Sitting of 9 February 1987

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

    Multiple Occupancy
    Mr. Johnasked the Secretary of State for Wales what further proposals lie intends to make to improve safety in houses in multiple occupancy in Wales.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Mark Robinson): I have asked my officials to consult urgently with local authorities and other relevant bodies with a view to stimulating practical initiatives to bring about improved safety and other standards in such accommodation.
    Mr. John: The Minister will know the inadequacy of the present law, which was tragically demonstrated by a fire which occurred in one such house in my constituency towards the end of last year. Will he consider three specific suggestions? First, the inspection of the property should be a duty on local authorities and fire authorities rather than merely a power. Secondly, if any of the houses are closed because fire precautions are inadequate, displaced residents should be in the priority categories of homeless people. Thirdly, does the Minister agree that 'the owners of such houses, some of whom benefit by many thousands of pounds each year, should have strict duties placed upon them to ensure the proper adaptation of the houses and the highest degree of fire safety?
    Mr. Robinson: I am aware of the tragic fire that took place in Pontypridd and I extend my sympathy to the relatives of those concerned. With regard to the three points which the hon. Gentleman made, first, we believe that local authorities have adequate powers under existing laws and we urge them to use those powers. Secondly, there are duties in relation to fire safety precautions which local authorities are obliged to carry out. Thirdly, the owners of such homes are under certain statutory obligations and it is for the local authorities to ensure that those statutory obligations are carried out.
    Sir Anthony Meyer: Is my hon. Friend aware that not all local authorities would fully accept his contention that their powers are adequate in this respect? Without going so far as the moves proposed by the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), will my hon. Friend undertake to look very carefully at this again?
    Mr. Robinson: I certainly undertake to look at it, but I note that, so far, only two local authorities operate registration schemes—in Cardiff and in Swansea.
    Mr. Anderson: The Minister has just said that there are adequate powers under the present laws. Is he aware that the Government survey published on 23 January showed that more than 81 per cent. of houses in multiple occupation are deficient in means of escape from fire and that the present laws cover only an estimated 8 per cent. of them? Will the Minister give an assurance that on Friday the Government will not talk out my Bill, which is designed specifically to deal with this subject? Is he aware that if the Government talk the Bill out they will face a tidal wave of outrage at their lack of concern?
    Mr. Robinson: That is not a matter for me. It is a matter for the House on Friday.
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that local councils are making sufficient use of their powers in this regard?
    Mr. Robinson: We are not satisfied, and we are taking steps to draw local authorities' attention to the powers that are available to them and which they should be exercising.
    Mr. Roy Hughes: Does the Minister recognise that one of the best means of counteracting the hazards of multiple

    3
    occupation is to allow local authorities to build up their depleted housing stock, which would have the social benefit of enabling people to live in decent homes and the economic advantage of putting more than 20,000 building workers back to work?
    Mr. Robinson: As I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware, there are no restrictions on local authorities expanding their housing stock. That is a matter for their own priorities.

    Special Health Authority
    Mr. Raffanasked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the membership, staffing, resources, strategy and policy of the special health authority to be set up to deal with health education matters in Wales.
    Mr. Mark Robinson: My right hon. Friend announced the remit of the new authority on 16 January and a statement on membership will be made shortly. I am pleased to announce that we shall be making £1·2 million available to the authority in its first year.
    Mr. Raffan: I welcome my hon. Friend's announcement, especially about the dramatic increase in resources. Will he take the opportunity offered by these much-strengthened health education arrangements to introduce a distinctly Welsh initiative and put Wales in the vanguard of education on drug misuse?
    Mr. Robinson: The Welsh health promotion authority will have wide powers of health promotion and will continue the campaigns already under way, such as Heartbeat Wales and the work of the health advisory committee. The £1·2 million that I have announced is an increase of 50 per cent. on comparable expenditure this year, but it is not the entire budget available for health promotion in Wales, which should amount to a total of £2·2 million for the year in question.
    Dr. Roger Thomas: Does the Minister agree that money spent on promoting education on the dangers of tobacco smoking will be wasted if the Government continue to take a pusillanimous attitude to the money spent by tobacco companies on art and other forms of culture?
    Mr. Robinson: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware of the new agreement reached between the Government and the tobacco companies.
    Mr. Best: Notwithstanding the welcome resources being made available by the Government to tackle drug abuse and other health problems in Wales, does my hon. Friend agree that the greatest problem is, has been, and is likely to remain, that of alcohol abuse? What do the Government intend to do, within the terms of the measure that my hon. Friend has announced, to advise people of the dangers of alcohol abuse?
    Mr. Robinson: Both drug abuse and alcohol abuse will fall within the remit of the new special health authority.
    Mr. D. E. Thomas: Will the Minister give an assurance to the House and to the professionals engaged in health education in Wales that the arrangements will not prejudice the independence of health education from Government? Concern has been expressed that the establishment of the special health authority might mean
    4
    that those involved in health education could no longer independently criticise Government policy when it is inimical to good health.
    Mr. Robinson: The independence that existed before the arrangements were made will remain after they come into force.

    Housing (Rhyl)
    Sir Anthony Meyerasked the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions his officials have had with Rhuddlan borough council about grants for housing action in Rhyl.
    Mr. Mark Robinson: Our officials have had a number of such discussions with Rhuddlan borough council. The most recent was on 4 February 1987, when the authority's proposals for potential housing action areas and enveloping schemes in Rhyl were discussed.
    Sir Anthony Meyer: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Is he aware that although the borough of Rhuddlan as a whole does not have a particularly acute housing problem, in one small part of the Rhyl—the west end—there is quite a severe problem of sharply deteriorating housing conditions? Will my hon. Friend have further discussions with the council to see whether it needs any further help to speed up its programme?
    Mr. Robinson: I am aware of the problem to which my hon. Friend refers. I understand that Rhuddlan borough council has underspent in terms of the housing spending power available to it in each of the past five years. I have asked my officials to have further discussions with the council to encourage it to devise a strategy for tackling the real problems which I know exist in Rhyl.

    Rates
    Sir Raymond Gowerasked the Secretary of State for Wales what average level of rate increases he expects in Wales for the year 1987–88.
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Nicholas Edwards): The rate support grant settlement that I intend to make for 1987–88 is a generous one for Wales. As I have told the House, I intend to increase all the main components by more than the forecast rate of inflation. Consequently, if councils spend in line with the settlement, and after allowing for the settlement of the teachers' pay dispute, the average rate increase in Wales should be in low single figures. As I warned the Welsh Grand Committee, some counties seem to be planning expenditure which would produce higher increases than that. I hope that those councils will think again.
    Sir Raymond Gower: In view of the forecasts of higher rate increased in some counties, will my right hon. Friend name any factors that he thinks would justify such higher increases?
    Mr. Edwards: I do not think there are any such factors. It is within the power of local authorities, spending at about the same level as the general increase in costs this year, or even a little more, to keep rate bills down to low single figures, and in some instances to make reductions. Some of the proposals being considered by some counties bear no relationship to the increase in costs in the economy as a whole or to the requirements and needs of their ratepayers.
    Mr. Roy Hughes: Does the Secretary of State realise that for our 37 district councils the year-on-year increase in block grant is only 0.7 per cent. and that with his imposed settlement there is such volatility that it is likely to bring about rate variations of between minus 20 per cent. and plus 30 per cent? Would the right hon. Gentleman expect private enterprise to function successfully with such crazy arithmetic?
    Mr. Edwards: It is perfectly true that in this year's settlement we have put the emphasis on the priority areas of education and law and order which, broadly, come under the responsibility of the counties, and that some of the precepts by districts will be relatively high. As the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, however, the effect of the district increases on the rates bill paid by the ratepayer is relatively small because the county share is by far the largest proportion.
    Mr. Raffan: Will my right hon. Friend impress upon Clwyd county council that the ratepayers of Clwyd, especially those who are also employers, cannot afford such absurdities as, first, a castle and a proposed concert hall on the lines of Sydney opera house, both of which have serious revenue, let alone capital, implications, and secondly, 22,300 surplus primary and secondary school places which cost £3 million per year to keep empty?
    Mr. Edwards: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the problem of surplus school places. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Conwy (Mr. Roberts), told the House when we last answered Welsh questions, there are 150,000 surplus school places in Wales, costing about £18 million a year, which could be used to improve the education service. There is no doubt that if Clwyd pursued sensible policies there could be a low rate increase.

    Welsh Language
    Mr. Kennedyasked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement outlining his Department's policy and level of per capita support for the promotion of the Welsh language.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Wyn Roberts): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State outlined the Government's policy in his speech to representatives of Gwynedd county council on 15 April 1980, a copy of which is in the Library. Direct Government expenditure on the Welsh language in 1986–87 for each Welsh-speaking resident aged three years and over is expected to be £6·42. That does not include approximately £14 million spent by local education authorities on Welsh medium and bilingual education or support amounting to some £34 million for S4C.
    Mr. Kennedy: I am grateful to the Minister for that detailed reply, and I apologise to Welsh Members for trespassing. My interest is simply this. How much interdepartmental contact do Welsh Office officials dealing with the promotion of the Welsh language and culture have with their opposite numbers in the Scottish Office? I do not know the outturn for those figures in Wales, but there is a strong feeling in Scotland that the Welsh are doing considerably better than the Gaels with regard to expenditure. Any nudges that the Minister's officials could give to the Scottish Office would be appreciated.
    Mr. Roberts: With regard to expenditure on the promotion of the Gaelic language, I suggest that the hon. Gentleman addresses a question to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. In the meantime, perhaps he would care to look at the reply given by my right hon. and learned Friend in July last year to the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart).
    Mr. Forth: Does my hon. Friend agree that, despite all that expenditure, the use of the Welsh language declines inexorably year on year? Does he therefore agree that the use of minority languages, whether Welsh, Gaelic or Gujarati, is a divisive rather than a uniting factor and that any such expenditure should be seriously reviewed?
    Mr. Roberts: I am sorry that my hon. Friend takes that view. We do not accept the inexorable decline of the Welsh language. In fact, we are doing everything possible to promote the Welsh language. It is the oldest language still spoken in the United Kingdom, and I think that most. hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree with the Government's policy of promoting its survival.
    Mr. Wigley: In view of the consultation about a new Welsh language Act which the Minister's Department has launched with a number of bodies in Wales, will he give an assurance that his announcement to the press in the past two weeks about the slowness of the response coming to hand is not a ploy by the Welsh Office to delay the reviewing of that response beyond 31 March? Will he undertake to produce a White Paper on the Government's intentions shortly after the conclusion of the consultation?
    Mr. Roberts: The hon . Gentleman is aware that we allowed six months for the consultation period. He is also aware that I was concerned that only 10 per cent. of the bodies to which we sent consultation papers had replied by a week or so ago. Eight weeks remain until the end of the consultation period. That was the purpose of my press announcement. With regard to the hon. Gentleman's request for a White Paper, we must obviously consider the replies that we receive and consult within Government.
    Mr. Rogers: Will the Minister repeat the figures of support? Did he say that it was £6·35 per Welsh-speaking person in Wales? If so, what is the significance of relating that amount to Welsh-speaking people? Surely if we are to develop the Welsh language, to which the Minister says he is committed, the amount of money spent in the English-speaking areas must be significant. Will the Minister elaborate on that peculiar relationship?
    Mr. Roberts: The amount that I specified as being spent per Welsh-speaking resident aged three years and over was £6·42. Obviously, that is derived from a totality of figures. It will not be beyond the wit of the hon. Gentleman to divide the total spent on the total population of Wales to discover how much is spent by the Government per person in Wales.
    Mr. Best: How does my hon. Friend believe that the promotion of the Welsh language will be assisted by the most regrettable decision of Cymdeithas yr faith, the Welsh Language Society—
    Mr. Wigley: Smear! Smear!
    Mr. Best: My hon. Friend the Minister will draw his own conclusions from the fact that the cry of "Smear" came from the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley). How does my hon. Friend believe that it will assist the

    7
    Welsh language for Cymdeithas yr Iaith, the Welsh Language Society, to make this most regrettable invitation to Sinn Fein to visit Wales? Surely that should be condemned by everyone.
    Mr. Roberts: I do not think that it will help at all. I was glad to hear my hon. Friend's remarks and to read that the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Thomas), as president of Plaid Cymru, has also condemned the visit. With regard to the Gaelic language as spoken in the Republic, it was compulsory in education until 1974, when the compulsion was abolished. I can only warn members of Cymdeithas yr laith that in the words of Swift:
    "Ill company is like a dog, who dirts those most whom he loves best".
    Mr. Barry Jones: The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth), caused offence by his ignorant intervention. Is not the consensus in Wales that we all want the language to prosper? Does the Minister believe, as we do, that there should be a new Welsh Language Act.
    Mr. Roberts: It is easy to call for a new Welsh Language Act without giving substantial reasons for it. That is why we are consulting the public. We hope to achieve substantive views from the consultation as to whether a change is necessary, and why. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman supports the Welsh language. He will be interested to know that the equivalent figure of support given by the Labour Government in their last year of office was £1·35 per Welsh-speaking person.

    Mental Illness
    Mr. D. E. Thomasasked the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will review his Department's policy towards services for mental illness; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Mark Robinson: As my right hon. Friend announced on 24 October 1986, we intend to publish a paper setting out the ways in which services for those suffering from mental illness can be further developed and improved.
    Mr. Thomas: Does the Minister accept that those who are engaged in the mental illness service in the social services, the Health Service and the voluntary sector will be disappointed by that reply, as they had hoped that the Minister would be able to announce some progress in this area? Will he ensure that the money available for the development of mental health services in Wales is substantially increased in view of the recent estimate by Clwyd, for example, that its strategy for adult mental illness will cost more than £6 million in revenue funds and £8 million in capital costs? Will he make an announcement soon of the development programme and on increasing the funding?
    Mr. Robinson: I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are as anxious as he is to make progress on such matters. It is important to get the consultation right. We shall make our decision and publish the report as soon as we can. In the coming financial year £10 million will be available for mental handicap, and we intend to continue our commitment.
    Mr. Harvey: While warmly welcoming the Government's strategy of getting the mentally ill back into
    8
    the community, may I ask my hon. Friend to consider the devastating impact on the local community of the closure of North Wales hospital? Will he consider providing Welsh Office funding for any viable proposal for the use of the building?
    Mr. Robinson: Before we reach that stage, we must carry out the necessary consultation. We have not yet made a final decision.

    Loft Insulation
    Mr. Gareth Wardellasked the Secretary of State for Wales how much money was available for loft insulation grants in Wales in 1986–87; and how much will be made available in 1987–88.
    Mr. Mark Robinson: Bids by Welsh local authorities for the homes insulation scheme have been met in full. The sums allocated were £2·7 million for 1986–87 and £2·3 million for 1987–88.
    Mr. Wardell: Will the Minister join me in pressing the Government to ensure that there will be no cuts in loft insulation grants, which would be a tremendous blow to energy conservation? Will the Minister press the Government to include draughtproofing as well as insulation in the schemes so that elderly people in receipt of supplementary benefit or housing benefit can be protected from the effects of severe cold?
    Mr. Robinson: I have already told the hon. Gentleman that bids for 1987–88 have been met in full. I cannot go beyond that. If the Government plan any changes along the lines mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, the announcement will be made in the appropriate place at the appropriate time.
    Mr. Terlezki: What precautions is my hon. Friend taking to ensure that companies engaged in loft insulation work paid for by grants are reputable companies and not cowboys who do not do the job properly?
    Mr. Robinson: We issue guidance to local authorities and ask them to pass that guidance to people who make inquiries of them.
    Mr. Rowlands: When the Minister said that he had given the local authorities everything for which they had asked, was he aware that the Department responsible for such matters in England was planning to withdraw insulation grants from the overwhelming majority of Welsh homes? Is he aware that there will be no grants to improve loft insulation and to bring insulation up to an adequate level for the overwhelming majority of Welsh households?
    Mr. Robinson: The hon. Gentleman is referring to the consultation which the Government are undertaking with regard to the better targeting of home insulation schemes. An announcement will be made at the appropriate time.

    Agriculture
    Mr. Wigleyasked the Secretary of State for Wales when he next hopes to meet leaders of the farmers unions in Wales to discuss the effects of the recent decisions of the European Community Council of Ministers on Welsh agriculture.
    Mr. Nicholas Edwards: I meet the leaders of the farmers unions in Wales regularly and frequently. I met the

    9
    chairman of the council of the National Farmers Union in Wales last week and I am attending the annual dinner of the NFU tomorrow evening.
    Mr. Wigley: Is the Secretary of State aware of the great consternation among dairy farmers in Wales at the effects of the developments in relation to quota? In south Wales, especially, during the nine months from April last year until January this year, there was a loss of more than 7 million litres in milk quota. In view of that drastic effect—equivalent to the loss of 30 dairy farms in Wales—will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his decision not to buy milk quotas to form a quota bank and redistribute them to other farms in Wales?
    Mr. Edwards: The figure that the hon. Gentleman quotes represents only 0·48 per cent—less than one half of 1 per cent—of the total quota, allocated to holdings in Wales. There is a two-way flow of quota, which provides a very necessary flexibility in the administration of the quota scheme. The hon. Gentleman ought to hesitate long and hard before he tries to separate the arrangements for Wales from those for England and Wales, because Wales benefits enormously from participating in the England and Wales arrangements for milk.
    Mr. Colvin: When my right hon. Friend meets leaders of farmers unions in Wales tomorrow night, will he tell them how much he welcomes the recent decision by the European Community to make intervention stocks available to provide free food for needy people? Did he see the report in The Sunday Times yesterday, which described the scheme as pie in the sky, and the remarks of our right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), who said that the scheme is inadequate and ill thought out? Will my right hon. Friend please have early discussions with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to see how the scheme can be improved and how some of the bureaucracy can be removed, and to see that it is better publicised so that people know where to get help through what is, on the whole, a very worthwhile scheme?
    Mr. Edwards: A scheme of this kind is no substitute for fundamental reform of the common agricultural policy. This is a European scheme that has been put together rather hastily and it is undoubtedly causing administrative problems. We are distributing food through voluntary organisations that are long established in Britain and well equipped to do the work. We keep in close touch with them about mechanisms for distributing the food.
    Mr. Ron Davies: Did the Council of Ministers have any proposals for the release of farmland for housing or monocultural forestry operations? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, following the broad trailing over the weekend of the Government's proposals, there is widespread concern among environmentalists about what the Government are proposing? Is he further aware that anxiety is not confined to environmentalists, as people concerned with future employment prospects in rural areas in Wales appreciate that there can be no employment in, or financial justification for, what the Government are proposing? Is the right hon. Gentleman able to confirm that he is aware of these ALURE proposals, as they are described, and will he say whether, even at this late stage, he will try to exempt Wales from their implications?
    Mr. Edwards: It is characteristic of the hon. Gentleman that he rushes to condemn proposals before he knows what they are. I can tell him that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is answering a question this afternoon, when he will set out the Government's intentions in this respect. We have a scheme on which we shall consult. Full details will be available later today. The scheme is for the development of farm woodlands, some relaxation on present planning arrangements and for measures to encourage further employment in the countryside. Surely the hon. Gentleman supports and welcomes that.
    Mr. Geraint Howells: Will the Secretary of State confirm, or deny, reports in the national newspapers during the weekend that the Conservative party intends to take 85 per cent. of agricultural land out of production to build houses or for afforestation?
    Mr. Edwards: The speculation is pure and unadulterated nonsense. I also observed that the chairman of the National Farmers Union has described the alliance's agricultural policy as a total disaster for British farming and the greatest catastrophe that it is likely to face this century.
    Mr. Harvey: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the deep concern felt on this side of the House at the crisis facing Welsh farming? Will he consider pressing for a devaluation of the green pound, given that the currency is now 20 per cent. out of alignment? Will he also consider scrapping the £90 inspection charge, which is considered absurd by most farmers on whom it is inflicted?
    Mr. Edwards: We are consulting on the inspection charge and will make an announcement in due course. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the green pound discrepancy. It will undoubtedly be one of the matters to be considered in the coming price fixing. He knows that there has already been one alteration in the green currencies. The proper time, however, to deal with the major issue to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention is during the weeks ahead as we approach the major price fixing.
    Mr. John: Does the Secretary of State accept that we recognise the importance of what the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will say about land use? By what means will the Minister do so? We would regard it as wholly unsatisfactory if he were to slip his announcement through by written answer.
    Mr. Edwards: My right hon. Friend will be answering a parliamentary question today. [HON. MEMBERS: "A written question?"]
    Mr. Raffan: Can my right hon. Friend explain why dairy inspections are to be charged for and why they will cost £90 for one visit every two years? My local farmers tell me that an inspector can easily cover eight farms in one day, and even then that inspectors tend to spend 15 minutes inspecting the dairy and 30 minutes having a cup of tea afterwards.
    Mr. Edwards: The charges cover, not simply the visits, but the full range of tests and administration of the scheme. My hon. Friend will also know that most well-organised farms will probably need only one visit every two years, and in many cases even less frequent visits than

    11
    that. If he looks at almost any commercial organisation's charges for a visit of this type, he will regard these charges as modest.

    Hypothermia
    Mr. Powellasked the Secretary of State for Wales how many deaths from hypothermia have been recorded in Wales during the period May 1979 to January 1987.
    Mr. Mark Robinson: Between May 1979 and November 1986, the latest month for which information is available, the number of occasions in Wales where hypothermia appeared on a death certificate, irrespective of whether it was recorded as being the underlying cause of death, was 344.
    Mr. Powell: I am grateful for that reply. Is it not frightening to think that deaths are increasing as a result of the Government"s policy? Is the Minister aware that although the Government talk about the £5 that they are giving to old-age pensioners, they are continually moving the goal posts for qualifying? Will the Minister look at the leading article on page 7 of the Western Mail, which deals with a constituent of mine? It was suggested that if my constituent had an insurance policy with a surrender value of more than £1,500 he would lose his chances of getting the £5 back. May I suggest to the Minister and the Front Bench—
    Mr. Speaker: Briefly.
    Mr. Powell: I shall not be long, Mr. Speaker. Would it not have been far better for the Government to use their time on Friday 16 January to vote for free television licences for pensioners, instead of voting against them, so that pensioners could use the £58 to provide themselves with heating and extra nourishment? Instead, the Government adopt this beastly attitude.
    Mr. Robinson: I am not sure what relevance the last part of that supplementary question had to hypothermia. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the figures for hypothermia during the years of the Labour Government—it is most inadvisable to play politics with these figures—he will see that they increased every year. If I may refer him to a previous parliamentary question on deaths from hypothermia in winter, he will notice that the highest figure was in the last year of the Labour Government. With regard to the specific case in the Western Mail, I should point out that it is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. If the hon. Gentleman writes to my right hon. Friend, I am sure that he will look into the case in depth.
    Mr. Barry Jones: Deaths from hypothermia are distressing and should be decreasing. Is not the reason for their rise badly insulated, ill-repaired, housing stock in Wales, where 140,000 homes are deemed unfit for habitation? Are there not 20,000 unemployed construction workers and more than £190 million worth of renovation grants outstanding? Might not action here save lives next winter?
    Mr. Robinson: The hon. Gentleman refers to a rise in Wales, but the figures vary from year to year, and the figures for last year were down on the figures for the year before and also on those recorded in the last year of the Labour Government. The Government are doing precisely what the hon. Gentleman is asking us to do.
    12
    [Interruption.] I know that it is painful, but I remind him that under this Government £333 million has been spent renovating the private stock, whereas under the previous Labour Government only £57 million was spent.

    Council House Sales
    Mr. Knoxasked the Secretary of State for Wales how many council houses have been sold to sitting tenants in Wales since May 1979.
    Mr. Mark Robinson: Some 49,846 council dwellings were sold to sitting tenants in Wales between May 1979 and 30 September 1986. Taking into account sales by new towns and housing associations, over 55,000 public sector dwellings have been sold since May 1979.
    Mr. Knox: What is my hon. Friend doing to draw the attention of the public to the provisions of the Housing and Planning Act 1986? Does he expect that this will have a big effect on the figures in the future?
    Mr. Robinson: I expect it to have an effect on figures in the future, because it increases the discount range on flats from 32 to 60 per cent. to 44 to 70 per cent., with discount occurring at twice the previous rate. This will protect purchasers from unexpectedly high service charges. There has been a reduction in discount repayment from five to three years. The Government will shortly mount a publicity campaign to draw the attention of tenants, particularly of flats, to their right to buy and to the changes resulting from the Housing and Planning Act.

  CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

    "Faith in the City"
    Mr. Chapmanasked the hon. Member for Wokingham, as representing the Church Commissioners, if the commissioners have yet reached a decision on the recommendation of the report "Faith in the City" that the commissioners should contribute £1 million per annum for 10 years to the General Synod's proposed urban fund; and if he will make a statement.
    Sir William van Straubenzee (The Second Church Estates Commissioner, Representing Church Commissioners): If legislation currently before the General Synod is approved both by the Synod and Parliament, the commissioners will consider sympathetically the recommendation that they should make available at least £1 million a year.
    Mr. Chapman: As clergy stipends and pensions depend so much on the returns made by the Church Commissioners on their capital assets, can my hon. Friend assure the House that the commissioners will not sell off part of their assets to raise this £1 million for each of the next 10 years, if Parliament so wills it, but will encourage a special appeal, to which they will invite churchgoers and others to contribute?
    Sir William van Straubenzee: The special appeal is not for me, and is a separate matter. On matters pertaining to the Church Commissioners, I can say that this money will not be raised out of capital, and it is seen as part of a general continuing process of evening out disparities between historic resources of different dioceses.
    Mr. Frank Field: As the funds of the Church Commissioners are used primarily for salaries and

    13
    pensions, to what extent will salaries and pensions be reduced to meet this sum? To put that question another way, to what extent must the laity increase their giving to make sure that these cuts do not occur?
    Sir William van Straubenzee: The hon. Gentleman is right. Any sums that Parliament authorises the commissioners to make, and it will be only when Parliament so authorises that this happens, must, by definition, leave fewer resources available for stipends and pensions. With a prudent investment policy, it will not be necessary for us to be talking about cuts.
    Mr. Stokes: Is my hon. Friend aware that I am somewhat puzzled by his reply? Is not the money of the Church Commissioners primarily, if not wholly, to be used for the purpose of the Church? If the Church is to make enormous contributions to all kinds of other schemes, what will be left for the Church itself?
    Sir William van Straubenzee: With great respect to my hon. Friend, I point out that it will be for the urban fund to allocate these moneys, not for the Church Commissioners. They will respond to the request if Parliament so authorises and the General Synod so decides.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: May I urge, through the hon. Gentleman, that the Church Commissioners should make that decision and contribution as urgently as possible? Will he also urge them to consider ways in which they might, as a matter of urgency, through the urban fund, support the schooling that is provided by the Church in urban areas? The hon. Gentleman may be able to comment on the fact that at this moment there is a growing, weekly crisis in the staffing of Church schools, caused in part by the lack of buildings and also by the lack of incremental and other opportunities. Could that be considered by the Church Commissioners, too?
    Sir William van Straubenzee: The pace at which the Church Commissioners can move is dictated, first, by the corporate decision of the General Synod and, secondly, by Parliament. Only then will they lawfully be able to proceed. I am afraid that I cannot assist the hon. Gentleman by referring to individual projects. That is not the concern of the Church Commissioners, nor should it be. It will be the concern of the urban fund.

    Assistant Curates
    Mr. Peter Bruinvelsasked the hon. Member for Wokingham, as representing the Church Commissioners, further to his answer to the hon. Member for Leicester, East of 8 December, Official Report, column 13, what further consideration he has given to means of meeting a higher proportion of the expenses incurred by assistant curates.
    Sir William van Straubenzee: It is the parish responsibility to reimburse the expenses incurred by assistant curates. To encourage parishes to meet these responsibilites, the commissioners have issued a newly revised booklet which offers guidelines on all aspects of clergy expenses. This has been sent to all dioceses and parishes.
    Mr. Bruinvels: Although I know that my hon. Friend shares the concern that assistant curates are not having all their expenses met in full—indeed, I believe that 16 per
    14
    cent. of all expenses are not being met—will he reassure me that the "Parochial Expenses of the Clergy" booklet, which is available, is sent to every treasurer of the parochial church councils and that the PCC responsibility is made quite clear? Our assistant curates are having a difficult time at the moment and, because of all the unpaid work that they do, the sooner their expenses are met in full the better.
    Sir William van Straubenzee: I think that very vigorous action has been taken along the lines that my hon. Friend has urged, and I am obliged to him for drawing attention to that matter. The truth is that every legitimate expense that is not met means that the stipend is thereby reduced.

    Small Businesses
    Mr. Greenwayasked the hon. Member for Wokingham, as representing the Church Commissioners, if the commissioners have made any investments in the provision of premises suitable for small businesses in deprived areas.
    Sir William van Straubenzee: Yes, Sir. The commissioners have recently completed a workshop and studio development in the London borough of Hackney. This has been specially designed to meet the needs of small businesses, which will be able to rent space on flexible terms. It is very much hoped that this development will help promote new jobs and new business in the area.
    Mr. Greenway: I congratulate my hon. Friend, and those whom he represents, on that answer. May I ask ham what kind of people will be taking up those premises? Have the Church Commissioners any plans to extend this principle to other parts of the nation, and if so, where?
    Sir William van Straubenzee: There is a mix of tenants in this development, including printers, interior designers and photographic firms. I am also glad to say that TOC H, Church Action for the Unemployed and the Bridge Project Trust, which is a Christian organisation helping the unemployed, have taken space in the building. There is no immediate plan for another such development, because each individual case must be looked at very carefully. However, I am encouraged by my hon. Friend's commendation.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: I, too, congratulate the Church Commissioners on their initiative, but may I draw the hon. Member's attention to projects that are being considered south of the River Thames by Church Action for the Unemployed and other such organisations, such as Headstart, with the Cambridge University Mission? Perhaps the Church Commissioners would look at those projects as a way of alleviating the problem, through a form of lay ministry, which has been much appreciated when initiatives have been taken.
    Sir William van Straubenzee: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to draw my attention at any time to any specific project, I shall be very happy to pass on the details. Meanwhile, I am sure that the House knows, in a different part of the country altogether and on a different scale, of the Metro Centre in Gateshead. That is not a small business. It involves the employment of an additional 6,000 people and is making a major contribution to easing the unemployment problems in that part of the country.

  WALES

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. Barry Jonesasked the Secretary of State for Wales what are the unemployment totals and percentages for (a) Wales and (b) Clwyd at the latest date for which such figures are available and for May 1979; and if he will give the percentage increase.
    Dr. Marekasked the Secretary of State for Wales what were the unemployment totals and percentages for (a) Wales and (b) Clwyd at the latest date for which such figures are available and for May 1979; and if he will give the percentage increase.
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Nicholas Edwards): I refer to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) on 19 January. No more recent figures are available.
    Mr. Jones: The unemployment figures in Wales, and Clwyd in particular, are truly distressing. Against that background, will the right hon. Gentleman back to the hilt the application by British Aerospace for £750 million worth of launch aid over six years for the new family of Airbus A330-A340? I want the right hon. Gentleman to fight his corner in Cabinet. The project needs Government cash and British Aerospace does not want City cash with strings. Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that if British Aerospace withdraws from Airbus Industrie the United Kingdom will lose its capability for civil aircraft production? May I remind the Secretary of State that 4,000 aerospace jobs exist at Broughton in my constituency, where many hundreds of people make the wings of the Airbus. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to say without any shadow of doubt that he will fight his corner in Cabinet for a great industry in Wales.
    Mr. Edwards: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will welcome the fact that unemployment in Wales has fallen in eight out of the last nine months. British Aerospace will be amazed at his assertion that it does not want City finance. I think that it will reject that assertion out of hand. I note what he says about the merits of this proposal. The Government will consider all those arguments in the appropriate way and make an announcement at the appropriate time.
    Dr. Marek: For once in his life will the Secretary of State answer a question and tell my hon. Friend whether he will fight for Wales in Cabinet? Is the right hon. Gentleman already thinking of his future life in the City after he leaves the House?
    Mr. Edwards: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that when I think there is a good case, I fight for it. It is quite clear from the many things that have been said in recent weeks that, whatever criticisms may be made of me, no one has argued that I do not do that.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS

    Admission Orders
    Mr. Peter Bruinvelsasked the Lord Privy Seal how many admission orders were issued for the Strangers Gallery in each of the past three years; of those issued to
    16
    hon. Members and right hon. Members, what was the percentage take-up; and if there are any plans to change the arrangements for ticket allocation.
    The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): The number of admission orders issued for the Strangers' Gallery over the past three years was 134,160 in 1986, 140,527 in 1985, and 141,868 in 1984. The percentage take-up of those orders issued to hon. Members for the same three years was 52·7 per cent., 48·6 per cent., and 53·5 per cent. respectively. I have no plans for changing the arrangements for the allocation of tickets to hon. Members.
    Mr. Bruinvels: Will my right hon. Friend look again at the way in which the allocation of admission orders is undertaken, especially as it appears that 47 per cent. of hon. Members do not take up their orders? May I ask him to consider the possibility of hon. Members who know that it is their allocation day writing in and applying for tickets in order to ensure that there are no empty areas in the Strangers' Gallery? Other hon. Members who are not in the list for that day could apply for the tickets, so that the House is properly supported at all times.
    Mr. Biffen: The present system has the merit of being relatively simple and everybody gets a chance to use his ticket if he wishes. Of course many tickets are returned, but they are eventually allocated. Half an hour is allowed before that process takes place and that often gives rise to the impression that the Galleries are far more empty when in fact they are temporarily under-used.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Does it seem right to the Leader of the House that there should be space up there in the Galleries and behind me when there is a queue of people outside waiting to come into the House?
    Mr. Biffen: That raises a totally different set of propositions from those put by my hon. Friend. It is Monday afternoon and it would not be wise for me to go down that path so early in the week.

    Accommodation
    Mr. Greenwayasked the Lord Privy Seal how many offices in the Palace of Westminster are allocated (a) to hon. Members, (b) to hon. Members' secretaries, (c) to parliamentary staff and (d) others; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Biffen: The current distribution within that part of the Palace of Westminster allocated to the House of Commons is: hon. Members 273 offices, with 55 desks for hon. Members' secretaries on the lower ground floor; parliamentary staff 91 offices, and other organisations 31 offices.
    Mr. Greenway: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the offices of some hon. Members are so far away that they have to open their mail in the corridors or while sitting on the floor? That happens sometimes because there are so many people occupying the seats. That is distressing. Does he think that it would be helpful to hon. Members from different parties if their secretaries were not in the same room? Does he think that the secretaries of Members from only one party should occupy a room? Would that be helpful?
    Mr. Biffen: As to the first part of the question, that is certainly going down memory lane. That is just what I did

    17
    more than 20 years ago and I do not think that my mail suffered thereby. As to my hon. Friend's second point, I believe that the authorities do their utmost to accommodate those hon. Members who want their secretaries to be in rooms occupied only by those of similar party affiliation. Some hon. Members favour a different system. I believe that, on the whole, we cater for the varying tastes in this matter.
    Mr. Heffer: Hear, hear. My wife is with two Tories and she is quite happy.
    Mr. Biffen: I shall take that as wholly unsolicited testimony to the virtue of Conservative Members.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: What is the latest target date for the opening of the next set of offices which are being constructed on the site next to the Palace?
    Mr. Biffen: About 30 secretaries are expected to be housed in I Cannon Row, which should be available in 1988. As the hon. Gentleman may appreciate, and as has been frequently stated, it is hoped that phase 1 of the Bridge street site, which will provide accommodation for 60 Members of Parliament and 100 secretaries, will be completed in 1990.
    Mr. Favell: Is my right hon. Friend able to say how many bedrooms there are in the Palace, the use to which they are put and how often they are used?
    Mr. Biffen: I am not able to answer that question without notice. I think that that is a question that merits being considered in its own right.

    Recycled Paper
    Mr. Jannerasked the Lord Privy Seal what steps are being taken to promote the use of recycled paper in the House of Commons.
    Mr. Biffen: The Services Committee decided in February 1982 that available papers containing recycled waste were not acceptable for Members' stationery. Since then HMSO has regularly reviewed the available paper containing waste, but has not yet discovered any of a quality superior to that previously rejected by the Committee.
    Mr. Janner: How many trees a year does the right hon. Gentleman consider would be saved if we were to use recycled paper for the mountain of paper that we go o through? Should we not he setting an example to the environmentalists?
    Mr. Biffen: I cannot answer the first part of the question without a great deal of notice. As to the second part, I guarantee that the complaints of those who believe that we should be corresponding on stationery of the highest quality would far outweigh the voices of those who are promoting environmental considerations.
    Mr. Latham: If my right hon. Friend wants to save forests, why does he not start with the Order Paper? Six
    18
    sides of paper in tomorrow's Order Paper are filled with identical questions to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. Cannot the names be one after the other? In that way, they might all be on one side of paper.
    Mr. Biffen: Prime Minister's Question Time is of such great value to the Conservative party, particularly during the pre-election period, that I would wish to do nothing that would minimise its success.
    Mr. Stokes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that. far from using recycled paper, a. return to parchment might save us all from having to endure a vast weight of paper?
    Mr. Biffen: That is the most socially constructive question that I have heard this afternoon.
    Mr. Fairbairn: Whether it be parchment or recycled paper, will my right hon. Friend ensure that none is used in the bedrooms in the Palace?
    Mr. Biffen: I take note of that thoughtful and well-directed question.

  WALES

    Rail Operations
    Mr. Andersonasked the Secretary of State for Wales when he intends next to meet the chairman of British Rail to discuss rail operations in Wales.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Wyn Roberts): My right hon. Friend met the chairman on 25 November arid has no further plans to do so at present.
    Mr. Anderson: The Secretary of State will know from his personal experience of the reduction in services to west Wales, such as the ending of the sleeper service. Will he ensure that west Wales is not marginalised in the railway network and that, for example, the Swansea to Cardiff line is not downgraded by British Rail?
    Mr. Roberts: These are operational matters for British Rail. British Rail is to make an announcement shortly about InterCity services. British Rail is to improve the Red Dragon executive service from Swansea from May. I understand that, in BR's opinion, there is no market for late evening services after 6.30 pm from Swansea.
    Sir Raymond Gower: Would it not boost railway operations in Wales if the Margam pit were now to be built? Does my hon. Friend think that the intervention of the National Union of Mineworkers' president is rather regrettable, hasty and should have been assessed by the Welsh miners?
    Mr. Roberts: All industrial developments in Wales will be helpful to British Rail because they will involve increased passenger traffic and freight. I should not like to comment on the attitude of the NUM, but I notice that there is a difference between what Mr. Scargill said and what was said by the local NUM leader in south Wales about that project.

Blood Bank, Gloucester
3.31 pm
Mr. Michael Meacher: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the launching today of a private blood bank in Gloucester."
It is clearly a specific matter, because two property developers, who have no experience of or expertise in the health field, are setting up a private blood bank on the third floor of a warehouse in Gloucester docks. However amateurish the outfit, those concerned are certainly specific about their charges, which are an initial fee of £400 for storing up to six pints of frozen blood per client and a subsequent charge of £160 a year.
It is a vital issue because the operation and efficiency of the National Blood Transfusion Service could be damaged, because a private blood bank will offer a second-class service to clients and will merely exploit and cash in on the present bandwagon of AIDS fears.
It is important, because this private firm is seeking to convey a false impression of guaranteed safety, when there are major problems involved in the long-term storage of frozen blood and its reconstitution, and when six pints are wholly inadequate for major operations, long-term treatment or following major accidents. It is important that patients are made aware of the huge and perhaps insuperable problems of the rapid transport of their own blood supplies if accidents occur hundreds of miles away. The delay could do far more damage than any conceivable risk from using blood supplies from the regional blood transfusion centre.
The matter is urgent because this private venture is starting today, it has not gained planning permission, it is wholly unregulated, so that contaminated blood could slip through, and it can offer no guarantee of safety. This might exacerbate our problems with AIDS rather than solve them.
For all those reasons, Mr. Speaker, I earnestly request that you find time for a debate on this crucial matter of public health at the earliest opportunity.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the launching today of a private blood bank in Gloucester."
I do not underestimate the importance of what the hon. Gentleman has said. The decision that I have to take is whether to give this matter precedence over the business set down for today or tomorrow. I regret that I do not consider the matter that he has raised as appropriate for debate under Standing Order No. 20, and therefore I cannot submit his application to the House.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall take first the point of order from Mr. Campbell-Savours. He gave me notice of it.

Comptroller and Auditor General
3.34 pm
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am seeking your ruling, which I believe will be a precedent, on the position of the Comptroller and Auditor General, Sir Gordon Downey, as the recipient of information in his role as an Officer of Parliament and your responsibility in protecting his rights as an Officer of the House.
Under the National Audit Act 1983, the Comptroller and Auditor General was made an Officer of the House and has the same status in our proceedings as the Clerk of the House, Sir Kenneth Bradshaw. However, he has a special role, because he straddles Parliament and the Executive, having been given, under section 8 of the 1983 Act, a statutory right of access to Government Departments for the purposes of certification and audit and for value-for-money examinations. Apart from the Parliamentary Commissioner—the ombudsman—he is the only Officer of Parliament with a statutory right of access.
The Comptroller and Auditor General's statutory right of access allows his access even to the most secret areas of Government expenditure, such as every area of the major defence projects statement, including defence projects of the highest possible classification of national security. The only area to which he is denied access is expenditure covered by the secret Vote of about £80 million annually.
On 23 January Duncan Campbell wrote an article in the New Statesman headlined "Parliamentary bypass operation." His case was that Parliament was not informed of major expenditure on the Zircon project and that rules on notification to Public Accounts Committee Chairmen of major defence projects—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not go into too much detail. I should like a point of order on which I can rule. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is raising an important matter, but what is the point of order for me?
Mr. Campbell-Savours: I am being as brief as I can in laying out exactly the points on which the point of order is based.
The article suggested that the rules on the notification to PAC Chairmen of major defence projects of a national security nature where potential costs exceed £250 million had been broken.
The allegation was immediately denied by the right hon. Member for Taunton (Sir E. du Cann), the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission, who said:
"I am told that the matter is still at a preliminary stage and that nothing like the sums that were referred to have been incurred."—[Official Report, 19 January 1987; Vol. 108, c. 594.]
The allegation was also denied by the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, who said in a debate on the security services that no programme expenditure had been committed and that only expenditure on project definition had been committed. The allegation has also been repeatedly denied by the Comptroller and Auditor General.
Mr. Speaker: Order. What is the point of order for me in these matters? The hon. Gentleman is raising matters of debate.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: I am deliberating not doing that. I have to set out exactly what is happening. I am not expressing any view or opinion, but am simply saying what is on the record as I build my case.
The Comptroller and Auditor General said in a National Audit Office statement on 22 January that the NAO had been monitoring the Ministry of Defence project throughout its preliminary stages and that, as yet, there was no commitment to a major project by defence standards.
You will appreciate, Mr. Speaker, that if those statements were incorrect, the Comptroller and Auditor General had been misled, in which case the Ministry of Defence would be in default of its statutory obligations to Parliament, as it would be replying to an Officer of the House, the Comptroller and Auditor General having asked questions. That would be a grave and unprecedented development. It would be different from what happened with Chevaline, because at that time, before the National Audit Act, the Comptroller and Auditor General was not an Officer of Parliament.
The question is whether the Comptroller and Auditor General was misled as an Officer of Parliament and whether Parliament itself was, therefore, misled. Mr. Campbell says that Zircon's costs were about £500 million, and he says that he will give me an affidavit supporting that statement. Mr. Roger Stanyard, who edits the "Interspace" newsletter, says that he was told in the autumn of 1984 that the project cost was £500 million.
Mr. Speaker: Order. These are matters which the hon. Gentleman could raise in a debate. He must put a point of order that I can answer. Will he come to it now, please?
Mr. Campbell-Savours: I am almost precisely there. Mr. Stanyard said that the cost was £500 million and that he had been told that the costs were hidden within the
22
Ministry of Defence's defence procurement budget. Messrs. Freeman, Leppard and Davis of The Sunday Times also—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman is abusing his point of order. I ask him now to come immediately to his point of order. I remind him that this is a private Members' day, and he is taking up the time of other Back Benchers.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: You might say, Mr. Speaker, that Ministers' answers to hon. Members are not a matter for you. I put it to you that when Ministers provide documentary evidence to the Comptroller and Auditor General to enable him to carry out audit certification and value for money examinations, Ministers' replies to him are a matter for you, because he is an Officer of the House of Commons— [Interruption .] I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that the reply that Ministers give to the Comptroller and Auditor General are matters for you because he is an Officer of the House.
There is a divergence of opinion. The Ministry of Defence says that the project has not incurred a large amount of money, but three people outside the House say they have been told by Ministry of Defence officials that the project incurred several hundred million pounds. The Comptroller and Auditor General supports the Government's position at this stage. I believe that it is incumbent upon you, Mr. Speaker, to satisfy yourself—defending the interests of Parliament— that the Comptroller and Auditor General is being correctly informed about the amount of money that the Government have spent on the project. My point of order is to ask you whether you will do precisely that.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that I can give the hon. Gentleman a one word answer—yes, I will. Well, that is three words.

Parliamentary Procedure
3.41 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I realise that there is a problem about the use of prime time and that this is seen by many as an abuse of the emergency procedure. I understand that, but the problem is that we have no form of emergency questioning under which we can ask a Minister such as the Lord Advocate exactly why he did not go along with the law of Scotland and consult the feelings of the victim. The victim in this case is a major Government Department—the Foreign Office. Why did the Lord Advocate not listen—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must raise a point of order which I can answer. I think that I can help him at this point by saying that he will have that opportunity on Wednesday this week when the Solicitor-General for Scotland will be answering questions.

Ministerial Statements
3.42 pm
Mr. Ron Davies: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This afternoon during Welsh Question Time I asked the Secretary of State for Wales a supplementary question about weekend press reports that the Government intend to relax control over agricultural land. The issue received wide publicity at the weekend and in this morning's press. The reports indicate clearly that the Government intend to release agricultural land for housing and afforestation. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that the Secretary of State, in his reply to me, refused to answer my question on the ground that his right hon. Friend—
Mr. Speaker: Order. This matter was raised last Thursday as a continuation of Question Time. I heard what the Secretary of State for Wales said, and I read what was said in the newspapers. It is not a matter for me. It is a matter not of order, but of argument.
Mr. Ron Davies: I think, Mr. Speaker, that I have a valid point of order. The Secretary of State for Wales refused to answer my question on the ground that his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was to reply to a parliamentary question. The Minister is in his place today.
My point of order is that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has arranged a press conference for 4 o'clock today. He has also arranged a planted written question to leak details of the Government's proposals. Would it not be more appropriate for you to make this facility available for the Minister to come to the House today to make his views known?
Mr. Speaker: Order. These are patently not matters for me. Questions to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will be taken on 19 February, when these matters can be raised.
Mr. Brynmor John: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: It must be a point of order and it must be related directly to my responsibilities.
Mr. John: It is inconceivable that so important a matter as a new Government land use policy should be slipped through by means of a written answer, with a press conference hearing of it before any hon. Member of this House has been provided with the information. Has the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food given any sign that he wishes to make an oral statement? If he cannot make it now because it is a private Member's day, will he say whether he will make it at 7 o'clock?
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Michael Jopling): I have heard the points made by the hon. Members for Pontypridd (Mr. John) and for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies). I have heard also what you said, Mr. Speaker, about the need to keep within the confines of your responsibilities. It is true that it was my intention to answer a question this afternoon on a package of measures for alternative land use and the rural economy, but I was especially aware that today was private Member's time, and I remember from a previous incarnation how unpopular Ministers are when they intrude upon it.
I am in the hands of the House. If you, Mr. Speaker, within your responsibilities, can find an opportunity for

25
me to give the answer now which I would have given later, I shall be happy to take it. I am happy to do that now. If, alternatively, you think that it might be more helpful to have a discussion through what I believe are called the usual channels, I would he happy for that to be done, or for you to find me a facility to answer the question. I am perfectly happy to make my answer available to the House at any time.
Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not a matter for me to find time for the right hon. Member. If he wishes to make a statement, no doubt he will have an opportunity to do so tomorrow afternoon.
Dr. David Clark: The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State for the Environment are issuing statements today without even giving hon. Members written answers. Is it in order, Mr. Speaker, for the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to give a written answer to the House when there is not a written question on the Order Paper?
Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not an innovation. There is a question on the Order Paper. It has been done before. I repeat that if the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food wishes to make a statement, no doubt that should be arranged through the usual channels. That is the best way of dealing with the matter.
Mr. Alan Williams rose—
Mr. Speaker: I cannot say more than I have done.
Mr. Williams: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This really is an abnormal position. Your role, Mr. Speaker, as you well appreciate, is to protect the interests of Back-Bench Members. It must be virtually unprecedented for a Minister to refuse to answer an oral question, which always has priority in this House, because an answer will be given later in the day to a pursuant question which is not even on the Order Paper. If the Minister is trying to slide his answer through the House, surely the least that he can do is come to the House at 7 o'clock tonight, not tomorrow, and make a statement.
The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Nicholas Edwards): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) was not in the House when I was on my feet. It is untrue that I refused to answer the question. I answered the question, but said that an answer would also be given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food later.
Mr. Ron Davies: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot deal with the matter any more. The hon. Gentleman is a Back-Bench Member, and he will understand that I have a duty to protect the interests of Back-Benchers. This is patently a private Members' day.
Mr. Davies rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. There is nothing more that I can say. This is a matter of argument and I have no doubt that it will be discussed through the usual channels and resolved tomorrow.
Mr. Davies: On a point of order Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I shall take it only if it is a matter on which I can rule, and not a continuation of the discussion.
Mr. Davies: We have now had the unprecedented spectacle of the Minister of Agriculture Fisheries and Food in effect making a statement but denying that he was doing so. As I understand it, the rules of the House are such that if a Minister comes to the Dispatch Box to make a statement, hon. Members have the opportunity of questioning him. The Minister has in effect made a statement and I am submitting to you, Mr. Speaker, that hon. Members now have the right to question him.
Mr. Speaker: The best way of resolving the issue on a private Members' day is for the matter to be discussed through the usual channels. I have no doubt that that will lead to a resolution of the difficulty.
Mr. James Callaghan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am on my feet.
Mr. Callaghan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Ministerial Statements

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
  Ordered,
  That the draft Plugs and Sockets etc. (Safety) Regulations 1987 be referred to a Standing committee on Statutory Instruments, 8m—[Mr. Durant.]

