadmoved Amendments Nos. 175 to 178:
Page 79, line 27, leave out sub-paragraph (a) and insert:
("( ) for subsection (1) there is substituted—
"(1) A local education authority shall make such arrangements for the provision of transport and otherwise as they consider necessary or as the Secretary of State may direct for the purpose of facilitating the attendance of persons receiving education—

(a) at schools,

(b) at any institution maintained or assisted by them which provides higher education or further education (or both),

(c) at any institution within the further education sector, or

(d) at any institution outside the further education sector and higher education sector, where a further education funding council has secured provision for those persons at the institution under section 4(2A) or (2C) of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992;

and any transport provided in pursuance of such arrangements shall be provided free of charge."").
Page 79, line 35, leave out ("and") and insert:
("( ) for subsection (4) there is substituted—
"(4) Arrangements made by a local education authority under subsection (1) above shall make provision—

(a) for pupils at grant-maintained schools which is no less favourable than the provision made in pursuance of the arrangements for pupils at schools maintained by a local education authority,

(b) for persons receiving full-time education at any institution within the further education sector which is no less favourable than the provision made in pursuance of the arrangements for pupils of the same age at schools maintained by a local education authority, and

(c) for persons receiving full-time education at institutions mentioned in subsection (1) (d) above which is no less favourable than the provision made in pursuance of the arrangements—

(i) for persons of the same age with learning difficulties (within the meaning of section 41(9) of this Act) at schools maintained by a local education authority, or

(ii) where there are no such arrangements, for such persons for whom the authority secures the provision of education at any other institution.", and").

Page 79, leave out lines 37 to 42.
Page 79, line 48, leave out ("within the further education sector") and insert ("mentioned in subsection (1) (c) or (d) above").

719
The noble Lord said: My Lords, these are amendments to Schedule 8 to the Bill. They serve two important purposes. Most importantly, they clarify the extent of the local education authorities' duty to provide transport to students with learning difficulties in the further education funding council sector. The need for clarification in this area was highlighted during Committee stage, during which it became apparent that the Bill as drafted does not make sufficiently clear where the statutory responsibility lies for providing transport for students with learning difficulties who are placed in institutions outside the further and higher education sectors by the further education funding councils. The proposed amendment will place a clear duty on local education authorities to provide transport in such cases.
The remaining amendments are purely presentational: they are designed to clarify the way in which the provisions relating to transport are set out in the Bill and hence by amendment in the Education Act 1944. As such I hope that they will be welcomed and that your Lordships will feel that the amendments are on the right lines. I beg to move.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I welcome Amendment No. 176, which is in response to an amendment which I moved in Committee. It tidies up the confused position on transport responsibilities in a very satisfactory manner. It is particularly welcome that the provision for students with learning difficulties is extended to the age of 25.
I have one worry. At present some local authorities provide transport for part-time students. By specifying full-time students the amendment may have the effect of discouraging that. That would penalise the most severely disabled students, those who are least able to study full time and most in need of transport help. Can the Minister comment briefly and say whether part-time students are meant to be included? Is he prepared to consider making a minor change to the wording at Third Reading so that they are not excluded?
That is a detail, although a very important one for the students concerned. On the broad front I should like to echo my enthusiastic welcome for the amendment, particularly the extension to the age of 25. I thank the Minister very warmly for being so constructive and helpful in this matter.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, this is a matter which my noble friend Lord Cavendish dealt with in negotiation with the noble Baroness and other colleagues. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for staying until this late hour and for pursuing the matter to a conclusion which the noble Baroness feels is successful.
I am also grateful to the noble Baroness for giving notice of her question. The amendment does not include part-time students, but local education authorities will continue to have discretion to make provision for them. As that leaves the law as it is at present, that is as far as we feel we ought to go.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Belsteadmoved Amendment No.178A:
Page 80, line 9, after ("Acts") insert ("1944 to 1992").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, together with this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 179A and 179B. The amendments add the words "1944 to 1992" to the references to the Education Acts —there are three references to the Education Acts—so that they correspond to the relevant definition in Clause 90(2). I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Belsteadmoved Amendment No.179:
Page 80, line 25, leave out from beginning to end of line 28 and insert ("Section 77 (inspection of educational establishments) shall cease to have effect in relation to any institution other than a school.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, a Government amendment has already been moved inserting a new clause after Clause 52. This concerns the inspection of local authority institutions other than schools by Her Majesty's Inspector of Schools in England and Wales and by local education authorities. Inspection of schools would be outside the scope of the Bill. The effect of the new clause after Clause 52 is to supersede the provisions of Section 77 of the Education Act 1944 except in so far as they apply to schools. For that reason, this amendment to Schedule 8 to the Bill provides that Section 77 of the 1944 Act shall cease to have effect in relation to any institutions other than a school.
I should like to add in response to apprehensions expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, in the debate on Amendment No. 122 that the replacement of the provisions in Section 77 by the clause after Clause 52 does not in any way prejudice local education authorities. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Belsteadmoved Amendments Nos. 179A and 179B:
Page 85, line 39, after ("Acts") insert ("1944 to 1992").
Page 85, line 50, after ("Acts") insert ("1944 to 1992").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to these amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Belsteadmoved Amendment No.180:
Page 88, line 2, leave out from beginning to end of line 3 and insert ("for paragraph 1(4) there is substituted—
"(4) A corporation may change their name with the consent of the Privy Council."").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this was spoken to with Amendment No.164. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 9 [Repeals]:
Lord Belsteadmoved Amendment No.181:
Page 95, leave out lines 38 to 40.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this was spoken to with Amendment No.179. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-three minutes past one o'clock.