Ministerial Statements
Mr. James Callaghan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I regret to say that my point of order relates to the matter that was previously before the House, which you said was one of argument. Would you not consider it to be a matter of propriety as well as one of argument, Mr. Speaker? Do you think that the House should be subjected to a procedure that means that no statement is made to it when a press conference is to be held at 4 o'clock? Is such a practice not to be deprecated?
Mr. Speaker: What the right hon. Gentleman says—he has great experience in this place—may be correct, but it is not a matter of order on which I can rule. The best way for the House to proceed is to allow the matter to be discussed through the usual channels. I am certain that that will lead to a resolution.
Mr. Greville Janner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I raised this specific issue when a previous Government did exactly the same thing.
Mr. Eric Forth: A Labour Government?
Mr. Janner: No. It was done by a previous Conservative Government. Your predecessor. Mr. Speaker, ruled that, though he was not able to say that the practice was contrary to the rules of order, he thought that it was a thoroughly unworthy practice that the House should be treated in a way that meant that a press conference was held prior to the making of a statement in the House. In these circumstances, Mr. Speaker, will you repeat the deprecation now? It is surely monstrous that the Government should continue to behave in this way.
Mr. Speaker: The House knows that Ministers frequently give information to the House by way of written answers to questions. There is a new feature today, because the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and food has offered to make a statement at a different time, and I hope that that will happen.

Nuclear Waste
3.52 pm
Mr. Michael Brown: I beg to move,
That this House welcomes the report prepared for the County Councils of Humberside, Lincolnshire and Bedfordshire regarding the disposal of low level nuclear waste; notes the coalition's view based on an international comparative study that; (i) there are better technical alternatives than those presented by UK Nirex for the disposal of such wastes which may also be used for intermediate level waste; (ii) the overall cost of alternatives may be greater than for a shallow repository but would be less than one per cent. of the costs of nuclear electricity generation; and (iii) if public acceptance is to be gained a truly convincing solution to the disposal of low and intermediate level nuclear waste must be found; and urges Her Majesty's Government to give full consideration to this report before final decisions are taken regarding the disposal of nuclear waste.
I have been a Member of this place for the past eight years and it was something of a surprise for me, having gone through the automatic, routine mechanism of signing a ballot paper on just about every available occasion during the past eight years, to find that I had drawn No. 1 position in the ballot for today's private Members' motions. Probably few Members on either side of the House were surprised when I decided to give the House the opportunity of debating nuclear waste disposal.
In February 1986 my right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker), who is now the Secretary of State for Education and Science and who was then Secretary of State for the Environment, announced his intention to select four sites for test drilling for the disposal of low and, at that stage, intermediate-level waste. We had a short debate that arose on the Easter Adjournment thanks to the initiative of my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), who is now the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department. There was a second debate which lasted for about three hours, which was a short time for the many who wanted to contribute to it, when a special development order was placed before the House. This is the first major opportunity that the House has had to have what I hope will be a constructive and leisurely debate.
I am delighted to see my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Lyell), the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security, and my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary here today. From my knowledge of their efforts, they have been as vigorous in their representations on behalf of their constitutents as I have on behalf of mine. The fact that they are members of the Government has not inhibited them in any way in their efforts to press for the best interests of their constituents. I am delighted to see them.
Mr. Donald Stewart: Is the hon. Gentleman, like his hon. Friends whom he mentioned, in favour of the generation of electricity by nuclear power? If so, his arguments against dumping are, to put it mildly, completely untenable.
Mr. Brown: That is a fair challenge. If the right hon. Gentleman had been watching Yorkshire Television last Monday, he would have seen me conducting an interview with Mr. Arthur Scargill, when we discussed that very question. I said that the case for further nuclear power
28
generation had not yet been proven, and that until the Government had received a mandate at the next general election I felt that it would be prudent for them not to proceed with further installation of new nuclear power stations. I said that the Government should not do so until the electorate had at least had the opportunity of confirming that decision.
I am concerned not only about the proposals that NIREX has made for the South Killingholme site in my constituency but about the situation at Fulbeck, Elstow and Bradwell. My right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine), who cannot be with us for the debate because he has duties in America, has represented those in the county of Essex who are concerned about the selection of Bradwell as a site. He has also made representations on behalf of my right hon Friend the Patronage Secretary. I should like to draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister for Environment, Countryside and Planning to the letter written to him on 4 February by my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point, who was kind enough to send me a copy. He asked whether I would draw to my hon. Friend's attention the fact that
"the geological conditions which exist at Bradwell do not begin to meet Nirex's own criteria. We are in no doubt that the testing now going on will confirm this. That is why we did not object to the testing taking place. This … is quite apart from the fact that the area has been subjected to flooding and earthquakes."
Secondly, my right hon. Friend draws attention to the fact that
"the road and rail communications do not satisfy the criteria laid down by Nirex. The transport links arc totally inadequate for the purpose of transporting waste to the site."
This also applies to South Killingholme. My right hon. Friend draws attention to the fact that there are large centres of population in the Bradwell area. Surely it must be utterly wrong to site a nuclear waste disposal facility in an area that has large centres of population.
I concur absolutely with the representations of my right hon. Friend, who was speaking also on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will take note of those representations when he replies to that letter.
I should welcome it very much if Essex county council joined the coalition of Humberside, Lincolnshire and Bedfordshire because the council would then have at its disposal the advantage of professional consultants who produced an excellent report, a copy of which has been sent to all hon. Members. The report is entitled "The Disposal of Radioactive Waste". It draws on the experiences of those three county councils when they recently visited Sweden, West Germany and France. The report was prepared for the coalition of county councils by Environmental Resources Limited, under the guidance of Mr. Peter Floyd. It is an outstanding report. I think that Essex county council would agree with its conclusions. I hope that it will be encouraged to join the other three county councils.
I want first to skim through the report in the hope that other hon. Members who will take part in the debate will also have had the opportunity of reading the report and will be able to refer to it. I want to outline the background of the report and the conclusions reached by the county councils. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, South and Maldon (Mr. Wakeham), my

29
hon. and learned Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire and my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham will support those conclusions.
My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham was kind enough to join us for the press launch of the document just two weeks ago and I am delighted to welcome him to the debate today. He was present at the press conference when the document was launched on 21 January alongside members of Lincolnshire. Humberside and Bedfordshire county councils.
The coalition formed by the three county councils decided, on the basis of the evidence that they had studied from the report of the all-party Select Committee on the Environment relating to nuclear waste last year, that they should go to Sweden, West Germany and France to study how other nations were tackling the problem. They were encouraged to do that because the Select Committee report claimed that the technology for nuclear waste disposal in the United Kingdom was a long way behind the experience and expertise in the subject in other countries. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin), the former Secretary of State for the Environment who originally announced the policy, also acknowledged that technology and study in this country was far behind that of other European countries.
The foreword of the report states:
"The Coalition was most impressed with the committed and far-sighted view which the Swedish people take of radioactive waste disposal. The Swedes have spared neither effort nor expense in coming to terms with the problem. Everyone in the delegation was deeply impressed by the sheer size and vision of the Forsmark undertaking. It is clear that the Swedish authorities have decided to pay the greatest attention to deep-seated public concern and have come up with a demonstrably acceptable and safe solution."
The foreword goes on to draw attention to the coalition's findings in West Germany. It states:
"In West Germany, too, it was apparent that the anxieties of the people were taken very seriously. The West German authorities see it as their task to accept and allay these fears—not to dismiss them with contempt."
Those are two examples from Europe which we should follow. The foreword continues:
"The French method of disposal was considered the least impressive of the three seen by the delegation and could not be recommended for the UK. In fact, although the UK Government has suggested that the Coalition should see this method as an example of what was proposed by NIREX, it was so demonstrably different that no comparison could be made."
The foreword concludes:
"The Coalition delegation learned salutary and important lessons from their tour of Europe. They returned convinced that the British Government has not yet addressed itself seriously to the problems of radioactive waste disposal. There has been no proper evaluation of the alternative methods of disposing of low level radioactive waste. The method adopted, shallow burial, has been rejected in other countries. Public opinion is seen as something to be overcome in the UK, rather than as the basis for policy formulation.
The Government now has an absolute duty to respond to these concerns."
Dr. Michael Clark: My hon. Friend has referred to the example set by various countries on the continent. If NIREX was to follow the examples that he has listed, would he withdraw all his objections to a low-level disposal site in this country?
Mr. Brown: If Her Majesty's Government can say through my hon. Friend the Minister during the course of the debate that the experience at Forsmark had convinced
30
them that that was the best way of disposing not only of intermediate-level waste but also of low and very low-level nuclear waste, I would accept that the problem of public opinion would have been dealt with, that the concern of public opinion would have been substantially allayed and I would be very much more inclined to accept such a proposal.
I do not believe that there is a great difference in the costs involved. A figure of £125 million has been quoted as the cost of the Forsmark system. When we consider all the costs— and NIREX has not been able to give the total cost of its proposal—I do not believe that the cost of £125 million, the equivalent cost of Forsmark, is a price that we cannot afford to pay. If that kind of expenditure was able to convince hon. Members, myself and my constituents— who at present are deeply concerned about the method of disposal— I believe that that money would be well worth spending. If the Government can announce a change of policy recognising, as I of course recognise, that low-level waste arises and must be disposed of, that may satisfy me. If the Labour party gains office on the basis of a policy involving decommissioning nuclear power stations, there would be even more nuclear waste for disposal. I do not deny that the problem exists. Nuclear waste exists and must be disposed of. No one disagrees with that.
Sir Patrick Wall: My hon. Friend has referred to additional costs. Would not the sterilisation of industrial land, certainly at South Killingholme and probably in the other areas, cost less than the amount required to follow the German or the Swedish system?
Mr. Brown: That is a very fair point. If we include the cost— to which my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley (Sir P. Wall) has referred—of losing industrial development on prime industrial land, land required by the county of Humberside for industrial purposes to provide jobs, the opportunity cost is even greater. My hon. Friend the Member for Beverley has reminded me that Humberside county council commissioned a report recently which has now been published. It was undertaken by Coopers and Lybrand. The report suggested that the alternative uses for the South Killingholme site were very important because it is such prime industrial land. Indeed, Nissan considered the site for its car factory a few years ago. The site is surrounded by industrial and chemical factories and oil refineries which are job-creating organisations. If that land is sterilised it will kill the prospect of future jobs. There is no doubt that the opportunity cost of not using that land and making it a nuclear waste dump would be tremendous.
The Swedish experience outlined in the county council coalition report shows a much better way of disposal. It ensures that nuclear waste is not disposed of in centres of population. I am aware that the site proposed in the constituency of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire is surrounded by an area in which many people live. Bedfordshire is a very densely populated county. It is absolutely wrong that nuclear waste dumps should be sited in areas of high population.
The problem of disposal is one that we will have to face. However, we do not have to face it immediately. The Flowers commission stated 10 years ago that there is no urgency at the moment. Although Drigg is unsatisfactory, that site will be available for some years yet. It is important

31
to use this time to get the right ideas and to draw on the experiences abroad. We must consider the experience in the United States where there have been shallow burial facilities which the United States Government are now closing because those facilities do not meet the Government's criteria.
We are out of line. As other countries do their best to allay public fears and meet public objections, our Government are intent simply on saying that they will try to meet public opinion if they can, but if they cannot, too bad.
I have not yet persuaded my hon. Friend the Minister to change his policy, but I have not given up hope. I am grateful for the way in which he responded to detailed questions asked by me, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary and my hon. and learned Friend the Member of Mid-Bedfordshire. We put to him a range of detailed points on which we need undertakings. I make it plain to my hon. Friend the Minister that I recognise that he is unlikely to change his policy as a result of this debate alone, but all those affected by this terrible problem want him eventually to change his policy.
We have now reached the stage where NIREX is at all four sites. Last year we had the problems with court injunctions, which was the most heavy-handed way of treating my constituents and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends. Those people have lost confidence in Parliament and believe that it does not listen to them. Although I do not like people protesting and do not condone people breaking the law, I believe that those people thought that Parliament had let them down. NIREX was running all over the place, throwing injunctions towards my innocent constituents and those of the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) in a most unfortunate way. I hope that that will not happen again and that if NIREX is intent on mending its ways in terms of public relations, it will not run to the courts to support its efforts.
Can my hon. Friend the Minister tell the House what the likely completion date will be? How long will NIREX take to evaluate its findings and when will the blight be lifted from at least three of the four sites? A great many people in four counties are desperately worried, so can my hon. Friend tell us what progress has been made and the likely time scale? When will he tell the House who has drawn the unlucky short straw? Whoever draws that short straw, I shall continue to try to change Government policy. Whether I and my constituents are lucky or unlucky, I will not let the issue go away.
My hon. Friend and other Ministers at the Department of the Environment have said that NIREX will submit one or two proposed sites— I want some clarification on whether it will be one or two—to a public inquiry. If only one site is chosen, I presume that there will be only one inquiry, but if NIREX seeks planning permission for two sites, will there be public inquiries in respect of both?
Most importantly, what will be the scope of the public inquiry? Last year, my hon. Friend the Minister explained to my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham that the inspector would have powers to call evidence on whatever aspect he wished to investigate, but I want the Minister's undertaking that he will ask the inspector to consider not
32
just the planning aspect but evidence relating to safety and to alternative methods that might be better. The scope of the inquiry is one of the most important safeguards and reassurances that he could give to those who live in the constituency that will draw the short straw. My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham has asked me to invite the Minister to consider the scope of the inquiry, and we believe that it is essential to have a formal commitment that, in the event of the inspector not being satisfied on safety grounds, the Government will not proceed with this method of disposal.
My hon. Friend and I also believe that compensation should be made available now for those who cannot sell their houses. NIREX has announced the circumstances in which it will pay compensation to those who are affected because they live in the site nominated by NIREX after it has completed its test drilling. I draw my hon. Friend's attention to letters that I have received from constituents who cannot sell their houses for the amount which they would have received about 12 months ago. I have already shown the correspondence to my hon. Friend, and I hope that he can say something about it.
I received a letter dated 4 December from Mr. T. A. Pollard, who said:
"Dear Mr. Brown, I am writing to you as my 'sitting' Member of Parliament to ask your help in registering my protest with NIREX and the appropriate agencies. Because of the NIREX operation and subsequent adverse publicity I have found my house has not been only difficult to sell, but appears to have declined in value. Please find enclosed a copy of my letter concerning this problem which I have sent to NIREX, and to the Prime Minister … I would be very grateful for any help, aid, or even advice which you may be able to give at this time. As I have pointed out to NIREX these things may be very small and even insignificant matters to them, but to the ordinary family they can have a very considerable effect. I will point out that I have agreed to sell at the figure of £17,500 … in order to move away from a potential menace which may blight the lives of many more people in the future, but I should still be a member of your constituency."
I wrote to NIREX asking, "What about this?", and the managing directore replied, in a curt letter dated 5 January, as follows:
"Dear Mr. Brown, I have your letter of 17 December regarding Mr. Pollard, and enclose a copy of a letter which has been sent to Mr. Pollard. As you can gather from that letter the property market in South Humberside, which even before any indication of NIREX's presence was not very healthy, has not substantially changed since our announcement in February 1986. Mr. Brooke-Taylor's letter"—
that is the letter from NIREX to my constitutent—
"sets out the two sets of circumstances under which NIREX will compensate people. We believe that further involvement in the property market would only cause problems, rather than resolve them."
A few days later, I received a letter from another constituent, Mr. D. Humberstone. He said:
"Dear Mr. Brown, After 15 years with the same employer I was forced onto the unemployment register by an industrial accident. Following an operation I was advised not to return to work. I decided to start a business of my own and put in an offer on a club and restaurant. I remortgaged my bungalow"—
which is in South Killingholme, as was Mr. Pollard's home—
"as security against the business. My bungalow was valued at £45,950 in 1983 … I estimated to the bank that my bungalow was worth in the region of £47,000 to £48,000 so suitable overdraft facilities and a loan was duly arranged. To my and the bank's horror the valuation was £37,500 (see enclosed valuation)."

33
We should remember that NIREX said in its letter to me of 5 January that there was no sign that its presence had changed the position substantially since February 1986.
We also have the report from Whitegates estate agency, a reputable firm in my constituency and that of the hon. Member for Great Grimsby. Under the heading "Situation and Amenities", it states:
"Are there any adverse features which might limit marketability? Property values in South Killingholme have recently been adversely affected by the possibility of a low level nuclear waste dump site being developed close to South Killingholme. The plans to develop the site have not yet been approved but its proposal has adversely affected property value levels and the length of time houses for sale remain on the market."
I cannot think that we need clearer evidence that Mr. Pollard and Mr. Humberstone cannot sell their houses because of the presence of NIREX contractors. NIREX denies that, but I do not think that we need more evidence than the estate agent's report. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire and my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary have constituents in the same circumstances.
In a parliamentary question I asked my hon. Friend the Minister for Environment, Countryside and Local Government
"if he will introduce a compensation scheme for those householders in the South Killingholme area"—
that could equally apply to Elstow, Fulbeck or Bradwell—
"who cannot now sell their houses at normal valuation prices in cases where the decline in value can now be directly attributed"—
as the surveyors' report that I have quoted shows—
"to the presence of contractor test drilling for the suitability of a nuclear waste dump and where surveyors' reports on such properties indicate that the test drilling has contributed to a fall in market value; and if he will make a statement."
I said earlier that my hon. Friend has, within the limits of
a policy with which I disagree, tried to be as helpful as he can. His reply was not unhelpful. It said:
"Compensation policy, both in the areas of the four potential disposal sites and at any site which might eventually be selected, is primarily a matter for UK NIREX Ltd. The company has already announced measures which are intended to maintain the level of house prices locally. NIREX is also considering the possibility of further measures, which it is discussing with my right hon. Friend."— [Official
Report, 26 January 1987; Vol. 109, c. 43–44.]
It may not be possible for my hon. Friend to expand on that answer today, but I invite him to consider whether there is any prospect that NIREX's discussions with the Secretary of State will be fruitful. The examples that I have given show that people are suffering. I and my right hon. and hon. Friends are looking, first and foremost, for a change of policy but, in the meantime, constituents who have all of their life savings tied up in property are unable to sell their homes.
NIREX says that there may be compensation arrangements when one site has been selected and there is planning blight. At the moment, there are no compensation arrangements and groups of constituents such as mine are being adversely affected. They have the right to some redress. I invite my hon. Friend the Minister to be as helpful as he can.
We would like an assurance that the public inquiry will be able to consider all factors, including safety and other methods of disposal. What are those other methods? I have mentioned those used in Sweden and West Germany,
34
but there are companies in Britain which have done a tremendous amount of work on methods of disposal. Last year's Environment Select Committee report on nuclear waste disposal mentioned the ENSEC method. Mr. Alex Copson, the managing director of the ENSEC company, has devised an excellent method which disposes of low and intermediate-level waste under the sea, similar to a method used by the Swedish Government. We also have the power system of nuclear waste disposal which has been pioneered by Dr. Wheeler.
My hon. Friends at the Department of the Environment constantly say that NIREX is prepared to consider other methods of disposal, but I have the feeling that it has its head down and wants to go ahead only with shallow burial disposal. It may pay lip service to other methods, but that is the system for which it wants to go. The Department of the Environment should tell NIREX that it should consider methods, which have been identified by the County Councils Coalition, as seriously as the four sites which are already being investigated.
The County Councils Coalition is a model of lobbying and how a problem has been taken out of four communities and brought to the attention of the nation. Humberside county council is a hung council. I understand that the same is true of Bedfordshire and that there is a Conservative majority in Lincolnshire. The politicians in each have set aside the party political divide and worked together wonderfully.
I should like to pay tribute to Humberside county councillors Margaret Crampton, Hugh Lewis and John Bryant. They are from three different political parties and on a host of other issues engage in the rough and tumble of political debate. With their advisers, however, and the organisation that has produced the coalition report, added to similar experience in Lincolnshire and Bedfordshire, we have a recipe for good homework and first-rate research.
I should like to pay tribute to the leader of Glanford borough council, councillor Terry Atherton, and to its chief executive, David Cameron. Glanford borough council covers the South Killingholme area. They have worked night and day with the county council for many years, often with the encouragement of the Department of Trade and Industry. The Department constantly tells the council that South Killingholme is one of the most important areas for industrial development in the United Kingdom, that the Humber estuary is the last undeveloped estuary, that it wants the council to bring in new jobs arid industry, and that the South Killingholme area should he in the vanguard of industrial development.
Nobody would believe it, but when the industrial development map was redrawn a couple of years ago an intermediate area boundary included Immingham but stopped short of South Killingholme. It might be thought that South Killingholme cannot be important because it does not have intermediate area status, but the Government made it a development area. It has full grant aid for industrial development. Here, however, through its agency, NIREX, the Department of the Environment is blighting the objectives of Glanford borough council, Humberside county council and the Department of Trade and Industry.
The area needs new jobs and serves the working population in the area represented by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby. It is extraordinary that South

35
Killingholme should be the boundary between intermediate and full development status. The site will be in an area covered by full development status.
The Department of Trade and Industry wants borough councils, the hon. Member for Great Grimsby, me, my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Hickmet) and my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) to pitch in and ensure that industry goes to the area. We all want the same, but there are signs, according to what the borough council has told me, that its hard work and that being done by the county council to get industry to the area is being set at nought because the asset of land in the South Killingholme area is being frozen.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: I know exactly what I would do, but if the hon. Gentleman were to draw the short straw, what should be done about low-level waste?
Mr. Brown: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was present when I was asked that question by the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart), the leader of the Scottish National party. The debate arises from the County Councils Coalition report, which points to alternative methods of nuclear waste disposal. I have always accepted that low-level nuclear waste will occur and must be disposed of. The report alludes to the Swedish solution and a copy of it has been sent to every hon. Member. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman will find one in his post.
Mr. Dalyell: I have the report with me.
Mr. Brown: If the hon. Gentleman turns to the conclusions, he will read about the Swedish experience. The Swedish method is acceptable and allays the fears of the public. Therefore, my blunt answer to the hon. Gentleman's fair question is that I would adopt the Swedish method of disposal. That is what I want to see the Government do. If they cannot do it today, I shall continue lobbying and making representations until they do.
We have a full debate today. I know that other hon. Members wish to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I hope that they will be successful. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire and my right hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, South and Maldon. I wish to thank my hon. Friends the Members for Gainsborough and Horncastle and for Glanford and Scunthorpe and the hon. Member for Great Grimsby for all the work that they have done. I am also most grateful to the County Councils Coalition.
Sir Trevor Skeet: Will my hon. Friend make perfectly clear to the House whether he is confining all his remarks to low-level nuclear waste and not including in them short-lived intermediate-level waste?
Mr. Brown: The problem of low-level nuclear waste has been occupying my mind for the most part this afternoon. Last year the Government made it clear— I hope that the Minister will reiterate this—that they intended to include intermediate-level nuclear waste for study. But, just before the special development order was laid before the House, in response to representations from me, the county councils and others, a decision was taken not to
36
include intermediate-level nuclear waste. Therefore, today we shall address our minds to the problem of low-level nuclear waste, although it will be relevant to raise aspects of intermediate-level nuclear waste within the terms of the motion.
I am aware that my hon. Friend the Minister for Environment, Countryside and Planning has not been well recently and I apologise to him. It was unfortunate for all of us that today's business was private Members' motions. I hope that he can respond reasonably well, but I know that a few days ago he was suffering from a temperature of over 100 deg F. I am most grateful to him for coming and I hope that he can stay the course of the debate.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): At least 12 hon. Members, apart from the two Front Bench spokesmen, are anxious to catch my eye before 7 o'clock, so I appeal for restraint from those who are called.
4.33 pm
Mr. Richard Livsey: The disposal of nuclear waste is one of the key issues of our time. Future generations on these islands will pay a heavy price if we fail to dispose of radioactive waste as safely as possible. Not only will we be harshly judged by them, with great justification, but we shall put at risk both human and animal health, destroy our ecology and effectively sterilise our environment. Our forefathers did not leave us that sort of legacy, nor should we mortgage our children's future in such a way.
Many of us would prefer it if there were no nuclear waste to dispose of. Long before Chernobyl my party was opposed to nuclear generation because so many risks were involved. Today we are talking about low-level waste, but intermediate-level waste should also be considered. Our main objective, then and now, is to ask why we should produce a dangerous waste product which cannot as yet be effectively disposed of. That is highly irresponsible and cannot be defended when so many sources of energy are available.
Our resources provide us with alternative sources of energy and we could become a world leader in new technology for wind, water and solar power. Because of our wealth in coal and oil we have a breathing space which other countries have not. We cannot immediately prevent the creation of nuclear waste because at present we have a continuing programme, so nuclear waste is here and will be with us for a long time. We call for a pause so that we can dispose of the waste that we have and do some research to find out how the problem can be better tackled.
NIREX has chosen four sites in the United Kingdom for shallow grave disposal of low-level waste. The County Councils Coalition, of Humberside, Lincolnshire and Bedfordshire, has shown the way in its report, evaluating methods of disposal of radioactive waste in Sweden, West Germany and France. The report is far-sighted and I congratulate the coalition on being involved in such a constructive report, and the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) on drawing the attention of the House to it.
The Government and NIREX must learn from the conclusions of the report. If they do not heed them, I fear that the United Kingdom will become a nuclear dustbin.
Mr. Edward Leigh: The hon. Gentleman's speech is interesting, but could he

37
explain why the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton), who is a Liberal party spokesman, concurred with paragraph 99 of the Environment Select Committee's report, which stated:
"Near surface disposal facilities are … acceptable for short-lived low-level wastes"?
Mr. Livsey: I do not know the circumstances of that and, obviously, I shall question my hon. Friend about it after the debate.
The NIREX proposals for shallow grave disposal are fatally flawed. When the sites are examined, the limitations of the influence of the water table, in particular in clay soils, must not be ruled out. What point is there in putting nuclear waste in trenches if water can permeate through?
The two sites at Killingholme and Elstow are geologically unsound and can probably be ruled out immediately. The sites have been chosen only because they are already in public ownership, and to apply elsewhere would provoke such a public outcry that it could not be done.
The technical disadvantages of the NIREX proposals are compelling. There is evidence that they are suspect technically. The shallow trench proposals are known to be unsafe in the sites where they are proposed because of the high water table. The concrete cartons, in which it is proposed to put the waste, have already been proved unsuitable at the French Centre de la Manche, where the cartons are already cracking. The geology of the sites is suspect and at no site in the United Kingdom will the water permeation and radioactive contamination in the water be monitored, as it is at the French site. Indeed, I understand that the shallow trenches on the French site are above the water table, so are not comparable with NIREX's proposals for the United Kingdom.
The options considered by the coalition are much safer and more practical than the NIREX proposals. Even the French site at Centre de la Manche would monitor contamination of water and keep this water separate. They at least had the wit to put the site above the water table, even though the concrete cartons are cracking.
The West German option, using an old mine, is certainly one of interest, but the fears in the area around Teesside when proposals were put forward for the storage of nuclear waste in the mine at Billingham show that this does not seem to be a practicable option for the United Kingdom. As one would expect, by far the best proposal comes from the Swedes, and this has been evaluated by the County Councils Coalition. If the objective is to put the nuclear waste away safely, for at least 500 years, which is what the Swedes are talking about, then NIREX, in the interests of the public, must adopt the Swedish system.
This system consists of a tunnel under the sea, 500m deep and 1,000m long. It contains multiple barriers, which prevent the waste from escaping. There is double protection in steel and concrete drums and these are put into a bunker, which is back filled with concrete. The chamber itself is located in granite. These are more than double safe mechanisms, and the Swedes have taken a responsible attitude to the disposal of nuclear waste. The site is not yet in use, but it is ready for the future.
Undoubtedly, deep sites are the best, and we are talking about heavily populated countries where the rainfall is high and there is the problem of seepage. The cost of the Swedish construction is virtually the same as that for NIREX's proposal for shallow graves. This makes it attractive from an expenditure point of view.
38
There are massive technical objections to the NIREX shallow grave proposal, and there is no doubt that the United Kingdom has been found by the County Councils Coalition to be far behind in the technology of disposal of nuclear waste. The measures must have political acceptance— this is important. Clearly, planning procedures must apply, with democratically elected planning authorities involved in planning the sites for disposal, as they are answerable to the electors of the area.
Special development orders from the Government do not respond to the democratic wishes of the people living in the area. They are undemocratic and insensitive to local needs, when one considers the lack of responsiveness from the Government in comparison to that of locally elected members. A public inquiry, at which county councils can be called to give evidence, does not replace the need for proper planning procedures on a local basis.
The syndrome of "Not in my back yard" has been apparent from the reaction of hon. Members representing the proposed sites. No hon. Member could welcome the dumping of nuclear waste in his constituency. That is the acid test. No hon. Member is prepared to welcome nuclear waste in his constituency, and I would not welcome it in mine.
The Minister for Environment, Countryside and Planning (Mr. William Waldegrave): At least one hon Member has had the courage to go on record as saying that he would welcome it, and that is the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie). I hope that I would have the same courage in similar circumstances.
Mr. Dalyell: It depends on the optimum geological conditions. The Patronage Secretary and the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) have to say whether they are in favour of their Government's policy, and support their Ministers.
Mr. Livsey: I am glad to hear that there are hon. Members who have the courage to welcome nuclear waste dumping in their constituencies. I shall watch the debate with interest to see how many hon. Members will say that today. There is growing public pressure on this matter. The great British public are wise in their judgment. They know that the proposals are not safe, and the maxim of "trust the people" is sound. One should not underestimate the knowledge and probing of the British public, who are well informed about the risks of shallow storage of low-level nuclear waste.
We must go for the safest option—disposal under the sea— and we must instruct NIREX to act on the County Councils Coalition report and put its proposals into action.
4.46 pm
Sir Hugh Rossi: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) on selecting for debate a subject that is of fundamental concern not only to his constituents and the constituents of many of my right hon. and hon. Friends, but to the country as a whole.
My hon. Friend referred on a number of occasions to the first report of the Select Committee on the Environment for 1985–86, which was quoted extensively in the other report to which he referred, the report of the County Councils Coalition. The coalition followed the path beaten by my Committee in conducting its inquiry,

39
although the conclusions that it reached are in some respects different. That is understandable, because it represents the localities that will possibly be at the receiving end of something that would be unwelcome to anybody.
I wish to redress something of the balance of argument, because too much was attributed in the County Councils Coalition report to my Committee, which was not there or found to be there only by a series of selective quotations. I want also to take the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) to task. I remind him that the Select Committee on the Environment report was an all-party report, and that his Chief Whip was a member of the Committee and fully endorsed all the recommendations of that Committee, which the hon. Gentleman now seeks to criticise.
As to the official Opposition, two members of the Committee— one is now their Whip and one a spokesman on the environment— endorsed all the recommendations of the Committee.
I have now put the political aspect into perspective and can get down to the facts. Two years ago, at the start of my Committee's inquiry into radioactive waste, virtually all low-level waste went into Drigg in Cumbria. I shall refer to low-level waste because that is the only issue before us. We hope that there will be another debate on my Committee's report, when all the other matters can be dealt with. At the moment we are concerned only with low-level waste.
We found the arrangements there more than unsatisfactory. It would not be unfair to say that primitive is an accurate description of what we found. Wastes were unsorted. They were not packed, labelled or compacted and were simply tipped into clay trenches and covered with earth. Water drained unchecked through the clay and out into the local stream. That arrangement may have been fine in the light of scientific knowledge and technology as understood 40 years ago, when Drigg was first started.
However, it immediately became clear to us that the practice on low-level waste disposal in the United Kingdom fell far behind that of countries such as Sweden, Germany and France. We made very strong recommendations in our report that were aimed at improving the practice at Drigg. I am glad to say that in their reply to us the Government agreed that Drigg should not be the model for any future disposal site. I am also glad that measures are now in hand to cap the Drigg trenches and to compact and containerise the waste, wherever possible.
While these measures go a long way towards meeting the concerns and recommendations of my Committee, they do not go the whole way. We should like there to be more identification and monitoring of the type of waste that goes into Drigg to ensure that it is only short-lived, low-level waste.
That brings me to the second point that I wish to make— whether near-surface burial sites are suitable for the disposal of short-lived, low-level waste. After studying the evidence, both in this country and in Europe, the United States and Canada, my all-party Committee came to the conclusion that near-surface disposal facilities are acceptable for such waste, provided that they are fully engineered on a complete containment basis. If that were done, it would not be inappropriate to dispose of low-level waste in near-surface burial sites. In parenthesis, I am
40
gratified that the Government accepted our recommendation that such disposal sites should not be used for intermediate-level waste. That is a great advance on their previous policy, and I acknowledge the fact that again the Government accepted the recommendations of the Select Committee on the Environment.
It has been suggested both elsewhere and during this debate that all radioactive waste, even low-level waste, would be best disposed of by deep burial and that no waste at all should be put into near-surface facilities. I have already mentioned that that is not the view to which my Committee came, although some low-level waste, as has been mentioned, is disposed of in Sweden and Germany by deep burial. The problem is volume. The volume of waste is an inevitable consideration here.
While low-level wastes are produced in the United Kingdom in their current great quantities, especially if we continue with Sellafield and reprocessing, it seems highly unlikely that deep burial, or the prolonged storage of low-level wastes, can be regarded as a practical solution. I say that notwithstanding the fact that the Committee gave urgent consideration to the point and made the strong recommendation that there should be more exploration and more research into the question of deep burial and beneath the seabed burial of wastes. However, we considered that those methods relate more sensibly to intermediate-level and high-level wastes.
That brings me to my third point, the highly sensitive issue of site selection for the disposal of low-level waste and the way in which it is beng handled by NIREX and the Government. At the start of our inquiry two years ago, the situation was very different. Originally, there was only one site under consideration as a successor to Drigg. That was at Elstow in Bedfordshire. It seemed to us that no criteria had been laid down as to why or how that site should be used. Also, we felt that insufficient research and insufficient geological exploration had been carried out in this country, by contrast with the work that we saw being done abroad in the countries that we visited. Therefore, the fact that the Government and NIREX are now looking at four alternative sites where the primary indication is that the geology might be suitable for near-surface burial follows the thinking of the Select Committee, that more exploration and more testing of sites should be carried out in this country.
Even if we closed down every nuclear power station in this country tomorrow, we cannot escape the fact that we should be left with the problem of the disposal of very large quantities of low-level waste that Drigg cannot conceivably handle. Therefore, somewhere else must be found and it would be sensible to carry out exploration up and down the country to find out where is the best and safest geology for this kind of disposal.
Sir Peter Emery: Will my hon. Friend remind the House that not just nuclear power stations but hospitals and industry use nuclear particles for many experimental purposes? Those who consider that this is just a nuclear power station problem do not understand the nature of the problem and are emotively misled in their consideration of it.
Sir Hugh Rossi: As usual, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. When we are speaking of low-level waste we are speaking not only of nuclear power station products but of the products of hospitals, including X-ray equipment,

41
and industry and of the research that is done in our universities. They create low-level waste for which a home ultimately has to be found. The question is, where?
Mr. Austin Mitchell: But that is only a minor problem.
Sir Hugh Rossi: That brings me to the question of how to overcome what the Committee identified as the NIMBY—the "not in my backyard"—syndrome. No community can face with equanimity the prospect of its life being suddenly disturbed by the proposal to put a waste disposal dump in its locality. That is true not only of low-level radioactive waste that has certain emotive connotations, but also of toxic wastes which can be much more dangerous. For example, chemical toxic wastes can be much more dangerous than short-lived, low-level wastes. A community would look askance at such a proposal. I remember that some years ago, when I was an Opposition spokesman, I was asked to go down to Chipping Norton and support the local community against the proposal to use an old quarry for the disposal of GLC household refuse. The community was up in arms about it and asked, "Why should we have somebody else's rubbish in our backyard?" It was a natural reaction. The question is how to overcome it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes referred to compensation. I am a great believer in compensation. The Committee came to the conclusion that the compensation must be generous, because we are talking about a community being requested to disadvantage itself for the benefit of the nation as a whole. If a community and individuals are asked to receive waste that nobody else wants and to make a sacrifice for the public good, I believe that the public as a whole should make sure that they are not badly off, or worse off, because of it—certainly insofar as the value of their property is concerned.
That is not a new concept. In the late 1960s when the Opposition were in government and introduced what they called a betterment levy, which meant that anybody who was developing land had to pay a levy because he was benefiting from planning permission, I remember that I and some of my hon. Friends tried to put forward the concept of "worsenment" compensation— the reverse side of the coin. However, that concept was not accepted and it was voted down. I doubt very much whether the railways of this country would ever have been built if the Victorians had not been prepared to pay 10 per cent. over and above the going market price for property that was affected by the building of the railways.
When it comes to nuclear power, the French are very practical and pragmatic. They meet with very little resistance and opposition. They make sure that local communities and individuals are compensated for any disadvantage that they may suffer because the country as a whole requires those communities or individuals to give up something in the national interest.
Sir Kenneth Lewis: Was my hon. Friend's Committee satisfied with the NIREX proposals for disposal in areas where compensation might be required and where there are large numbers of people? Was his Committee satisfied that NIREX does not have alternative areas where there are not high populations and
42
where geologically correct land is available? Have we thoroughly explored those areas of Britain which do not have substantial problems about population?
Sir Hugh Rossi: As my hon. Friend rightly says. this is essentially a matter of geology. The sites in question have the geological advantage, but do not have advantages for the inhabitants who have the misfortune to live there. In geological terms they have impervious clay. Water is the greatest enemy in seeking to deal with the containment of radioactive materials. When we went to Canada we saw that they were looking for methods of deep disposal arid burrowing down into the heart of granite to see whether chambers could be created half a mile below the surface and away from communities. But the granite was fractured and water was able to percolate. The radioactive waste could not be put there because of the danger that over hundreds of years the radioactivity could find its way into the human environment.
This is a matter of finding sites that stand up to scientific tests. One of the criticisms of the Committee was that until recently nobody had tried to lay down the scientific criteria, the sine qua non, for the selection of a site. That is the most important thing to be done, and when that has been done exploration takes place. Sites are found where the geology is suitable and safe, and if there is a community there, the people are to be compensated for what they have to suffer in consequence of living on top of the geology that is right for this kind of activity.
I know that many other hon. Members wish to speak. but I hope that my speech has restored a certain amount of balance to the debate, because there was a tendency to be slightly unfair and probably over-emotive when dealing with the disposal of low-level nuclear waste. That waste is containable and short-lived Nevertheless, it causes apprehension in the minds of the public who come across the concept for the first time.
5.3 pm
Mr. Austin Mitchell: I congratulate the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) on winning the ballot and on bringing this motion before us. He has fought a good fight on behalf of his constituents, but he has not exactly made life hell for the Department of the Environment in the way that he said he would. Life in the Department of the Environment is probably hell anyway, and the hon. Gentleman has certainly given the Department something of a hard time.
In bringing the motion before the House the hon. Gentleman has done a service for the nuclear industry generally because he has forced it to think about something that it would rather fob off. He has also done a service for the Department by pointing it towards fulfilling its responsibilities for the environment and the people, especially the people in our area. Up to now the Department has been the political arm of NIREX, acting in dumb acquiescence to what the nuclear industry and NIREX want. We would not have to say to the Minister, "Hang on and think about this, let us have a second look at it", if the Department had not rushed on in a wilful and headstrong way and largely ignored the recommendations of the Select Committee. That Committee urged wider consultation, fuller research and a Rolls-Royce solution, but the Minister fobbed off the Committee with specious arguments which, frankly, were unworthy of a congratulated first and were at about the level of a

43
commiserated Epsilon. That was the calibre of the arguments that were put forward against the Select Committee's recommendations.
I do not agree with some of the glosses that the Chairman put on his Committee's report. He spoke about the acceptability of shallow trench disposal of nuclear waste. I wonder whether he was accurately reflecting the views of his Committee. At paragraph 99 the report says:
"Near surface disposal facilities are only acceptable for short-lived low-level wastes and must be fully engineered on a complete containment basis."
That is not what NIREX proposes. Water will go through, so it is not a complete containment. It will drain off into the water table and our areas have aquifers underneath the clay into which that water will drain. Therefore, that is not an acceptable definition of complete containment. The report went on to say:
"Considerably greater emphasis must be given in research, development and policy to sea-bed options, especially to the use of tunnels under the sea-bed from land."
Therefore, the report urged another look at other methods at which the Department has not looked.
Sir Hugh Rossi: The hon. Gentleman accuses me of putting a gloss on my Committee's report. However, the extracts that he has just read are almost word for word the words that I used to address the House. I do not follow the point that the hon. Gentleman seeks to make. Of course I accept that if the sites selected by NIREX do not live up to the recommendations of the report, the Committee will not support NIREX. The whole idea of site testing and exploration is to find out whether or not the sites will comply with our recommendations.
Mr. Mitchell: That was part of the gloss, because I cannot see how drilling exploration holes at four sites lives up to the requirement of further research into methods of making Britain up to date in its study of methods of disposal. The Committee said that we were not up to date in such a study.
Mr. Frank Cook: Is not the point being emphasised in the quotations from the report contained in the phrase "complete containment"? The point that my hon. Friend is making is that the proposals so far advanced by NIREX for these purposes do not afford complete containment.
Mr. Mitchell: My hon. Friend is right. The essence of my point is that drilling on four sites does not constitute research into methods of disposal. Complete containment is the matter in question and we are not getting it. NIREX has avowed that we are not getting it, yet the Committee says that it is essential. How can the Chairman accept the possibility of shallow trench disposal on any of those four sites by a method which his Committee did not accept?
Sir Trevor Skeet: The hon. Gentleman has quoted paragraph 99 of the report. Surely a public inquiry follows to find out whether containment is complete. If, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) says, it is not complete, disposal would not go ahead. Surely that is the whole purpose of a public inquiry, to evaluate the evidence. Sizewell was a general public inquiry and lasted two years.
Mr. Mitchell: Perhaps the hon. Member has been fobbing off his own constituents with the claim that this
44
will be the subject of a full inquiry. If the hon. Gentleman contends that after going through this protracted farce of two years of exploratory drilling at huge cost and fixing on one site the whole thing is not prejudged by that and the work will start all over again if the inquiry rules against the site, he has given me a most unlikely proposition. His constituents will also regard it as unlikely.
My simple point is that this has been rushed through by the Department of the Environment. It certainly rushed the special development order through the House before consultations and representations from the people in the areas concerned were completed. Unmannerly would be one way to describe it, but dictatorial would be another. It was steamrollered over local opinion and NIREX and its thugs were then turned loose on the area. That is what it amounted to. I was there and I saw the methods that were used. The Minister of Environment, Countryside and Planning frowns at that. I had great hopes for him. He is a highly intelligent, sensitive, likeable Minister—I hope that I am not harming his career in the Government by saying that—but on this issue he has behaved with an insensitivity and displayed a dictatorial instinct that bode ill for concern about the environment. Having created this situation, the hon. Gentleman effectively washed his hands of the whole business, like a gutless wonder hiding behind NIREX and its bullying tactics. He encouraged NIREX to get on with what he called its "duty" while poncing up and down the country proclaiming his concern for an environment that has been despoiled 10 miles from Grimsby and well within reach of other areas.
Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman always gets carried away in his attacks. I have never seen him at any meeting ever trying to put forward views rationally against the wishes of many impassioned people, as I did in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown). I hope that the hon. Gentleman would have the guts to do that, but I doubt it.
Mr. Mitchell: In that instance, the Minister played a doubtful role. He pretended to listen to those people, but his mind was made up. A deputation from Grimsby went to one of the junior Ministers in the Department of the Environment, but the very next night the special development order was moved, after promises that the views of those people would be taken into account. The Minister rushed the measure through in a wholly unacceptable way. That is why I am being so harsh towards him. There was no need for that urgency or for that premature decision in favour of shallow trench disposal. The facilities at Drigg, with compacting, will be able to take all the future low-level waste until 2010. Why, therefore, rush into that decision? Why throw the whole weight of NIREX loose on our areas? Why employ the bullying tactics of injunctions against many people? One of the people involved in the area did not even exist. An injunction was taken out against another for singing "All Things Bright and Beautiful" on the site. Another was asked to deliver the injunction to his friends because the people serving the injunction could not find them. All that legal bullying was employed in a dubious cause which was decided prematurely without proper consideration and without proper thought.
Dr. Michael Clark: I am somewhat confused. Does the hon. Gentleman think that public inquiries should take

45
place before test drilling? If so, does he not realise that test drilling is an opportunity to eliminate a site before a public inquiry has to take place?
Mr. Mitchell: My contention is simply that the Government have a responsibility to inquire fully into the best, safest and most acceptable method. If they had done that, local opinion might well be more amenable to influence, although there would still he resistance. People would be satisfied that the Government had done their best and had inquired.
Mr. Michael Brown: I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the statement by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin), then Secretary of State for the Environment, at 4.13 pm on 25 October 1983, when he said that there would be public inquiries into the two facilities at Elstow and Billingham before a test drilling took place. That was the original intention. I have the statement here.
Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman is perfectly right. But my concern is about the speed of action. The Government did not review the position and consider it as fully as was needed if people were to be convinced that they were going for the best practicable option—the Rolls-Royce option—that was safe. If the Government had weighed everything up and had consulted fully, there would have been a different argument, but they did not do so. Instead, they steamrollered the decision through and imposed it on areas that did not want it.
The shallow trench disposal method means that waste has to be carted across the country and dumped on areas that have nothing to do with it. That decision was made prematurely, without research and in defiance of overseas practice. It should not be up to county councils to prepare a report. The Department of the Environment should have investigated. The decision was made in defiance of French practice, which is better than the practice that NIREX intends to impose on the site chosen. In the United States, where shallow trench disposal has been used, the sites are being abandoned because they are not contained and are decaying and disintegrating.
In my constituency at South Killingholme and at other sites, people are asked to accept the effect of such a disposal site on house prices and development. Department of Trade and Industry officials in Leeds said as much, until they were shut up. Manifestly. the possibility that a nuclear dump will be constructed in an area cannot be to that area's benefit. No amount of NIREX talk, soft soap by the Minister or dressing the project up with Angela Rippon and Ray Buckton will help. Two tonnes of Angela Rippon would not make this acceptable to the area. I wrote to Angela Rippon to say that I did not like her practice of hiring herself out for £4,000 a year—which is more than a governor of the BBC gets—to become the acceptable face of NIREX. She wrote back and accused me of being sulky because I had lost on "Masterteam". If that is the level of persuasive argument to be used, it bodes ill for the future.
I conclude with four points. First, the waste problem should have been fully considered by Layfield before any decision was taken on new nuclear power stations. Layfield said that he could not get satisfactory estimates of the cost of waste disposal. Those costs should be high if there is to be an effective and trusted method of waste
46
disposal. They should be taken into account in deciding the costings of the whole nuclear programme and new stations as they are proposed.
Secondly, since Layfield and since this decision was taken, there has been a steady development of new methods of disposal, including methods used by the oil industry, such as the POWER method of undersea disposal. That method has been actively propagated by Dr. Wheeler and his organisation Warrior Resources. It is curious that experts from Japan, the Soviet Union and other countries are coming to Britain to look at that method of disposal of nuclear waste, yet NIREX is not rushing to look at it and the Government are cool on the whole business.
Mr. Dalyell: Does my hon. Friend accept that some of us are very concerned about undersea disposal because it cannot be monitored?
Mr. Mitchell: My point is that it is essential to look at other methods. There will be controversy about any method, but it is important that full research is undertaken to ensure that the best method is chosen.
Thirdly, I commend the County Councils Coalition. I shall not read out its conclusions as the report has been available to hon. Members but it casts enormous doubt on the case put forward by the Government and by NIREX and shows that this method is not in accord with the best overseas practice.
Fourthly, I express my pleasure about the last Labour party conference which resolved by an overwhelming majority against shallow trench disposal, commended the resisters and committed the party as a matter of party policy to the proposition that there will be no commissioning of new sites, including any site arising from this study, without a full geological study and full study of alternative methods of disposal. That is all I ask.
The decision has been made prematurely. The county council, the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes and I argue that the project should be stopped because the Government arc wrong. The Government should admit that they are wrong, stop the development and not persevere in their sullen obstinacy with a decision that was wrong and a method that is outdated.
5.19 pm
Mr. Norman Miscampbell: I am well aware that many hon. Members want to speak in the debate. If my intervention is the shortest in the debate, I shall be well pleased at the end of the evening.
During the nine months since our last debate and the nomination of the four sites I have had a chance to see each one. I shall not comment on them save to say that on a superficial look the Elstow site, which was the site chosen by the Government to start with before the others were announced, was one of the most unattractive, in view of the population size, with Bedford nearby.
Equally, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi)—the Chairman of the Select Committee—made clear, there is no difficulty. As I said in the House nine months ago, I have no doubt that technically any one of these sites—properly engineered, with proper compaction, proper concrete or metal containers and with all the facilities that we saw being used abroad in the modern context—would do. However, that does not seem to be the question. It is not the technicalities but the public perception that matters.

47
Equally important is the fact that the Government took a very wise, sensible and acceptable step when they said that they will not include intermediate waste in low-level disposal. However, that leaves the question of what they will do with the intermediate waste. The Government cannot say that some form of shallow disposition is adequate. If that is the position, we must see whether we can begin to do the same as the Swedes, who are burying their low-level and intermediate waste in the same facility, but making it safe for the level of intermediate waste.
I agree with the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), who is not very happy about putting waste under the sea. One of the most important factors about the French experience is their capacity to monitor every container for decades and centuries to come, which is important. We have salt beds which would be eminently suitable for moderately deep entrenchment. They would not be hideously expensive to develop. The salt there indicates that there has not been water there for millions of years.
Instead of saying that we shall go down the road of shallow burial, which no doubt is technically acceptable, but having regard to Chernobyl, and in view of the attack that the industry is under—an industry which I want to defend— it would be better to spend a few tens of millions of pounds more to obtain a facility which is more acceptable. If that were being investigated as well as the present sites, I should be more content than I am today.
5.23 pm
Mr. David Clark: I congratulate the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown), who has done the House and the nation a service by enabling us to debate the motion.
When I looked at the record I was surprised to see the number of debates that we have had on the subject, which is only right, because, as the hon. and learned Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Miscampbell) said, the key to the issue is public perception. The more that we discuss the issue, the more likely we are to increase public understanding of it.
I have participated in a number of these debates and it is a matter of regret that most have been initiated by various means by, and at the instigation of Back Benchers. I pay credit to those Back Benchers, but I regret that the Government have not seen fit to bring forward a motion which we could debate.
We have had one debate instigated by the Government, but it did not seek to extend public perceptions or the public debate but sought to inhibit them. That was when the Government were successful in persuading the House to pass a special development order, which stopped the local people and the local democratically elected councils participating and taking a decision under the normal planning lines for the exploratory work at the four sites. We made it plain then, and I make it plain again, that the Government have done a disservice to the whole issue by trying to hush it up.
That raises a serious point. Many people are worried about the Government's obsession with secrecy. I warn the Minister—I think that he shares this viewpoint—that it is of no service to the industry to discuss everything behind closed doors. There must be a full and frank debate if we are to get across the problems involved. There are
48
problems, as has been pointed out to the House, and as I have said on many occasions. We are not only talking about nuclear waste; we are talking about radioactive waste. As the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) has reminded us already, that waste is produced at more than 5,000 establishments and in every hospital in Britain. The problem is there and has to be faced. Let us face up to that debate in public.
Dr. Michael Clark: When the hon. Gentleman says that we have to face up to the fact that it is radioactive, nuclear waste, will he agree that when a decision was made nearly two years ago to remove from consideration intermediate-level waste from the sites now being discussed, 99 per cent. of the potential radioactivity on those sites went with that decision?
Dr. David Clark: Statistically, the hon. Gentleman is right, but those shallow sites, at which the Government are proposing to deposit low-level waste, are still highly radioactive. They will be radioactive for up to 30 years at full-life and a further 300 years of half-life. Admittedly, in the last 270 years there will be a tailing-off of radioactivity. However, they are still radioactive and while one welcomes the Government's conversion to the view that short-lived intermediate waste should not be dealt with in that way, it is wrong to confuse the issue and imply that that low-level waste is not dangerous and not highly radioactive.
Sir Trevor Skeet: We were told in the House the other day about radon gas and natural radiation, which comes from the environment. Will the hon. Gentleman agree that what is likely to come from low-level waste is a minute fraction of what comes from the environment and radon gas?
Dr. David Clark: The hon. Gentleman is right in the sense that there is a lot of background radiation. The measurements along the stones and pebbles on a Cornish beach are high. But the point is that this is cumulative, and if one accumulates and disposes of a concentration of radioactive material one is increasing the danger. If we follow the logic of the hon. Gentleman's intervention, there would be no problem—we would just leave waste in open dustbins. However, we are not proposing to do that, because everyone accepts that it is an additional level of high radiation.
I return to the Government's obsession with secrecy, because it is the kernel of the argument against them. That view is shared—perhaps not as openly in some quarters as others— widely in the House. We have seen an example of it today, where a proposal to change the whole countryside planning of Britain was announced in a written answer to a question which was not even on today's Order Paper. That is reprehensible, and the message ought to go out from the House to the Government that in all these things there should be much more openness. I say to the Minister that if there is more openness we will get more consensus. The Minister shakes his head.
Mr. Waldegrave: I agree with the point that the hon. Member is making, I shook my head only because 1 am not so optimistic as he is. I am not sure that, however open I had been about, for example. the Billingham anhydrite mine, I could have persuaded his hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) that that was a good idea.
Dr. Clark: There was a consensus in that case. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) persuaded the Minister that it was not a good idea, so we reached a solution.
When we are dealing with long-term problems it will benefit all sides if we can reach a consensus. The Government's obsession with secrecy does no good. There are other examples of that obsession. I understand that a report dealing with research findings about the incidence of leukaemia among people living near nuclear power stations is to be withheld by the Government until after the House takes a decision on the Sizewell B power station. That is pertinent to our debate and it should be considered by the House when we make up our minds whether to approve the Sizewell B project.
If we go ahead with nuclear technology without solving the problems of nuclear waste we shall get into further difficulties. That point has been faced squarely by the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes and all hon. Members must face up to it. We must examine the consequences of going ahead with nuclear generation before we have found ways of solving the waste problem.
As usual, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) made a worthwhile contribution. Under his chairmanship, the Select Committee on the Environment produced an excellent report on radioactive waste, which has been widely welcomed throughout the country. In May last year the then Secretary of State told the House that there would be a full-day debate on that report. I ask the Minister to look into that matter and to come back and tell us that we shall have a full-day debate on that important report very soon.
Sir Hugh Rossi: My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has promised me that we shall have a debate in the near future.
Dr. Clark: I am pleased to hear that and I hope that the "near future" will be sooner rather than later.
Mr. Waldegrave: I am sorry to have hesitated before intervening, but I wanted to be quite sure that I was able to make the statement that I now wish to make. The hon. Gentleman referred to a press report that one of the studies coming out of the post-Black report work was being deliberately delayed. I assure him that there is no truth in that report. Publication is expected in late March.
Dr. Clark: I am pleased to hear that, but late March will be after the Sizewell debate, which I undestand is to take place before the end of February. If even a summary of the report could be made available before the Sizewell debate it would help hon. Members to come to a decision about Sizewell. It is not good enough to say that the report will be published in March.
I add my tributes to the excellent report from Environmental Resources Ltd on behalf of the County Councils Coalition. One of its key conclusions is that we should examine the possibility of deep disposal of all radioactive waste. The organisation visited Sweden, Germany and—most important—France before coming that conclusion.
Having studied the arguments advanced by Ministers in our previous debates, I begin to perceive a confusion in their philosophical approach. I am not sure that, when they talk about near-surface disposal, they are certain what they mean. My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) made that point.
50
There are two approaches to the problem of waste disposal— containment, or dilute and disperse. They involve two conflicting engineering concepts and it is not clear which one the Government favour. The Select Committee examines the matter from paragraph 47 onwards and rejects the concept of dilute and disperse because of the problem of hot spots. That important problem must lead us to reject dilute and disperse, whether into the atmosphere, the marine environment or into the sub-strata of the earth.
Therefore, we must go for containment. The Government argue against that policy and cite the French example with their facility at the Centre de la Manche as an example of dilute and disperse. However, as the report of the County Councils Coalition points out, that is a false analogy, because the French facility is aimed at a containment philosophy. Es structure is based above the watershed and any water coming through is collected and monitored. The French are trying to get a double insurance policy on the cheap. That is made plain on page 31 of the coalition's report which argues that the French example is "fundamentally different" from the NIPEX design.
The fundamental contradiction between the alternative philosophies causes us some difficulties when we try to solve the problem. That became clear to me when the Daily Mirror ran a report last September saying that drums containing radioactive waste had leaked at Bradwell I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) is not present. He is an assiduous attender at these debates. Indeed, I believe that he has been present at all the debates that I have attended and I know that there is a good reason for his absence. When I read the report in the Daily Mirror I wrote to the Minister and the Department of the Environment replied. It confirmed the story and said that the low-level waste storage facility at Bradwell had been approved by the Department since the early 1970s.
The low-level waste is stored in steel drums in the void cells below the circulation halls at Bradwell nuclear power station. Following an inspection towards the end of 1984, some water penetration into the storage cells was discovered and a small percentage of the drums were found to be corroded. I do not suggest that there was any danger in that instance. The nuclear industry inspectorate looked into the matter and required the CEGB to put things right by encasing the drums in polythene, removing the water and building small walls round the contaminated area.
However, an obvious point arises. We were assured by experts in the 1970s that the storage of low-level nuclear waste in steel drums beneath a power station was a safe and adequate way to store radioactive material. Years later, we see that it was not safe; drums have corroded. Fortunately, we were able to put matters right at Bradwell because the material was retrievable. If it had not been, the situation would have been difficult and dangerous. I am worried because the engineering facilities proposed by NIREX at its four exploration sites do not allow that retrievability and therefore must be rejected.
Dr. Michael Clark: As the only Essex Member in the the House with a constituency immediately adjacent to the Bradwell site, perhaps I might comment. I am disturbed by what the hon. Member For South Shields (Dr. Clark) has told us. Is he aware that the engineered disposal

51
repositories proposed can be created only in suitable ground conditions with heavy clay and where the ground movement is less than lm per 100 years? So, even in the event of the corrosion of metal containers—which I hope will not happen—the water movement will be only 1m per 100 years.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I appeal again for brevity. I remind the House that interventions prevent hon. Members with a strong constituency interest from taking part in the debate. I appeal for restraint but I understand how strongly hon. Members feel about the issue.
Dr. David Clark: I take your point, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I emphasise that the experts told us in the 1970s that this was a safe method and they now tell us that clay subsoil is safe. We can accept a disposal system only if it is monitorable and retrievable. That is fundamental to any solution.
There has not been sufficient public discussion or research. Massive cuts have been made in research personnel. We need exactly the opposite. We need open debate and more research, both in connection with short-lived radioactive material and with high-level radioactive material.
In addition to the complex current problems of nuclear waste disposal, the decommissioning of power stations will present considerable further long-term problems. We need a carefully researched programme to deal with nuclear waste well into the future. It is essential that such a programme be compiled without secrecy. It is impossible to operate an effective strategy for dealing with the physical, locational and scientific issues without the understanding and involvement of the general public. I wish that the Government would learn that lesson.
5.43 pm
Sir Peter Emery: I follow the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) in an unusual way, but with a certain confidence. I am chairman of the science and technology committee of the North Atlantic Assembly. As recently as last autumn, we passed resolutions about nuclear problems—including nuclear waste disposal—and I am delighted to say that the hon. Gentleman and his party were unanimous supporters of the resolutions that I put to the assembly.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown), who made an admirable constituency speech which I hope will do him well in his constituency. Nevertheless, it was a constituency speech and did not take into account all the scientific aspects of the disposal of nuclear waste. One of the problems is that so few people understand the difficulties. All too frequently, people are influenced by emotional factors so that the issue becomes emotive and goes way beyond proper consideration.
The problem is international. Nuclear waste is of concern to 27 nations which are all considering the same problem. They include Argentina, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, the Central African Republic, China, Finland, France, Gabon, the German Federal Republic, India, Italy, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the Netherlands, Nigeria, Pakistan, Portugal, South Africa,
52
Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the United States and USSR. I list those countries to emphasise that this is not a constituency issue but one of international importance.
All nations within NATO meet a proportion of their energy needs by nuclear reactors and, as a result, they have a variety of procedures for dealing with nuclear waste. The disposal of nuclear waste is more than a technical issue. It becomes emotive when people argue against nuclear power because of the problems caused by the disposal of nuclear waste. Many industries produce potentially dangerous waste which can be a hazard to human health and cause environmental damage. Many industries and processes can be extremely hazardous when they go wrong without having anything to do with nuclear industry. There is no better example than that of Bhopal, where 2,000 people died. That incident had greater consequences than anything that anyone envisaged.
Industries which are prone to such risks are subject to regulations and safeguards to protect human life and the environment. I can say without fear of contradiction that the nuclear industry is no exception. It is subject to exceptionally strict controls. As a Minister I was once responsible for that aspect of industry. I come to the House today wearing the tie given to me at Dounreay where the fast breeder overcomes many of the problems by disposing of much of the nuclear waste. I have often wanted to form a society for developing fast breeder reactors. The issues are complicated and the debate is confused. It is confused because not enough knowledge has been conveyed, and the Government may be open to some criticism in that respect. There must be a greater understanding of the subject.
Most of today's debate has been about the disposal of low level nuclear waste, but there are three categories of nuclear waste, each of which has relatively distinctive characteristics. The first, which has hardly been mentioned today, is high level waste consisting of spent reactor fuel, which is a solid waste, and some of the products, which are liquid, arising from reprocessing spent reactor fuel. High level waste is stored to allow thermal and radioactive decay of some of the most active constituents, which in some cases takes up to 50 years, by which time activity will have declined sufficiently for the waste to be prepared for permanent disposal rather than for assessed storage.
Some nations do not process spent nuclear fuel to reclaim nuclear material; others, including ourselves, prefer to do so. Whether or not it is processed, high level nuclear waste remains radioactive for millions of years. It continues to be dangerous for at least several thousand years, even though the radioactivity declines sharply over the decades, as the hon. Member for South Shields said. Such waste constitutes less than 1 per cent. of all the nuclear waste in the world. At present, 17 nations are investigating potential sites for underground repositories and 10 nations are operating, constructing or designing verification plants to deal with this problem. Although high level waste poses the most difficult problem, nations throughout the world are coping with it.
The second category of nuclear waste is intermediate level waste, which normally consists of the cladding from nuclear reactor fuel rods, contaminated equipment and some parts of decommissioned reactors. The third category is low level waste. This consists of contaminated paper, plastic, clothing and building debris and is produced by research facilities.

53
The disposal of low level waste is relatively straightforward. It is important to distinguish low level waste from the other two types, because, as its name suggests, its radioactivity level is low. Disposal practices among the 27 nations that I have mentioned differ. Some nations bury their waste in shallow trenches or in natural or man-made rock cavities. More contaminated waste is placed in trenches or buried deep underground and then usually covered in concrete. Some sea dumping takes place. The waste is placed in containers and the radioactivity generally declines before the container erodes due to the action of the ocean. I accept that that is a much more difficult method to monitor than any of the others, but it is widely regarded as acceptable.
As I have tried to emphasise, this is not just a national but an international problem. My committee of the North Atlantic Assembly is trying to bring in standards that we would like to see accepted everywhere, not just by the Vienna committee of the International Atomic Energy Agency, which was set up by the United Nations. That body seems to proceed at the speed of the lowest common denominator, and Russia and other countries are members of it. If the North Atlantic Assembly could come up with recommendations that were accepted by all 16 member Governments, that would be a major step forward. My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes could then propose to his constituents a solution that was acceptable not only in this country but internationally.
Will my hon. Friend the Minister do everything in his power to co-operate with the science and technology committee of the North Atlantic Assembly in its work? Will he ensure that the substantial body of scientific and technical evidence from past and ongoing studies and from research and development activities is made available internationally? Will he ensure that research and development continue to be sponsored and backed by the Government so that remaining gaps for particle options can be filled, specific data on sites collected and safety studies refined? Will he ensure that there is periodic reassessment of waste disposal practices and that new policies taking account of our evolving knowledge are formulated? Lastly, will he ensure that there is quality control at all stages— an essential nuclear safety requirement—and that such control is applied through the whole chain of nuclear waste management in this country? If the Minister can give the House those reassurances, it will be much easier for my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes to reassure his constituents that the Government's proposals are, as I believe, reasonable. So long as those proposals are properly monitored, I should be quite happy for them to be carried out in my constituency, and it will be easier for the British public to understand and back the stance that the Government are adopting.
5.56 pm
Mr. Frank Cook: I commend the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) for giving the House an opportunity to discuss this subject again. I also commend the County Councils Coalition for taking the initiative on the work that has gone into the report, with many of whose conclusions I agree.
I must register my disagreement with my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), who castigated the Minister for the manner in which he dealt with these issues. My experience of the Minister's attention
54
to the subject, when I led the Billingham against nuclear dumping campaign, leads me to record my utmost respect for the way in which he listened to our representations and handled the affair. He listened so well that the proposals in question were withdrawn; and if he ever tries to reintroduce them he will have an even more bitter battle on his hands. I advise him not to try it.
Mr. Michael Brown: I share the hon. Gentleman's experience. My hon. Friend the Minister and I disagree on the policy but he has always received me courteously and listened to our deputations. Therefore, I wish to associate myself with the hon. Gentleman's remarks.
Mr. Cook: I thank the hon. Gentleman, but we must not do this too often.
What is the value of nuclear waste? Lord Marshall told me two and a half years ago that most of the waste that was destined for disposal at Billingham— the motion refers to intermediate-level waste— contained rare elements which, by the turn of the century, would prove valuable to industry. We would therefore regret disposing of it in such a non-retrievable way.
What is the value of nuclear waste? Some suggest that its value lies in jobs. The estimates given at the time of the Billingham proposals suggested that 18 jobs would have been created— 18 jobs in an area where more than 14,500 people are unemployed.
At the last nuclear forum I was approached by a senior member of staff who told me that there would come a time when I would crawl back to NIREX imploring it to return to Billingham to dispose of its nuclear waste in the disused anhydrite mines because that would bring employment to the area. He also said that if we had been prepared to accept the proposals we could have claimed much of the engineering work that the nuclear industry pushes out to fabricators and designers. That was a despicable attempt either at being humorous—if so, it was singularly unfunny—or at being serious. If the latter, the remark was so sinister that I suggest the Minister looks into it.
The nuclear industry is unique in two respects. One is the nature of the risk with which it faces society. Here I must dispute to some extent what was said by the hon. Member for Honiton, (Sir P. Emery). That risk not only faces the present generation but is a threat to generations to come, unless we handle it correctly now. We have heard about poisons and the toxicity of radioactive waste but that is a threat similar to that posed by cigarette smoking. It is a threat to the generation that lives with and absorbs the poison, and there is a degree of volition in it. Radiation, however, is much more insidious and much harder to detect. As such, it threatens child-bearing age groups and, therefore, generations yet to come.
The other unique aspect of the nuclear industry is that it handles its waste unlike any other industry. It makes a bigger problem of its waste than it had in the first place. The initial difficulty lies in the containment of it, not in its handling. The industry compounds its problem by its so-called processing, which increases the volume by many times. We have already heard the comments of the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi), the Chairman of the Select Committee on the Environment, who freely concedes that a major aspect of the matter is that very problem—the volume.
The problem of containment is magnified. The industry makes more of its garbage to be contained than it did

55
originally. The processing of spent magnox rods is particularly expensive, time-consuming and hazardous. Most of all, it is unnecessary. Such rods may be stored in engineered dry storage, where they can be monitored constantly and retrieved for further attention if necessary. Such treatment would ensure that the minimum space is occupied and that the maximum security is assured.
If that is so, why should we go on making more of the stuff? The justification trotted out is that we now have contractual commitments with other nations to treat their waste in the same nonsensical way in which we treat our own. The industry seeks to absolve itself from stupidity—or should I say culpability?—by pointing frantically to clauses in its contracts which permit it to return recycled waste to the point of origin. I have yet to see any evidence, or even hear any claim, that that has yet been done. In fact, I suspect that if British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. was even to suggest implementing that option our overseas clients would withdraw from any arrangements that they have made.
The situation borders on the farcical. It would be laughable were it not so serious. As it is so serious, what should we do, bearing in mind that we already have the stuff and, having it, must do something with it? First, I suggest that we stop processing other people's. Our communities deserve better than to be condemned to the job of turnkey for the world's worst waste. Secondly, we should stop recycling our own waste. I say "recycling" specifically. There is no justification for it, either as a means of making more fuel or as a means of managing its disposal.
Thirdly, we should reduce the output of such rubbish to a level that is absolutely necessary. First, we should introduce controls on the overuse in the medical profession of radiography. Should anyone wish to question that, I can tell the House that serious assessments have been made which indicate that 1,400 cancers per year in this country are generated by the overuse of X-rays. Secondly, we must maintain our absolute ban on the use of irradiation as a means of treating food. It has been proposed that we should broaden that kind of approach. I say that we should maintain the ban.
Hon. Members will notice that I do not say that we should stop nuclear production altogether. I merely suggest that we should reduce it. I realise that to eliminate such production is impossible. It may be appropriate at this point for me to place on record that I am not antinuclear, as the nuclear industry would assert, any more than I am what I am accused of being by the anti-anything and anti-everything brigade— a paid agent of the nuclear industry. I am not anti-nuclear at all; in fact, I am distinctly pro-nuclear, in the safe sense. In other words, I am pro-safe nuclear and very anti-unsafe nuclear. To continue accusing me of being anti-nuclear is like accusing me of being anti-food when I say that I am anti-food poisoning.
I have already commended the motion on the Order Paper for its sensible approach. It seeks to ensure that there are better technical alternatives to the proposals that have been advanced so far, and to put forward overall cost alternatives. It also seeks to further public acceptance if a truly convincing solution can be found. That job has already been entrusted to NIREX.
56
Let me quote from NIREX's articles of association. I shall not quote them at length, because they are numerous and legalistic, but I ask the House to pay close attention to them. They enable NIREX to do almost anything and everything with anyone and everyone. In obtaining equipment, it can collude with whoever it chooses, in whatever way it chooses. I suggest that hon. Members seek a copy of the articles and read them at their leisure, as they give sufficient ground for concern. But let me now read to the House, word for word, page 3 clause (L) of the objectives. It states that NIREX is empowered
"To make loans or donations to such persons and in such cases (and in the case of loans either of cash or of other assets) as the Company may think directly or indirectly conducive to any of its objects or otherwise expedient."
That is only one of the many clauses that give NIREX carte blanche to conduct its affairs in almost any way that it sees fit. Let us compare that with the manner in which our communities have had to beg and borrow resources with which to prevent an alternative view. NIREX has unrestrained permission to bribe, bludgeon and blackmail, and unlimited finances with which to fund such nefarious activities.
I commend the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes for his clear denial of the NIMBY syndrome, to which other hon. Members have referred, the "not in my backyard syndrome". He has learnt that and good for him. I remind the House of the time when I was the lone voice opposing such proposals in this Chamber. On those occasions many hon. Members, especially Conservative Members, appeared mildly amused by my protestations. Some sniggers were also heard from Labour Members. At that time I said that smiles would not be so wide once other communities came under similar threat. It gives me no satisfaction today to say "I told you so."
The Government will be compelled by public pressure to re-examine their stance on these issues. They will be forced to rethink their whole approach, and rightly so. While they are doing that I ask them to think about what I have said. First, do not recycle foreign waste. Secondly, do not recycle our own. Thirdly, do not make so much of it in the first place. Those are all negative points. Let me put on record what should be the positive side. While I am doing that, I ask the House to remember that I have thought long and often on those issues. The positive side is, put it where it is well isolated from inhabited communities. It is lunatic to do otherwise. Put it in engineered storage where it is well maintained, well managed and well monitored. It is lunatic to do otherwise. Put it into stores from which it can readily be retrieved and redeemed if things go wrong.
I must admit that to implement all those three suggestions of course makes the process more expensive. However, we cannot afford to sell the safety of tomorrow for the sake of saving a few bob today.
6.11 pm
Sir Trevor Skeet: You enjoined, Mr. Speaker, that we should make brief speeches. I will comply with that. My hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South-West (Mrs. Madel) is present, and he may have a chance to catch your eye.
I shall take up the last remark of the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook). Of course we must be clear about the disposal of nuclear waste where a large population is involved. A large population must be remote

57
from such a site. Of the four sites, that consideration would rule out as unsuitable Elstow and Killingholme. However, the two sites which should be carefully scrutinised as possible locations are Bradwell and Fulbeck. Ultimately the site should be decided on the basis of geological surveys, hydrology and a full public inquiry.
One matter has not been raised today which Sir Frank Layfield dealt with in the Sizewell report. In chapter 2, paragraph 112, volume 3, he stated:
"The CEGB's conclusion that the safe disposal of all types of radioactive waste was technically feasible was not disputed…Storage space on the site would be provided for up to one year's waste."
That is at Sizewell. The report continued:
"If necessary the storage capacity could be increased to hold waste for the whole life of Sizewell."
The cost of storing 40 years of low-level waste and intermediate-level waste, which does not arise in this particular case, was estimated to be about £10 million.
It is interesting that a man who has examined the matter of nuclear waste carefully for a number of years has come to the conclusion that it can safely be stored at power stations for some time. Another proposition that he made was that the radiological effect of solid wastes on the public near the site was assessed by the CEGB in chapter 32, paragraph 29 of the report to be "effectively zero".
His final conclusion after he had posed nine questions and then set out his answer to them in chapter 47, paragraph 66, was:
"There are no safety problems caused indirectly by the operation of Sizewell B, such as radioactive waste management, that could give rise to intolerable risks."
I make that point because one of the sites involved is Bradwell, which has a power station. Today we learnt that it has been storing nuclear waste for some time. There is no reason why it should not be considered as a storage facility for some years hence.
The hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) asked the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy on 15 December 1986 about the CEGB and the SSEB and was given the answer:
"The CEGB and SSEB have agreed to analyse the technical and economic aspects of backfitting dry stores to Magnox stations."—[Official Report, 15 December 1986; Vol. 107, c. 383.]
They are also considering the position of AGRs in this country. Therefore, if the Opposition believe that nuclear waste could be stored at power stations above ground within the United Kingdom, and if backfitting is proceeding, this should be explored much more realistically.
I shall discuss rapidly another point that I have in mind. I am in favour of the shallow burial repository, as is my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) who chaired the Select Committee on the Environment. Shallow burial, properly engineered, has the backing of the experts who produced the "Assessment of the Best Practical Environmental Options" report, those who produced the Sizewell B report, and those on the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee, who advise the Minister. Others, including the Government, are in favour of a shallow burial repository and have implemented it, through a policy which has operated over several years from 1982 in the publication of the White Paper Cmnd. 8607. The Government's response to the Environment Select Committee report has shown perfectly clearly that their policy is consistent.
Mr. Frank Cook: Will the hon. Gentleman ponder the fact that many of the references that he has just made are simply a number of aliases for the same incestuous crowd?
Sir Trevor Skeet: I shall make it perfectly clear that I must not be led away by certain arguments which I should like to enter into on another occasion. I have been asked to speak briefly, and I shall. The built-in error of the argument that we have heard today is that the ERL report forgets that low-level waste only is being considered and that intermediate-level waste has now been excluded. Disposal of low-level waste does not involve such expensive treatment as has been laid down in Sweden, which incidentally uses shallow land cavities for low-level waste. The waste consists of clothing, paper towels, air filters and resins and things of that description. Even in Sweden there are at least three sites that I know of where low-level waste is disposed of in cavities and not at deep level. Surface disposal of waste is also used in Canada, the United States of America, arid France and plans are being considered in Belgium and Japan.
I appreciate that I must bring all my points together rapidly to allow other hon Members to speak, but in conclusion I would say that Elstow is unsuitable for a number of reasons, especially on the ground of the nearness of the population to it. Bedford is only 3 miles away. The two other major sites which I have recommended are between 7½ and 10 miles away from any significant population centres. That is one of the prime reasons for the exclusion of Elstow. I hope that at the public inquiry all the arguments which are being used in this Chamber today will be fully and firmly ventilated before experts and critically examined.
6.20 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: I shall speak for about three minutes, and my speech will consist of a number of questions. First, I shall address myself to Sweden. The three counties' report states:
"In radiological terms there is merit in the claimed desire to limit exposures from a NIREX repository to 0o1 milliSievert per year. Sweden has a design limit 100 times lower of 0·001 milliSievert a year."
The NIREX response welcomed the coalition's recognition of the stringent safety standards but commented:
"However, it is incorrect to imply that the Swedish safety limit is 100 times more restrictive than the UK target."
It added:
"It is also likely that the NIREX safety case will be better than 0·1 milliSievert a year, but it shall not exceed this figure. This is substantially less than the variations in natural background radiation in the UK."
It is of great importance that we should hear the Government's view on which body is right, the coalition or NIREX.
Secondly, I take up the remarks of the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) in asking about international matters. I am of the belief that it is of overwhelming importance that in reprocessing we do the very best job as human beings rather than as a nationality. If we British, as I believe, are better at reprocessing than anyone else on the face of the planet, it is better for humanity that we should do it. I believe also that our engineering expertise merits that, quite apart from employment considerations.
Thirdly, as the Minister intervened at an early stage of the debate to say, I have indeed said that if the geological conditions were right I would hope to have the guts to

59
argue that the Linlithgow constituency should be used as a site. Since I said that, however, there has been a great deal of distortion. I realise that such a statement can bring a hornets' nest around one's ears, and I understand the hornets' nests to be found at Killingholme and elsewhere. I do not retract from what I said previously, but my statement was linked to another matter. When I made it, it was suggested that there was a problem with the submarine nuclear reactors. It was felt that the submarines would have to be decommissioned and that there would therefore have to be a coastal site.
Why should we have an inland site at all? Is there not an argument for having a coastal site? I am friendly with NIREX and many of those who work within it, but I do not understand why it is necessary to bring a hornets' nest to bear and create a great deal of fuss. If the material is as safe as it is claimed to be, why does it have to be deposited in areas of considerable population in certain forms of clay? If it is as safe as those at NIREX say, it could be placed in depopulated areas. There is great confidence in Dounreay on the north coast of Scotland as well as in the Atomic Energy Authority. I wish to emphasise that I am strongly against any sort of under-sea burial, which means that the material cannot be monitored or retrieved.
What about the obligations to the Ministry of Defence when it comes to the decommissioning of submarines? Why cannot the material be concentrated in one coastal site? As others with constituency interests wish to contribute to the debate, I shall now resume my place.
6.23 pm
Mr. Richard Alexander: I join all those who have congratulated my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) on his good fortune in the ballot and on initiating the debate. I congratulate also the three county councils which produced the report that gave rise to the debate.
I think that I am the only hon. Member to have participated in the debate so far who has a constituency near the Fulbeck area, but I shall come to that later. I do not think that the Government or NIREX have gone about matters in the best way if they want to bring public opinion along behind them. They had the advantage of the Select Committee on the Environment's report, the Committee on which I had the honour to serve, in which there was clear guidance on how NIREX and the Government should proceed with the placing of a site.
Having proposed a nuclear site on my doorstep, as it were—the site is technically in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, who has been in his place throughout the debate and who for reasons of elevation to higher things has had to bear an uncharacteristic Trappist silence—the realities of public anxiety and fear are brought home. In effect, that is what the debate is all about. It reflects a perception that things nuclear are something of which we should be afraid.
Mr. Frank Cook: The hon. Gentleman takes issue with NIREX for not heeding the contents of the report of the Select Committee on the Environment, which he rightly accepts is eminently sensible. Will he bear in mind that that
60
is hardly surprising when we recall that the Secretary of State for Energy rubbished it the moment it was published?
Mr. Alexander: I do not share the hon. Gentleman's view of my right hon. Friend's comments on the report. It was clear that he had his reservations, but I do not think it can be said that he rubbished the report.
We should not be debating matters nuclear in general; instead, we should focus on low-level waste disposal. I fear that the way in which we have gone about disposal so far has brought into the anti-nuclear lobby many who have not previously been anti-nuclear which is a great shame. The anti-nuclear lobby has been swollen gratuitously by those who are concerned about the safe disposal of nuclear waste, especially low-level waste.
The Select Committee on the Environment tried to show how the public could be brought behind the industry, not alienated from it. It recommended that it should be accepted that people's fears are genuine and that disposal must be in the form of what it described as a "Rolls-Royce solution." It recommended that we should follow the French example and compensate communities and individuals more than generously, put waste in areas where there is not a high population and keep the stuff away from areas where water can penetrate over hundreds and perhaps thousands of years hence.
Instead NIREX produced proposals which had several common denominators, hardly any of which, so far as I could tell, bore any relation to the safeguards sought by the Select Committee. The common denominators seemed to be that the sites should be placed in areas where the ownership is in the public domain, that they should be in areas of quite high population, that they should be placed in areas where there is a high water table, and that the sites should be in areas of known geological disturbance.
We cannot blame NIREX entirely. I have taken issue on previous occasions with my hon. Friend the Minister and the Department of the Environment generally, but I have been given to understand that NIREX was told that it should not even consider Scotland or Wales. It appears that it was told to confine itself to the part of the United Kingdom that is England. I find that restriction of NIREX's ability to find sites astonishing, bearing in mind that within Scotland and Wales there are areas where the considerations that I have mentioned would be of little concern to the public.
That which the Government and NIREX are proposing is not the "Rolls-Royce" solution. The shallow burial proposals are considered by the experts to be safe, and I have no personal scientific knowledge on which to base an argument that they are not, save to say that the only countries using the method are those that have dry ground and dry climates. In parts of the United States where that method has been used, I understand that it has been abandoned because of the incidence of water in the area. Those examples do not augur well for public confidence.
So the county councils went to see for themselves, and in the countries that they visited—Sweden, France and West Germany—they found that hardly any of them were willing to risk shallow trench disposal such as we propose. They found that all those countries were going for what we call the Rolls-Royce solution. In Sweden, the councils found that it was proposed to spend about £125 million on deep underground and deep sea disposal facilities.

61
In a useful and interesting briefing that NIREX gave to many hon. Members this weekend, NIREX says that if one were to adopt the deep sea disposal method it would cost £500 million. I suggest that the difference between the amount of money that we are proposing to spend and what it would cost to use the deep sea method is minimal when one takes into account the amount spent in our nuclear industry. Thus, we should go for that solution and abide by it. We should take note of the findings in that excellent report and of what was said by the county councillors who went abroad.
In deference to your injunction. Mr. Speaker, I propose to be brief. In conclusion, it is totally wrong that cost and convenience should be the determinant factors in this case. Unless we adopt the Swedish system, more people will believe that cost and convenience are the determinant factors. The Government cannot stand back and say, "So what. Our experts say that it is safe. We must follow what we are told now." Experts over the centuries have been wrong, and they may well be wrong again. The public must be reassured. If they are not behind the nuclear industry in all its aspects, we are building up problems for ourselves for many years to come. The public need reassurance. The county councils' report showed how that reassurance could be achieved. My constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham urge that the report be accepted. I believe that nothing less will now reassure them.
6.32 pm
Dr. Michael Clark: I thank you for calling me, Mr. Speaker. Time is pressing on, so I shall condense my speech considerably and make just a few points.
I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) on his motion. I am the only Member representing an Essex constituency in the House this afternoon. My constituency is adjacent to Bradwell, which has been referred to several times, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, North (Sir T. Skeet), who pointed his finger towards Bradwell as a suitable site. I dare say that we are all pointing fingers at one another's locations and saying that that is the most suitable site, so I should like to defend Bradwell. I speak as a friend of the nuclear industry. I am not in any way against it, or, indeed, the proposals for dumping low level waste. While we have a nuclear industry it has to be done, and we must find a site for it somewhere.
I am not opposed to the site being at Bradwell on safety grounds. Indeed, I have every confidence in NIREX and in the nuclear installations inspectorate, but I do not believe that Bradwell is a suitable site. The NIREX report says that it has to find a site where the geology is suitable and where there is a low level of water movement in the ground. We know that in the past Bradwell has suffered earthquakes, so there will be movement of the geological formation. Water will be moving more than we want for the site of a nuclear repository. NIREX has also said voluntarily that it wants its sites to be away from high densities of population, so Bradwell, which is close to the whole of south-east Essex with its half million population, hardly seems to qualify on those grounds.
Conservation is another of NIREX's criteria. Bradwell is an ancient site. It has early Christian connections, with a little church that was built there. Also, accessibility to the Bradwell site is poor. There is only one road to the site, and it is not suitable to take the several lorries that would
62
be required every day. I also object to the site being at Bradwell because south-east Essex has already taken a large amount of rubbish from London and southern England. My objection is on the same grounds as those mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) and others, including the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey). The question has been asked: would anyone volunteer for the site to be in his constituency? I would not volunteer for it to be in my constituency or anywhere near it, not because I think that it is unsafe or because there may be some radioactive danger, but because it is yet one more waste tip, and Essex has plenty already, both in my constituency and in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess). On those grounds, I object strongly to the site being at Bradwell.
I congratulate the County Councils Coalition and its report. The councils have done a workmanlike job in making their proposals and recommendations. They have been critical of NIREX and full of praise for institutions abroad, but they have not come up with a firm alternative proposal. They say that the NIREX proposals are not good enough and they concede—certainly in private conversation—that there must be a nuclear dump site somewhere, but they do not come up with the engineered site that they want, where it should be or how it should be instituted.
There is no doubt that we must have a site somewhere in this country, where it will be safe. During the autumn, for medical reasons, I had to undergo 12 X-rays. I made inquiries and found out that those X-rays gave me as much radioactivity as if I had been sitting on the edge of a low level nuclear repository for 20 to 30 years. One would have to sit there for every hour of every day for 20 or 30 years to get as much radioactivity as I had in my 12 X-rays.
Therefore, the sites are not dangerous. We must be cautious. I take the point made by the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook). We are pro-nuclear industry as long as it is a safe nuclear industry, but we must make sure that the sites that are selected are proper. Those of us who have had enough rubbish in our constituencies one way and another do not want this site added to them.
6.38
The Minister for Environment, Countryside and Planning (Mr. William Waldegrave): It will have been apparent to the faithful Members of the House who have sat through the debate that I am not in the best of health. I hope that the fact that I had to shoot out of the Chamber from time to time during hon. Members' speeches will be recognised for what it was—the need for reinforcement of cough mixture. On one occasion, a lurid pink pill was given to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie), the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security, who is in charge of such matters. It has made me feel very peculiar indeed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) has done the House a service by giving us the chance to have a relatively relaxed debate on the subject in which, if not all at least the majority of those who wished to speak have spoken. I congratulate my hon. Friend on that and on his motion, which is level-headed and sensible. I want to make one or two points in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes and, although the other speeches were important, in one

63
sense this is my hon. Friend's day. I accept the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes made so eloquently about compensation. I have nothing to announce to the House today with regard to that. However, he is aware that NIREX has been considering the possibility of further compensation. I hope that it will be possible for NIREX to announce further measures soon. I am sure that NIREX will take account of the comments made by my hon. Friend today and the correspondence he referred to from two of his constituents.
It is difficult to assess what in particular has affected property values in a specific area. An estate agent may take one view. I have consulted the district valuer who said that he believes that the village of South Killingholme is affected primarily by factors other than the proposed nuclear waste dump. However, these views must, to some extent, be subjective. We must carefully examine what compensation is available to a community which may have to take a facility. I say "may" because we must always remember that it is possible that the inquiry will find that none of the sites is satisfactory. However, if any of the communities had to take the facility, it would be fair to ensure that there was no individual damage to people in terms of property values.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes and hon. Members who have spoken representing constituencies in affected counties have drawn our attention to the county councils' report. I am in some difficulty with regard to the report. I have great respect for Environmental Resources Ltd. which my Department uses frequently. The founder of that company is one of the most distinguished environmentalists in the country. I am sure that the company could have produced a very eloquent report if we had been considering the Swedish solution which has been referred to today—and that is not exactly a deep mine, rather a shallow burial site under the sea—and there may well have been a coalition of seaside towns which might have commissioned ERL. The company would have produced first-rate scientists who were willing to sign the report claiming that the Government were not only crazy but extravagant and absurd to consider that option. They would claim that we had the best clay in western Europe for such a scheme. The scientists would want to know what we were doing fiddling around with permeable stone just below the seabed when we have a more Rolls-Royce type solution in the clay in this country. It is that crescent of clay which is, above all, the determinant of why the four sites have been chosen for investigation.
As the recipient of so many different protests on these issues, I am aware that powerful arguments can be made against any specific proposal. However, if we had gone down the road and spent what my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander) described as "only" £500 million, there would have been powerful scientific voices attached to persuasive arguments in the House from those communities claiming that we should be doing the obvious thing.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes referred to consensus. I do not believe that we would have secured consensus—and the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) made this point— even if we followed the Swedish solution. I visited Canada and saw
64
the investigations being carried out at Whiteshell. Whiteshell is miles from anywhere and I stress that spaces are rather bigger in Canada than they are here. However, in Canada they had to tell the local communities that the investigations were only temporary because there was still opposition. I asked the Canadians, "How wide is a back yard in Canada?" I was told that it was at least 150 miles. These matters are somewhat objective.
I was grateful to the county councils for commissioning the report which is very useful. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), who has made this point to me frequently in the past, will be aware that that is the kind of submission that, once it is greatly fleshed out with further work, will be submissible to the public inquiry on this matter if one or two of the sites are brought forward to a public inquiry.
I stress to my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and those of my hon. Friends from Bedfordshire who are by convention allowed to speak so eloquently and those who, by convention, are not allowed to speak but are on the Front Bench to listen to their spokesmen—and I have been interested to discover how easy it has been for silent constituency Members to find eloquence for their views in these matters—that there is no easy way of achieving consensus on this matter. I fear that any proposal will find opposition. One of the satisfactory points about the debate is that we have had a good debate in the Chamber and this point has not run across party lines. Most of my hon. Friends would have taken it for granted that there would have been two views expressed from the Liberal Benches and that is perhaps standard practice. I know that the hon. Member for South Shields is aware that his hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) is on record as saying that there is nothing inherent in the method of disposal to which the Labour party in the House is opposed, although there may be others outside who take a different view.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) made an important and powerful speech. It must have been agonisingly difficult for an all-party Committee to come to what is potentially an unpopular decision. For once they were not going to say that the Government were completely crazy, wrong and loopy on the matter. I have been a member of a Select Committee and I know that there is always a temptation to make up a different policy and claim that the Government should follow the Committee's recommendation. My hon. Friend's Select Committee had the discipline to state that, with one very important proviso about intermediate waste which the Government immediately met, they did not think that the method was necessarily out of court. However, any specific proposal must be tested against the safety criteria.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) characteristically covered much of the important ground in three short points. I want to clarify one or two of his points. The apparent dichotomy on the Swedish safety levels is explained as follows. The Swedish safety level laid down by the regulatory authority is very comparable to that which we are laying down. However, the facility, because of its design, will be 100 times safer than that. We have laid down a safety standard for NIREX. It is very likely, especially after listening to the comments made by hon. Members tonight, that NIREX will engineer a facility which exceeds the one in a million chance that we have laid down. NIREX will want to demonstrate that if it comes

65
forward to an inquiry. NIREX will show that the system is well below the accepted safety limit, like the Swedish system.
Mr. David Madel: On this question of NIREX and what it might propose, is my hon. Friend able to say after some months of test drilling in Elstow—and, as my hon. Friend will know, Elstow was the first site to be named—whether NIREX is anywhere near any conclusions after all this test drilling?
Mr. Waldegrave: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for enabling me to make a few comments on that important point. No, NIREX is not yet at the stage when it can announce preliminary results on the test drilling. Test drilling has been continuing since October, as access was obtained only in September. I have been advised that this is the most comprehensive programme of geological investigation work ever undertaken in this country for any purpose. NIREX is not yet able to make preliminary conclusions about the results. After the 12 months and more of drilling, NIREX will need at least another six months of intensive investigation before any final conclusions can be reached. I believe that the consultants employed by the various county councils will confirm that— as the relations between the geologists and the consultants have been warm and close— that a very thorough investigation of the geology is being carried out.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark) made a point which was echoed in a powerful letter from my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine), who is in America today, on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, South and Maldon (Mr. Wakeham), the Chief Whip. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochford recounted the arguments about the unsuitability of the geology. The investigations will set out to test those points. NIREX has sensibly said that if, early on, it was to find something surprising which showed that a site was a wash-out, it would drop consideration of that site in order not to prolong any anxiety in the community.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow mentioned submarines. We thought it important to make that change in response to public pressure, which was led by my hon and learned Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Lyell), who said that we must have the widest comparison of sites before a public inquiry. As two types of solution are available—seaside and inland sites—it would be fair to consider both alongside each other. If an inland site was chosen, the Ministry of Defence would have to find another site for its submarine waste. But nothing would go into those sites except low-level waste, so the reactor cores of submarines are not part of this discussion. They would have to be disposed of as intermediate and high-level waste at some time in the future.
Mr. Dalyell: At another British coastal site?
Mr. Waldegrave: That is possible.
So many points were made in the debate that I may have to search Hansard to make sure that I have taken them all on board. The point that my hon. Friends have been repeating is that they want to assure their constituents that the inquiry will be serious and that no secret decision has been taken in advance to fix the entire matter. 1 give them that assurance. It is not penny-pinching to say that, with Britain's geology, clay is the best
66
solution. We do not have the large salt mines that the Germans have, nor the remote sites of Sweden, but we have some of the best clay in Europe and, for a variety of chemical and engineering reasons, clay is extremely helpful in this area.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green was kind enough to say that the Government had listened to several important points made by the Select Committee, as we listened when deciding to go for the special development order. I should tell the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) that the purpose of the SDO was somewhat to diminish the period of blight that might lie over a community. If there were two large inquiries, one after the other, it would place intolerable pressure on those communities. After listening to representations, especially from Bedfordshire, we decided on that approach.
My hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) made an important point about international standards and research. We are extremely closely in touch with the Commission of the European Community and other international organisations, and I will ask my officials to consider carefully having closer contacts with the science and technology committee of NATO. That would seem to be a sensible solution.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, North (Sir T. Skeet) made a characteristically learned and robust speech. He has a deep knowledge of the industry. He said that the principal independent advisory organisations have all said that this method of disposal should be safe if it is done properly. The question whether it is done properly must be examined at the public inquiry with the specific proposal and site in mind.
I repeat that an important change that we made after reading the Select Committee's report was our undertaking not to include intermediate level waste, which greatly increased the inherent safety margins. That was an important watershed. I urge hon. Members to be a little chary of the argument that it does not matter what we spend, but we must buy public acceptability and consensus. I have come to the conclusion that there will be no consensus. Even in Canada, when the sites were miles away from anywhere, anxieties remained. If we were proposing the Swedish method, we would not be having a very different debate in the House today. Different hon. Members would have taken part, but the debate would have been the same. The Rolls-Royce solution in British terms may—we must test this at the inquiry—involve clay. It is the sensible way of absorbing radiation and retarding water.
The hon. Member for Great Grimsby and I clashed a little over personalities, but., apart from that, we have avoided clashes in this debate, which I welcome. I was touched by the joint succour I hat was offered to me by the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes—an unusual combination on any subject other than this. But they united in this instance against the hon. Member for Great Grimsby, and I was grateful to them for that.
The Government have listened and will continue to listen. We shall scan the Hansard report of the debate carefully, because I am conscious that I may not have had time to answer all the points. I congratulate my hon. Friend on introducing the debate so carefully and in such a scholarly way.
6.55 pm
Mr. Michael Brown: With the leave of the House, Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for his speech. He listened to every speech made during the debate, and I am only sorry that he was unable to hear speeches from my hon. Friends the Members for Bedfordshire, South-West (Mr. Madel) and for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh). They were both here throughout the debate and have taken an interest in the sites in Bedfordshire and in Fulbeck, Lincolnshire, for several years. I am grateful to them and to others for attending the debate. It shows how right I was to select this subject. Although we have been short of time, we have not been short of contributors.
I should tell my hon. Friend the Minister that I agree with much of what the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) says about these matters because he has taken on the Department of the Environment and won the battle on behalf of his constituents. He has been a doughty fighter for them and I hope that I can learn from his experience. What he has achieved for his constituents is what I, my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Lyell) wish to achieve for our constituents. We can all follow his example.
I welcome the speech of the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey). However, as my hon. Friends told him, it does not accord with the actions of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton), who supported the recommendation of the Select Committee. I am grateful for the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi), who is Chairman of the Select Committee. I disagree with his assessment, but his interpretation of the Select Committee report was correct. I was most grateful for what he said about the need for compensation. Although I recognise that my hon. Friend the Minister can go no further than the representations that I have already made to him—I
68
am glad that he acknowledged them today—I hope that he will be swayed by the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green.
I was grateful for the contribution of the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark). He did not depart from the statement made by the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) in answer to me last year. I draw the attention of the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr.Mitchell) to the fact that, whatever the Labour party may have decided outside the House, the hon. Member for South Shields, in a measured speech, did not dissociate himself from the comments made by the hon. Member for Copeland in May last year.
This has been a useful debate and I am grateful to all those hon. Members who took the trouble to speak about an issue that is important to us all. From what my hon. Friend the Minister has said, I understand that we shall return to the subject in the near future. It looks as though we shall soon have a debate on the report from the Select Committee on the Environment and that we shall have a debate on Sizewell B. I remind my hon. Friend the Minister that I still want him to change his policy and that I shall continue to fight to that end, but I am grateful for what he has said.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House welcomes the report prepared for the County Councils of Humberside, Lincolnshire and Bedfordshire regarding the disposal of low level nuclear waste; notes the coalition's view based on an international comparative study that: (i) there are better technical alternatives than those presented by UK Nirex for the disposal of such wastes which may also be used for intermediate level waste; (ii) the overall cost of alternatives may be greater than for a shallow repository but would be less than one per cent. of the costs of nuclear electricity generation; and (iii) if public acceptance is to be gained a truly convincing solution to the disposal of low and intermediate level nuclear waste must be found; and urges Her Majesty's Government to give full consideration to this report before final decisions are taken regarding the disposal of nuclear waste.

Hospital Closures (Lancashire)
6.59 pm
Mr. Peter Pike: I beg to move,
That this House is concerned at all the hospital closures now under consideration in the Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale Health Authority area; is particularly concerned at the possible closure of Victoria Hospital, Burnley which celebrated its centenary in 1986; recognises that the Health Authority is having to consider these closures as a result of unacceptable financial revenue restraints; accepts the need for improved health service provision in the area as identified in the District Medical Officer's Annual Report; and believes that additional financial resources should be made available fully to meet the needs of the community in the area and to ensure that all the existing hospitals remain open.
I do not have time to start to develop my argument, but Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale have a very strong case for additional Health Service resources and we deeply deplore the proposed closures.
It being Seven o'clock, the proceedings lapsed, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Arrangement of public business).

Alternative Land Use
7 pm
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Michael Jopling): With permission, Mr. Speaker, and following the exchanges which took place in your presence in the House earlier this afternoon, I am happy to make a statement.
The Government have been considering very carefully the consequences for agriculture and for the rural economy of changes in the common agricultural policy. We have concluded that, given the scale of agricultural surpluses now facing us, a new balance of policies is needed. This will entail less support for expanding production, more attention to the demands of the market, more encouragement for alternative uses of land, more response to the claims of the environment, and more diversity on farms and in the rural economy. To assist the process of change, I am announcing a number of new policy initiatives. Details are set out in a written answer today, but I shall briefly describe what is planned.
First, a new scheme will be introduced to encourage the development of farm woodlands which will take some land out of agricultural production. The detailed arrangements will be the subject of consultation with interested parties prior to the introduction of appropriate legislation, but the scheme will incorporate provisions for the protection and enhancement of the environment.
Secondly, the Government propose an expansion of the forestry programme, with particular emphasis on the private sector and with due regard to environmental considerations. The planting of a higher proportion of trees on low ground of better quality will also be encouraged.
Thirdly, the Government will be designating further environmentally sensitive areas under section 18 of the Agriculture Act 1986. We have already designated nine areas and our intention is to extend the coverage of this scheme and to double the funding from early in 1988.
Fourthly, diversification of enterprise on farms will be encouraged by the introduction of a scheme under section 22 of the Agriculture Act 1986, providing for the grant-aiding of ancillary businesses on or adjacent to farms. There will also be extra help for marketing of the products of diversified businesses.
Fifthly, within my budget for research, development and advice I shall be placing more emphasis on the possibilities for novel crops and livestock and on the socioeconomic and environmental implications of the changing farming scene.
Sixthly, my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Wales have today put out for consultation a draft circular containing guidance on the future planning regime for agricultural land. It will include more encouragement to local authorities to take a positive attitude to diversification and to the conversion of redundant farm buildings.
In addition, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales and Northern Ireland and I plan to publish next month a document describing how the Government's policies towards farming are being adjusted to reflect the changing scene and potential in the rural economy as a whole. I shall of course make this available to the House. It will make clear that the

71
Government's overall objective is to facilitate the conditions which encourage a healthy rural economy based on enterprise, adaptability and fair competition.
Mr. Brynmor John: If nothing concentrates the mind so wonderfully as being hanged in the morning I must conclude that, for the Government, the same is true of votes of censure at the National Farmers Union annual meeting. How else is one to explain this proposal, belated and inadequate as it is, to try to address the ever-mounting surpluses in European Economic Community regimes? We can all agree that the statement goes nowhere towards meeting that problem, and we get here no clear idea of what the Government think the country should grow, how much it should grow or what quality it should be.
Is this really the Government's great set-aside scheme, which has been trailed for so many months? I must therefore ask the right hon. Gentleman by how much he thinks what he has proposed will reduce our surpluses, what crops will be reduced and when will the reductions start. To many people this appears not to be a serious attempt to solve the problem.
I received the answer to the question asked by the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash), so I am rather better informed than the House was by the right hon. Gentleman's statement. Even if all the land that is proposed in the forestry scheme is taken out of production—15,000 hectares a year for the next three years—it is less than one quarter of 1 per cent. of all agricultural land in the country.
The statement does not go any way to meet the size of the problem. Rather, it is a series of governmental lollipops or pilot schemes. It will cost £25 million a year, which is less than the cost of running the intervention board and much less than the £650 million that it costs taxpayers to subsidise the sale of EEC butter stocks to Russia.
What is the status of this paper? We heard from the Minister of State earlier this year of the structures programme which it was proposed would be agreed on an EEC basis. This is clearly a national programme, involving national money. Does that mean that the EEC programme has still to be agreed, or has it been abandoned?
We read in the press colourful items about golf courses and houses, but they were not mentioned in the statement. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that, by saying that the draft circular will go out for consultation, he means that he intends to build more homes and golf courses on agricultural land? If so, does that apply to Scotland? How will it solve the problems of remote hill farming areas? Will it not merely add to pressure for housing where it is already great?
Perhaps I might press the right hon. Gentleman on the time scale. Normally, there is consultation before proposals are made. Here we have a proposal to consult afterwards. How long will consultations take? Are the proposals open to change? When will legislation be introduced? Debate about these matters has raged for some time. The Government have been absent from that debate, which is perhaps why the statement is so short. It is difficult to resist the conclusion that the mountain has laboured and brought forth a mouse.
Mr. Jopling: The hon. Gentleman has asked a great many questions and I detect a good deal of sour grapes in his comments. He just wishes that his party could have come out with such an imaginative scheme.
The hon. Gentleman said that the statement goes nowhere towards saying what should be grown on farms. That is not its purpose. It tries to suggest schemes for alternative arrangements on farms to deal with the difficulties which all farmers will face as a result of bringing agricultural production back closer to the level of consumption.
The hon. Gentleman said that 15,000 hectares of extra forestry is not enough. I have heard that some environmentalists are saying that it is too much. If he is saying one thing and others are saying another, I think that we have probably got it just about right.
When the scheme starts to operate properly it will cost £25 million in a full year. The hon. Gentleman must remember that it is assistance to farmers who want to set up alternative enterprises and is in the form of pump priming to allow them to find new, alternative enterprises which they have not previously undertaken.
The hon. Gentleman asked where the role of set-aside was in all this and he will have studied the proposals that I made last summer on diverting land from cereals production. Forestry within these proposals is entirely separate. Our proposals on growing trees are not likely to appeal to people who are growing grain. That is another scheme altogether. The growing of trees under these proposals will be much more attractive to people in the marginal areas who are producing beef and sheepmeat.
The hon. Gentleman said that he envisaged these proposals as a national programme—that is right—and asked what was happening to the Community's socio-structural package and whether it had gone out of the window. Of course, it has not. It is being debated in Brussels today and tomorrow and my right hon. Friend the Minister of State is involved in those discussions. I hope that the Council of Ministers will come to a conclusion on it during this meeting. We tried to reach an agreement on it in December, and I hope that we shall soon get that scheme.
That scheme brings within the Community schemes such as our national scheme for environmentally sensitive areas, which the hon. Gentleman has applauded and welcomed in the past. While at present we are doubling the size of those schemes, the Community is hoping for the first time to make financial assistance available to environmentally sensitive areas. That means that it is following us in the initiatives that we have taken.
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the scheme applies to Scotland. We shall be consulting on certain parts of the scheme, particularly on farm forestry, and we shall discuss that with regard to payments, the size of plantations and the length of time for which these income supports will be available. That consultation will start soon.
Sir Peter Mills: I welcome and congratulate my right hon. Friend on this initiative. Obviously, this is the start and we must build on it, as a tremendous amount must be done in rural areas. Does my right hon. Friend agree that all those who live in rural areas must help and encourage rural industries to flourish? Does he further agree that it is important to remember that

73
we cannot live on fresh air and a view? Indeed, in this area he needs to give strong guidance to planning and assistance, otherwise there could be genuine difficulties.
Mr. Jopling: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind words. I agree that it is extremely important for people living in rural areas to encourage the expansion of the rural economy. I remind him of the encouragement that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has given to planning authorities to support proposals to put old farm buildings to new uses. I hope that in future planners in rural areas will pay more attention to the need to expand the rural economy, whether on-farm or off-farm.
Mr. Robert Maclennan: Does the Minister realise that this statement will be bitterly disappointing to farmers, whose incomes have suffered a real decline since the Government came to office and which will be unchecked by anything that he has said today? Does he recognise that all those who are anxious to see the diversification of the rural economy will be equally disappointed that he has found not a single additional pound of public expenditure to achieve this? Does he recognise that the modest £25 million of redistributed public funds set beside the cut in institutional prices of £571 million this year, the cut of £47 million in the Government's structural spending and the cut of £3 million on research and advice will seem more like an insult than assistance?
How can the Minister believe that anyone will be induced to plant under the woodland scheme, which he has announced in advance the Government will review in three years' time, no doubt with further cuts in public spending on it and the forestry project? Does he not realise that in 1980 the Government announced a proposed planting programme of 30,000 hectares a year and that they have failed to achieve that by 7,000 hectares a year? Why should we believe that there is anything more in this than an attempt to stave off justified criticisms from farmers at the annual general meeting of the National Farmers Union tomorrow?
Mr. Jopling: The hon. Gentleman is suffering from the same overdose of sour grapes as the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John). It seems that the only way he can criticise the package is to say that he would have liked it better if it had been bigger. That is not constructive. The hon. Gentleman began by saying that he was disappointed, but I do not believe that farmers will be disappointed with the scheme. If any of them should be mildly disappointed, they will not be half as disappointed as they all were at the disastrous speech that the Leader of the SDP made in Cirencester recently, which would have sold British agriculture all the way down the river.
With regard to the financing of the scheme, we are not robbing Peter to pay Paul. These are firm decisions which stand by themselves. We are moving towards a lower level of CAP support, which will mean substantive savings in public expenditure.
The hon. Gentleman asked a constructive question at the end about how it might be possible to increase the level of traditional forestry. That will happen because we intend to make available more land further down the hill, which does not offend environmentalists so much as does traditional planting on hillsides, where traditional forestry is more productive and profitable, and trees grow better.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that the statement was not wholly expected. I ask for brief questions, as we have other important business before us this evening.
Mr. William Cash: Will my right hon. Friend accept the welcome and thanks of Conservative Members for the statement? Will he confirm that this is a serious attempt to sustain the income of those who live in rural areas, including farmers and other persons? Furthermore, will he confirm that but for the appalling White Papers produced by the Labour Government in 1979 and 1975 we would by now have a policy which was relevant to the requirements of the rural economy? Will he confirm that the rating proposals of both the Labour and alliance parties will inevitably lead to a serious reduction in the opportunities for farmers to sustain their incomes?
Mr. Jopling: I thank my hon. Friend for drawing the attention of the House to the policies which are trickling out from the various Opposition parties, whether on land nationalisation, rating, or the utterly catastrophic proposals of the leader of the SDP for a two-tier price system.
Miss Joan Maynard: Will not taking controls off all agricultural land except grade 1 mean more intensive farming of the land that is still left in agriculture, and more damage to the environment? What proposals does the Minister have to deal with such problems as the pollution of our water by nitrates? Should he not be encouraging less intensive chemical farming and more low input, environmentally sound and labour-intensive farming, instead of introducing these disgraceful proposals?
Mr. Jopling: With respect, the hon. Lady would have been better occupied if she had carefully read what we have announced. There is no question of removing planning proposals on all land except grade 1, as she suggested. That is a million miles from the truth. What is proposed is that, because since the war we have had a system within our planning arrangements for agricultural considerations which were given birth to in the period of food shortages and are still applied at a time when we have serious food surpluses it makes no sense to apply agricultural reservations on less good land which is being proposed for development. When planning committees, which will continue to operate in exactly the same way as before, are considering any proposals for the less good land, it must be sensible, in this day of food surpluses, for them no longer to have to go through the rigmarole of asking about the agricultural implications of developing such land.
The hon. Lady went on to talk about the need for lower input farming. I draw her attention to the proposals for doubling the spending on environmentally sensitive areas, which is doing what she is asking us to do.
Sir Hector Monro: I welcome this important extension of the rural economy, which must be complementary to profitable agriculture. Will my right hon. Friend accept that those interested in conservation of the scenic beauty of the heritage will warmly welcome his constructive proposals, particularly those for environmentally sensitive areas? Will the Government bring home

75
to planning authorities that they must be more flexible about building in areas of less significance if we are to make any progress?
Mr. Jopling: I am grateful for what my hon. Friend has said, and, particularly because of his experience as a member of the Nature Conservancy Council, for his welcome to our proposals on increasing the environmentally sensitive areas. I am glad that he drew our attention to the necessity to tell planners of the need to be flexible, to bear in mind the requirements of the rural economy and to encourage that activity. I am sure that he will be aware of the recent circular from the Department of the Environment, to which I referred earlier, which gives encouragement to planning committees to do their utmost to support and grant permission to applications to make use of redundant farm buildings.
Mr. Robert Hughes: Is it not the case that the increase in surpluses and the ever-growing cost of the CAP have been accompanied by a disastrous collapse in employment in rural areas? Therefore, will the Minister accept that all those who are concerned with the stability of the rural economy will welcome the forward-looking proposals produced by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) and his colleagues? Anybody who compares that with these proposals will come to the conclusion that, as usual, the right hon. Gentleman has botched and bungled it.
Mr. Jopling: It seems that the hon. Gentleman has eaten a bigger dose of sour grapes than has the hon. Member for Pontypridd. If the hon. Gentleman looks carefully at the proposals he will see that there are a number of points that will be helpful for rural employment, such as the assistance that we are proposing with diversification of farm businesses. If we are to have the threat before us of land no longer being used for food production, it is surely good for employment and the rural economy that we should be encouraging more trees to be grown on such land. Here again, I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome the employment opportunities that there could be in that.
Mr. Colin Shepherd: Does my right hon. Friend agree that his intention to bring forward a document early next month will be welcome in the industry, which has been waiting for a long time for just such guidance from him? Does he also agree that his action in respect of section 22 of the Agriculture Act will be welcome and should lead to a greatly enhanced set of employment opportunities in the countryside? However, will he maintain flexibility under his budget headings so that if one aspect of his plan achieves better success than another, it is not inhibited by lack of funds in that direction when there are funds lying available in another sector?
Mr. Jopling: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's warm welcome to the proposals. The policy document that we intend to produce in March will deal with a number of other wider agricultural issues. This proposal is more limited in providing new opportunities. I am also grateful for his endorsement of the point that I made a moment ago with regard to the proposals for the diversification of farm businesses, following section 22 of the 1986 Act. This will
76
undoubtedly provide opportunities for farmers to use their facilities and their food products to get some added value and at the same time create more investment in rural areas, and therefore more jobs.
Mr. Ron Davies: Why has the Minister deliberately withheld from the House the full details of his proposals to release agricultural land for housing development?
Mr. Jopling: I have not made any proposals. What I said, if he hon. Gentleman was here— I do not remember—was that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will be issuing today a draft consultative document to discuss these changes. I have kept nothing from the House.
Mr. Charles Morrison: What temporary income arrangements may be available where land is set aside for farmed woodlands? Does diversification include the breeding of ponies and horses?
Mr. Jopling: We shall be consulting on the amount available for farmed woodlands, but our annual figures will vary. Because the amount of income lost by farmers will vary from the less good land to the rather better land, in the better land, where the loss of income will be greatest, we shall be thinking in terms of £125 per hectare, and we shall be discussing this with the industry. We shall be anxious to support diversification into projects such as pony trekking, but we shall have to look carefully at horse breeding.
Mr. Peter Hardy: Will the Minister accept that, as the food surpluses are not produced in marginal land, his policy may prove worthless in affecting the common agricultural policy? To show that it is worthless, does he not perceive the real danger of the threat to the green belt that is implicit in his statement, which may provide Britain with a glimpse of a future countryside under the Conservatives as one for the conifer and concrete? Many people engaged and interested in conservation will find his statement deplorable.
Mr. Jopling: It is unfortunate that the hon. Gentleman should see fit to repeat what I regard as irresponsible reports which have appeared recently in the press with regard to the green belt. There is nothing at all in the Government's proposals which reduces the protection given to the green belt. The same goes for the national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty and other environmentally important areas. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take some pleasure from that and will not go on repeating the foolish reports that we have read.
As for surpluses not being created on marginal land, a good deal of marginal land is producing milk and beef, both of which are in surplus. Those who are farming on land that is not so good are the ones who are most concerned and anxious at this time. Those farmers will feel that they have not been forgotten and that we have made specific plans to help them to develop alternative enterprises.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. As the whole House knows, there is heavy pressure on time this evening. I shall allow questions to continue for a further 10 minutes, and then we must move on. That will mean that Back Benchers will have had a full half hour.
Mr. Jerry Wiggin: Will my right hon. Friend accept that, unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Sir P. Mills), I believe that building on this land is the one solution that is unacceptable to this side of the House? Will he accept our congratulations that the otherwise accurate report in The Observer is hotly denied on this point by my right hon. Friend?
Mr. Jopling: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's kind words. I agree with him that building per se is not unacceptable. The key point is that it should be controlled under our planning system, and the best land will continue to be controlled in exactly the same way. All that we are suggesting is that the agricultural considerations should be diminished on the less good land, but the planners will continue to apply all the other yardsticks which they have hitherto applied.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Is the Minister aware that in rural Cheshire the suggestion that to build houses will somehow deal with persistent rural unemployment will be met with absolute astonishment? Farmers need clear financial targets and, above all, a complete renegotiation of the milk quotas and of the absolutely unacceptable scheme which the Minister has taken on board from Brussels.
Mr. Jopling: The hon. Lady has not been listening. Either she has not heard or she has not read what has been said about this proposal. Nobody has remotely suggested that there is to be an open door to the building of houses on agricultural land. That is in nobody's minds. It is only in the minds of those who, like the hon. Lady, ask questions like that purely for the purpose of making trouble.
Mr. Nicholas Baker: Will my right hon. Friend seek to direct the compensation and planning benefits of his proposals, which are very much welcomed, to the needs of the existing agricultural community? In the document that is to appear in March, will he try to announce, as a continuing policy, that the anomaly of the green pound should be avoided wherever possible? Will he confirm that these proposals are not part of any encouragement to over-develop in the south of England, which would benefit neither the agriculture industry nor those who live in rural areas?
Mr. Jopling: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he said about the planning proposals. The green pound is not referred to in my statement. However, the Government are conscious of the developments regarding the green pound.
My hon. Friend also asked for an assurance that this is not just a recipe for over-development in the south of England. Of course it is not. It merely relieves planning authorities from the need to have to consider outdated considerations based on food shortages rather than on food surpluses.
Mr. D. E. Thomas: Will the Minister say whether his statement represents Government policy, as there is no Welsh Office Minister in the Chamber? Will he also explain what is new about this policy, as he is now only implementing what he told us he could not do under the Agriculture Act 1986 regarding the number of environmentally sensitive areas? Will he also tell the House why he thinks that agricultural
78
support and rural development are two different aspects and that people can be switched from one to the other? Diversification has been art ongoing problem for many years for most of the marginal farmers in the rural area that I represent. Will the Minister explain how these policies are in any sense new? In particular, how will the support for forestry provide new jobs, when forestry jobs have been collapsing in the countryside for the last 30 years?
Mr. Jopling: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman takes such a jaundiced view of all this. He asked what is new about the proposals. When we first introduced the concept of environmentally sensitive areas we received such a warm reception from virtually every hon. Member that we felt that we had to take it step by step. We allotted a certain amount of money last year to the scheme, and we have already designated nine environmentally sensitive areas in the United Kingdom. We have now decided to devote more money to the scheme. That is what is new.
The hon. Gentleman also asked what is new about diversification. My answer is very simple. The hon. Gentleman said that this had been an ongoing problem in his constituency for many years, but it has been an ongoing problem in many constituencies for many years. What is new is that we are announcing a scheme whereby, once it is working fully, £5 million a year will be allotted to diversification on farms. That is new, and I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman could not bring himself to welcome it.
Mr. David Harris: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the draft circular that is being published today will in no way open up the countryside to uncontrolled development? Does my right hon. Friend recognise that there is a taxation problem for those farmers who are switching their activities? Will he examine the possibility of some reduction of taxation and capital gains when farmers switch over, as the Government want them to do?
Mr. Jopling: I can give an assurance straight away that in no conceivable way is this a recipe for uncontrolled development. Nothing could be further from the truth. On taxation, my hon. Friend will know that my stock reply is that that is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. However, it should be made clear that the majority of those whom we expect will be interested in the farm woodland proposals will not be the kind of people whose personal taxation means that their approach to the growing of trees can be compared with the approach of those who grow trees on a very much larger scale.
Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the broad thrust of his statement, but is he aware that there are now disturbing signs that some farmers are declaring buildings redundant in order to get round planning application permission and selling them off as second homes? Will he assure the House that in no way will any of the encouragement to which he referred lead to planning authorities having to abandon their normal planning systems?
Finally, does my right hon. Friend's statement include any help for those who live by commoning? I know that recntly he visited the New Forest and therefore he will

79
know that many of those who live by depasturing their animals are having a difficult time. Is there anything in this scheme for them?
Mr. Jopling: As to the disturbing signs of buildings being declared redundant so that they may qualify for further development at a later stage, that is not a matter for me. However, my hon. Friend the Minister for Environment, Countryside and Planning is sitting on the Treasury Bench. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for the New Forest (Mr. McNair-Wilson) will write to him about that. As for help for the commoners, I know that my right hon. Friend is thinking of the New Forest. Again that is not part of this specific scheme, but we have this important area of great environmental beauty very much in mind.
Mr. John Evans: As most of the EC food surpluses are created by our European partners, can the Minister tell us whether they are adopting measures similar to those that he has announced to take agricultural land out of production?
Mr. Jopling: I fear that the hon. Gentleman is not exactly correct when he says that our European partners produce the surpluses. I invite him to go to the Library and look up the surpluses that have been created in Britain. If he does that he will see that we are building up many of the surpluses.
Sir Peter Hordern: Will my right hon. Friend categorically deny the report in The Observer yesterday that the presumption against house building on agricultural land is to be abandoned and that housing estates, each of up to 100 acres, will be allowed in future? Does he agree that if such a thing were to happen nothing could be less appropriate than to surround an environmentally sensitive area such as the South Downs with a concrete jungle on the Weald of Sussex?
Mr. Jopling: I can assure my hon. Friend that a great deal of that article was a very long way from the truth. The suggestion that it made of opening up land for the building of houses on the scale that he mentions is utterly untrue. I repeat again that the principal change is that it is no longer appropriate to say that on less good land there should not be development because it may be needed for food production. There may well be other reasons which could cause the planners to refuse permission for building on that land, but it is nonsense nowadays to say that permission should be refused because the land might be needed for food production.
Dr. David Clark: The Minister alluded to the good work of the Development Commission in the countryside. How much will its budget be increased as a result of his proposals? Will the Minister confirm that the report in The Observer was basically true, and that the presumption against house building on agricultural grade 3 land downwards will be lifted, thus meaning that if a
80
democratically elected local authority refuses planning permission, on appeal the Secretary of State would have to reverse that decision? In view of the full attendance in the House, does the Minister accept how badly he misjudged the feeling of the country in trying to sneak through this announcement?
Mr. Jopling: There is no question of trying to sneak it through. That is a ridiculous idea. The hon. Gentleman was in the House and knows that I came straight to the Dispatch Box and said that if the House wanted a statement I would be more than delighted to provide one.
I know that the hon. Gentleman pays great attention to these matters, but, with respect, he has made it clear that he has not fully understood the proposals about planning matters. I hope that he will write or put questions to my hon. Friend from the Department of the Environment. We can supply him with a copy of the draft consultative paper, and from that he will discover that the point he made in his question is a long way from the truth. Before he asks any more questions he should make himself more familiar with that paper.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I assure those hon. Members whom I have not been able to call in the last 45 minutes that I shall bear them in mind when we return to this subject, as undoubtedly we will.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I thank you for the time that you have given the House on this important matter. You will have heard the last exchange. Many hon. Members are far from clear about the impact on planning and about matters relating to the responsibility of the Department of the Environment. Could you or anyone else in the House tell us whether we may expect a statement tomorrow from the Secretary of State or from one of his Ministers on the precise implications for planning in the rural areas?
Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for me. However, the hon. Gentleman has made the point and no doubt those on the Front Bench will have heard what was said.
Mr. Ron Davies: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. We have had a long run and I have called the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Davies: May I draw your attention to the wording of the reply from the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food?
Mr. Speaker: No. The hon. Gentleman cannot do that now. That would be a clear continuation of questions on the statement and would be unfair to those hon. Members whom I have not been able to call. I think that all hon. Members would agree with that. I also called the hon. Gentleman during Welsh questions. He raised the matter then and has had ample time on it.

Orders of the Day

  Social Fund (Maternity and Funeral Expenses) Bill
  Considered in Committee.
  [MR. HAROLD WALKER in the Chair]

  Social Fund (Maternity and Funeral Expenses) Bill
    Clause 1

      AMENDMENT OF SECTION 32(2) OF SOCIAL SECURITY ACT 1986
      7.45 pm
      Mrs. Margaret Beckett: I beg to move, in page 1, line 7, at end add
      'and there shall be added at the end of section 32(2) of that Act the words "provided that the amounts prescribed under paragraph (a) of this subsection in respect of maternity expenses shall be sufficient, subject to prescribed deductions in respect of the resources of the claimant, to meet the cost of prescribed items".'.
      On Second Reading the Government sought to suggest that the proposals that the Bill embodies for the second time are logical and consistent. However, despite the small compass of the Bill, the Government have succeeded in putting forward proposals which are innately contradictory. The Government claim that their purpose is to target help—to use their phrase—at those in greatest need. So far they have leaned heavily on the fact that a wider group than those people who are now eligible for supplementary benefit and who in the future to be eligible for income support will, under these proposals, be eligible for assistance. That is not the same wide group as that which is eligible for assistance with funeral and maternity expenses. My first question to the Government is: why not?
      For funeral expenses people drawing income support, family credit or housing benefit will be eligible if they meet the other criteria of limited capital. As the Government have explained on many occasions, they want to ensure that all people on low incomes are treated alike. Maternity expenses can be claimed only by those who receive income support or family credit, and not by those who receive housing benefit. I repeat my question: why not?
      The unworthy suspicion arises, as it arose in Committee on a different Bill, that not even this Government think that they can discourage people from dying by reducing the amount available for funeral expenses. However, they hope that providing a wholly insufficient amount for maternity expenses might discourage low-income families from having children. If there is another logical reason for the distinction that the Government make we shall be more than happy to hear it.
      The second way in which the proposals are contradictory is the different way in which the amounts are dealt with and assessed. For funeral costs a list of items without a specific check list of costs is included. In effect, that list is much the same as the one for the system of single payments. There is one minor exception about which I should like to probe the Government's intentions. In the new draft regulations there is specific mention of funds being allowed for one return journey either for arrangements to be made for a funeral or for a person to be able to attend a funeral. On the face of it, it is hard to
      82
      see why someone who is charged with the arrangements for a funeral and, presumably, has difficulty in meeting the cost of such travel should be forced to choose between arrangement and attendance. That is one of the areas that we should like the Government to reconsider.
      A list of items of maternity expenses also exists under single payment regulations. To put it mildly, they are not over-generous. The Government recognise that they are not over-generous, because until last summer the guidance given in regulation 7103 of the S manual which deals with these matters specifically says, "The following is not a comprehensive list". The paragraph goes on to say that
      "these are the items which will most commonly need to be considered:—"
      The same paragraph of the S manual says that an adjudication officer may
      "Make a single payment for any other items necessary to meet the baby's needs."
      Before last summer the Government recognised that even this list might be inadequate to meet the needs of a newborn child.
      In August, the Government issued fresh guidance in circular 20/86, presumably to tide them over during the run-up to the regulations, which may have been withdrawn but the basis of which we are considering in the debate on this paving Bill. The Government issued another list which was almost identical to the previous one. It covered essentially the same grounds but was somewhat more restrictive than the previous one. This time the list was said to be an "exhaustive" list of items for which a single payment might be made. In other words, anything outside the list would not even be considered. Paragraph 9.1 in the circular stated:
      "no other item is now provided for by regulation 7".
      Some time between the issuing of the original single payment regulations and last August the Government decided that babies needed rather less provision than in the past. The provision which the Government thought as late as last August to be necessary for babies—it was not over-generous—was three sleeping suits, one pram suit, three pairs of plastic pants, one baby bath and three cot sheets. It has often been suggested that a determined baby can get through some of those items in a short period.
      Not only are the items listed in number but the suggested cost per item is given, totaling£187·45. That ties in, to a degree, with the most recent figures last year from the Maternity Alliance for the average payment made under the existing single payment regulations—about £143. The Maternity Alliance pointed out that most mothers said that they had to buy additional items as well as the items which could be provided for from a single payment. Clearly, between £187 and £190 would cover, on a not very generous basis, the items which, until August 1986, the Government thought that a new baby might need.
      But now it is February 1987 and we are told that the maximum grant for any mother will be the princely sum of £80. What has happened to new babies since last summer that suddenly they cost half as much as before? Have babies come furnished with new equipment which has not been revealed to us? Clearly, some magical transformation has taken place. Certainly the cost of the items in the original list has not halved.
      The Minister said that the purpose of the maternity grant has always been to make "a reasonable contribution" to the cost of maternity. I shall not argue at

      83
      the moment whether £80 is a reasonable sum. That comment may have been true of the original maternity grant which could be topped up for the poorest mothers by single payments, but the new grant which we are debating in the Bill and for which the regulations will be laid is not a reasonable contribution; it is the sole contribution available to meet the costs of maternity for low-income mothers. It is not just our opinion that that sum is inadequate. A number of organisations have made representations to the Government pointing out the inadequacy of this sum: the British Medical Association, the Conservative Women's National Committee—presumably, the hon. Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley) who spoke the other evening is not in touch with that organization—the Equal Opportunities Commission, the Health Visitors Association, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, the Royal College of Nursing, the Select Committee on Social Services and many others.
      The Minister boasts that the Government's intention is to meet the "true" cost of funerals—the "full" cost. The hon. Gentleman spoke recently of the "realistic" help towards the cost of funerals. Why are not the same principles applied to maternity expenses?
      Last year, when these proposals were first put forward in another Bill, we asked the Minister the same question. I shall not bore the Committee with the hon. Gentleman's answer, because it was fairly incomprehensible, but he appeared to say that perhaps the Government had decided that, because they were going to give a lump sum only to those on income support, they were going to apply the same principle of giving a lump sum only to those on family credit or family income supplement. That does not even deal with the argument why those on housing benefit are excluded in this case, let alone why the lump sum was thought to be the correct approach. It certainly does not deal with the question why, if a lump sum is appropriate, it should be half or less than half even of the average amount now paid to mothers in equally poor circumstances. The Minister has had six months to think of a better argument. If he is not able to do so, he should reconsider the way in which the regulations were drafted and accept our amendment.
      Mr. Dave Nellist: I support the amendment. It is well worth remembering that the parent of the Bill was the Social Security Act 1986, which was described in a derogatory way—certainly in my area—as the result of the Fowler review. At the Labour party conference in 1986, a motion supporting the repeal of that Act was passed by a vote of 6·3 million to 173,000—a 37:1 majority, greatly exceeding the necessary 2:1 majority needed to ensure that when my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) takes up her position in Cabinet as the person responsible for the Ministry of women's rights she has the Labour movement's full support in putting this legislation and its parent in their justifiable place—the dustbin of history.
      The Bill gives the Secretary of State the power to prescribe regulations to define limits on such items as maternity grants. The £80 for maternity grant, which has been cited in statements, and which, no doubt, will be mentioned later, is woefully inadequate to meet the needs arising from the birth of a child in Britain in 1987. The
      84
      grant was woefully inadequate at £25 some 18 years ago when it was first introduced. If the amount had been increased to allow for inflation since 1969, the grant would be about £130 and it would still be inadequate.
      The Bill and the Social Security Act which it amends do nothing to tackle the problems of the gradual reduction in maternity benefit over the past few years. Clause 1 would end the right to a statutory grant for about 500,000 women. It aims to prescribe the top limits of the payment. These changes are grafted on to a number of other reductions which have taken place under the Government. They include the 5 per cent. cut some seven years ago in the level of maternity allowance, which saved the Government about £8 million, and the ending of earnings-related supplement in 1982, which saved the Government £35 million. We are now talking about a means-tested substitute for a statutory grant on top of the loss of free milk, vitamins and other cuts in provision which working class women have had to put up with over the past seven years. Those who are in receipt of maternity grant have had their chances of returning to work reduced because the Government have removed the requirement that employers with fewer than 10 employees have to offer a job back to a woman who leaves to have a baby.
      A particular group of women will be affected by the legislation—the 200,000 young women on YTS. They do not get the chance to build up the necessary contributions or service to qualify for maternity benefits in general. If I could broaden the debate—a possibility not usually open to me—I should add to the list of pressing restrictions imposed during the past seven years on working class women who are about to have babies. They face the problem of finding child care facilities as the children grow up. Apart from Liverpool council, few councils have had the money in the past seven years to extend child care provision, such as nurseries, creches and play groups. That is the general background.
      8 pm
      Good quality child care—including maternity and paternity rights, as well as levels of benefit—are essential if men and women are to share the joys and responsibilities of bringing up their children and not be restricted, which is what will happen if the Bill is passed. That is why we need a universal maternity grant that properly reflects the cost of bringing up a baby—£80 does not do that, either in terms of pregnancy and childbirth or in terms of the general cost of raising children.
      We have the first woman Prime Minister in Britain, but she has shown, through sponsorship of the Bill and in previous Acts, that she is ruthless in reversing the gains made by working-class women in the past few decades. She might make a few headline comments about individual cases of child abuse, but the Bill represents mass child abuse in terms of the poverty and inadequacy of provision that working-class women and their children have to suffer.
      The original amount of benefit was £25. The Bill gives the power to the Secretary of State to raise that to £80. My wife and I had a baby some 18 months ago and we received the £25 benefit. Jane was able to buy two maternity bras, a box of breast pads, some sanitary towels and enough wool to make the baby's first cardigan. That is all that the £25 bought. All the other essential items will not be covered even if the grant is increased to £80. One of the

      85
      cheapest cribs these days is £50, one of the cheapest high chairs £48, one of the cheapest playpens £47, and the cheapest fire guard for an open fire is £20—a total cost of £170. My wife and I cannot afford to buy those things. But for the generosity of friends in Coventry who loaned us those four items, we would not have had them. I keep my standard of living at the average factory wage, which in Coventry is £170 or £180 a week gross. We are talking about working-class families for whom £170 or £180 a week would be a dream. If we cannot afford to buy those new things on average factory wages in Coventry, the hundreds of thousands of women who will be caught by the trap in the Bill will have no chance of buying them.
      In addition to borrowing some items, we were lucky in that my wife had worked in a department store for 11 years, which entitled her to a 25 per cent. discount off certain items. That possibility is not open to most working-class families or to the unemployed single parents who are caught by the trap. A couple of days before Christmas we bought our daughter, Charlotte, her first pair of shoes. We paid £9·99 for a pair of child's shoes, which will last 10 to 12 weeks if we are lucky. I do not pay £9·99 for my shoes and I expect them to last at least two years. I hope that the next Labour Government—I trust that my two comrades on the Front Bench are taking note of this—will consider providing items such as children's shoes on the National Health. It is essential that a child has shoes that do not stunt the growth of its feet and lead to far worse problems in later life.
      The Minister will no doubt tell us that he will generously make the maternity grant £80 if the Bill goes through and gives him the authority and power so to do. I was talking to my local citizens advice bureau a few days ago as part of the preparation for tonight's debates and I asked whether it had any information on the costs of the basic requirements necessary to bring a baby into the world and provide for its first few weeks or months of life. The CAB quoted to me, and I can quote to the Committee, figures for essential basic items for a new baby layette which were worked out by the Health Visitors Association. Even the Minister will recognise that most professionals, such as health visitors, whose daily job is to monitor the development of children, should have an idea of what is essential. The list was costed by the Durham and Derwentside citizens advice bureau after visiting the local Boots shop. The total for the basic kit recommended by the Health Visitors Association came to £241·23p last year—three times the £80 that the Minister intends to offer today.
      Mr. Frank Field: My hon. Friend has given us a number of examples of how people have costed the basic needs of looking after a child in its first few weeks of life. The Government always claim that taking away universal benefit and means testing it—or "targeting" it, as they like to call it—means that they can make that targeting generous enough for the people at the bottom of the pile. My hon. Friend's speech is helpful in showing how false that claim is.
      Mr. Nellist: The Government say that the grant is supposed to cover necessary requisites. If the Bill goes through it will give the Government the authority to take the grant away from at least half a million women in Britain.
      Mr. Field: Supposedly to provide an adequate benefit.
      Mr. Nellist: Yes, supposedly to provide an adequate benefit to bring the child into the world.
      The initial costs of bringing up a baby, worked out in March 1984 by the Daily Mirror, came to £444. In November 1985, a magazine called "Parents" estimated that the cost of a new born baby, including baby clothes and equipment, came to £702. It is worth comparing the situation here with what happens in other European countries. In Belgium, all mothers receive £395 for their first child. In France, all mothers receive £70 per month pregnancy allowance. In Luxembourg, all mothers receive a grant of £627. And what are we talking about in this country? A measly £80 from the Government.
      Mr. Field: Will my hon. Friend remind the House that that analysis in the Daily Mirror was instigated by the current junior Minister for Transport, the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), whose wife so enlivened our debates last week?
      Mr. Nellist: I was not aware of that. It should not only be recorded in Hansard but shouted from the roof tops that the initiation of such an exercise produced a figure not far short of £500. However, it seems to have had no impact on the thinking of the Ministers who have proposed this ludicrously low figure of £80.
      There are other problems attendant on accepting a figure of £80, because of the way in which the regulations intend that sum to replace the single payments available to mothers. A young woman, who was six months pregnant, came to see me on Saturday morning at my constituency surgery in Coventry. In the last few weeks she has moved into council accommodation, but the furniture regulations of August 1986, which were amended by the original Social Security Act, now preclude her from claiming for a cooker, a bed, sheets, a wardrobe or other necessities of setting up home. She will be able to get some help under the Bill for essential babywear costs, but she will be bringing a baby into an unfurnished, unheated flat with no basic requisites for bringing up a family. Not until she has been on benefit for six or seven months will she be entitled to one or two other additions. That fact was reflected in much of the evidence that the citizens advice bureau in Coventry supplied to me.
      What figure ought we to be discussing? If my hon. Friend's amendment were accepted and there was a review of the prescribed items before the figure was finally set, what sort of figure would be come up with? Unfortunately, I have left the booklet that I wished to quote from at home, but on the telephone a few minutes ago I wrote down all the essential points, so I will paraphrase. The Health Education Council perhaps knows more than any other body what is needed to bring a child into the world and to provide for it during its first few weeks of life, and it gives every expectant mother a list of the items that she should get before her baby is born.
      Mr. Field: Be careful or the Government will close it down.
      Mr. Nellist: As my hon. Friend says, we may be on dangerous ground in quoting the Health Education Council. It may end up being abolished by the Government.
      I looked through the list from the Health Education Council and I turned to what I hope the few Tory Members present will regard as an ideologically sound

      87
      source of prices—the current Mothercare catalogue. That produced the following list: two dozen terry nappies—£21; six pins—56p; 50 nappy liners, which would not last one week, as I know to my cost—£1·10; four pairs of plastic pants—£3; 100g of cotton wool—78p; baby lotion—89p; a bucket to put nappies in, with a lid to keep the stink down—£5·99; sterilising powder—£1·49; a basic cot—£63; three sheets—£11; a duvet—£9·99; a baby bath—£6·99; one bar of soap—53p; a towel—though more than one is needed—£6·99; a pram—£173·50, including a rain hood; six bottles and teats and sterilising equipment—£14; a brush to clean out the bottles—£1·15; four stretch suits—£14; two woolen cardies—£7; four vests—£4·50; a shawl or a blanket for when the baby is taken out—£10·99; a woollen hat—£1·75; two socks—£1·85; two mittens—£1·05; nail scissors—89p; a hair brush—£2·99; a plastic changing mat—£3·99; a changing bag—£9·99. In my rush I have not been able to find the price for a cat net or for pram straps, a sun hat or other essential items in the Health Education Council list. I do not even mention toys, although in terms of stimulation from colour and sound the first few months of a baby's life are the most important in developing its potential. That list adds up to £376·46, yet we are talking about only £80 being given to meet the needs of working-class women.
      I should like to spend more time making the essential points, but I am interested to know how the Minister will respond. From that Health Education Council list, from my personal experience over the past 15 months and from constituency cases as recently as last Saturday morning, I have no doubt that millions of families look forward to the implementation of the conference policy decided by the Labour party in October. I could take the Committee and the Minister through the statistics, but for now I simply stress that we need to pass the amendment so that the real costs of bringing a baby into the world can be identified and taken up by a Labour Secretary of State.
      I hope that when my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) takes her place in a Labour Cabinet in the next few months she will make it a priority to redress the problems caused by this legislation. We know that she will have a fight on her hands to ensure that a Ministry for women's rights has the necessary finance to carry out improvements in the lives—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) thinks that the list of essential items that I have read out is a laughing matter, perhaps he would like to come to Coventry and join me in visiting the damp houses in my constituency where babies who do not have good, clean clothes soon start suffering from bronchitis and other bronchial problems.
      8.15 pm
      Mr. Eric Forth: The reason for my mirth was not the content of the list that the hon. Gentleman read out, but the concept of a Ministry for women's rights, which is so ludicrous as to be laughable.
      Mr. Nellist: I will leave it to those who are present for the debate or will hear it on the radio or read about it in Hansard or in the press to judge which is the more laughable—the idea that a baby can be brought into the world and helped through the first weeks of its life on £80,
      88
      when the realistic cost, according to estimates from the Health Education Council, the Health Visitors Association and magazines such as "Parents", ranges from £400 to £750, or the idea that a majority Labour Government will give my hon. Friend the Member for Barking the job of changing that position and ensuring that millions of working-class families can give their children a proper start.
      I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Barking shares my view of the importance of that task and understands that there will be a battle against the vested interests, represented so well by the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire, who will say that the money cannot be afforded. If that is the answer of the City, the employers, the industrialists and the Tory party, the extension of a Labour Government's control over the means of finance and over industry to provide the necessary money for an expansion of public services will become increasingly urgent.
      Mr. Charles Kennedy: I support the amendment and I agree with much of the analysis, though not all the premises, of the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist).
      I do not cast aspersions on the strength of feeling at the Labour party conference, but having left that party on the principle of one man, one vote, I always recall the sketch in, I think, "Not the Nine O'clock News" where a meeting had to decide whether to have tea or coffee. Five hands, representing 1·5 million votes, were raised for tea and one hand, representing 7 million votes, was raised for coffee. So coffee it was, and on the meeting democratically went.
      I support the amendment because it is a good and sensible proposal. Some of the proposed amendments seem longer than the Bill. The alliance proposed an amendment about the rights of mothers under 16. That is germane to the Labour amendment and I hope that the Minister will respond to our suggestion, because it was not adequately dealt with on Second Reading.
      I also underline what the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East said about the dramatic decline in the real value of the maternity grant. The Government's proposal of an £80 grant marks a slippage. In 1983, the average single payment made by the DHSS was £60, which, with the £25 maternity grant, gave a total of £85. Therefore, the Government's latest proposal is lower in cash terms and in real terms than what was made available to mothers on supplementary benefit in 1983.
      The Government have not attempted to justify the suggested level. I hope that the Minister will explain why such a disgracefully low level has been set. How can the Government justify such a dramatic slippage in both cash and real terms?
      The Under-Secretary said, here or elsewhere, that he would reconsider the position of pregnant girls under the age of 16 whose parents are not in receipt of supplementary benefit or family income supplement. There was no time at the end of the Second Reading debate to comment on that in detail, so I hope that he will comment tonight. I support the amendment because at least it would allow the House to conduct annually a debate about adequate maternity support.
      From the detailed list supplied by the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East, from the comments by the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and from the speech by the hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson), it is

      89
      clear that the proposed level bears no relation to the reality of the cost which women and families face when bringing up children. Does the Minister really believe, with his hand on his heart, that the level proposed is sufficient?
      Dr. Norman A. Godman: I support the amendment. It is right to emphasise the need to meet the cost of prescribed items. My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) mentioned £170. There is no doubt that £80 is inadequate.
      A few months ago I approached my local DHSS on behalf of two young girls who were seeking assistance with maternity payment. Both girls live in appalling poverty and received about £195. That is not a princely sum, given the appalling circumstances in which they live in Port Glasgow. Was that sum over-generous? In future it seems that girls in similar circumstances will be penalised. What will girls in the same circumstances receive in future? What will happen in constituencies such as mine where 43 per cent. or 44 per cent. of the population is in receipt of social welfare benefits? I presume that youngsters living in such poverty will have the right after six months to apply for a loan from the social fund. Will women in such circumstances be able to apply for a loan to buy the essentials for a baby's first few weeks of life?
      I have often said that the legislation is squalid, especially for many of my constituents. The sum of £80 is disgracefully inadequate. If the Government had any honour or principles they would support the amendment. I look forward to the day when such matters, as they apply to Scotland. are decided in a Scottish Parliament.
      The Minister for Social Security (Mr. John Major): The hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) moved the amendment in her usual beguiling fashion, but she hid the fact that the underlying effect, if not the intent, of the amendment is to reinvent the single payment system with all its complexities. From time to time, the hon. Lady pays lip service to simplicity, but she tends to take a hatchet when her heart becomes involved.
      The hon. Members for Derby, South, for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist), for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) and for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) raised several issues with which I should like to deal before coming to the underlying argument involved in the proposed amendment. The hon. Member for Derby, South asked why housing benefit was used as a passport for funeral payments and not for maternity grant. She thought that the intention was to restrict the entitlement to maternity grant. Whether one decides that that is the intention depends upon the end of the telescope through which one looks, or upon whether one concludes that the Government want to widen the entitlement to help with funeral expenses for many of the reasons which hon. Members have put forward on a number of occasions.
      I want to widen the entitlement to funeral payments for a series of self-evident reasons. With the cost of meeting funeral expenses comes an immediate large-scale cost at a time of distress, to which hon. Members have repeatedly drawn our attention in recent months. I want, therefore, to allow the widest possible entitlement to the funeral payment. I make no apology for that being my intention, although it is not possible to extend the passporting provision of housing benefit to maternity grant.
      Family income supplement itself makes a fairly satisfactory passport to maternity payment for low
      90
      income families. That is clearly not so for funeral payments since people on low incomes who tend to take responsibility for funeral payments do not usually have dependent children.
      The hon. Member for Derby, South also queried whether £80 was the correct level. The hon. Member for Coventry, South-East spoke with some feeling. from his own recent experience of paternity, about the expenses involved in having a baby. I, too, have a family—a little beyond baby age—so I recall only too clearly the expense involved.
      8.30 pm
      Mr. Frank Field: I cannot remember the eligibility rules for FIS for those who are expecting their first child. The Minister told the House that FIS was a more convenient passport, but he failed to tell us for whom it was more convenient. Will he tell us at what point people would be eligible for FIS when expecting their first child? If they are eligible only after the birth of the child, they may be ineligible for FIS.
      Mr. Major: We considered that matter, the hon. Gentleman may recall, in respect of family credit. It is in the depths of the Social Security Act, but it will take me a moment or two to recall what precise conclusion we reached. I hope that I shall recall that conclusion before I complete my remarks.
      The hon. Member for Coventry, South-East also touched upon the particular expenses of having a baby. I make nothing other than an acknowledgment that having a baby means a significant degree of expense for the young couple involved. The hon. Gentleman, in what I thought was a compelling phrase with which I agree, made the point that parenthood brings with it both joys and responsibilities. One of the responsibilities—I certainly do not seek to present this in a hard-faced manner—is for the parents to make a contribution towards the welfare of their child. All we seek to do with the maternity grant—the hon. Member for Derby, South used slightly different words—is to make a reasonable contribution towards the expense of having a baby.
      I should perhaps underline the word "contribution" as we do not see and never have seen the purpose of this payment as being to cover the entire expense of having a baby for precisely the underlying reason that the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East gave in his speech.
      Mr. Nellist: While the Minister is dealing with this matter, may I ask how he arrived at the figure of £80? In the Mothercare catalogue, a basic layette, which consists of two of each item for the first few days or weeks of a baby's life, comes to £39·99. If, as is most likely with the sort of families we are talking about, the family did not have a washing machine and a tumble drier to air clothes properly—if people are living in a damp house they will need at least four or many of those items, such as vests and so on—those basic things will cost £80 before they start. I understand that the original grant in the 1960s covered the cost of a pram. Therefore, how did the DHSS work out this sum of £80?
      Mr. Major: The hon. Gentleman assumes that some weird and odd mathematical equation has been used to arrive at the £80 figure. There is no such calculation. Within the social security budget there are always competing demands for what is not an unlimited amount

      91
      of resources. Within those competing demands Ministers must decide where to direct the resources that are available. In making that decision we thought that£80 would represent a reasonable contribution towards the cost of having a baby when set against the present flat rate £25 maternity grant.
      Mr. Nellist: Further to that, will the Minister confirm that the Department, in effect, said, "Here is the amount of money. Here are the number of women that it will cover. Divide the money by the number of women, and it comes to £80."? In other words, it bears absolutely no relation to the real cost of bringing up a baby.
      Mr. Major: That was a good try by the hon. Gentleman, but that was not what I said and that is not the position. I shall repeat precisely what I said just a moment ago. There are competing demands, and that is so for whoever is the Minister. Within those competing demands there is a whole range of areas—the hon. Gentleman frequently draws other examples to my attention—where it is desirable to ensure that the benefits are uprated, perhaps increased, or whatever it may be. Social Security Ministers must make a judgment between those competing demands. Possibly other hon. Members would draw the line at a different level and make a different judgment, but that is the decision that any Minister must make. Upon that basis, we judged that £80 was right.
      Mrs. Beckett: I was wondering whether the Minister would tell us whether the judgment that he made was influenced in any way by looking at the list of costs published by his Department last summer.
      Mr. Major: Of course it was. I have just explained precisely how the judgment was reached. The hon. Lady may try as much as she wishes to put words in my mouth, but I am disinclined to leave them there and accept them.
      Several Hon. Members rose—
      Mr. Major: The hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye was first in the queue. For the purposes of convenience, I am also prepared to give way to the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow should he wish to intervene.
      Mr. Kennedy: We are talking about something that the Government, for their own purposes in this Bill, define as a sufficient level. How can £80 be sufficient when the £25 maternity allowance in 1983 was on average chalked up by a single payment of £60, bringing the total sum in Government support at that point to £85? How, in real as well as in cash terms, can £80 be justified three years later?
      Mr. Major: It was not on average. The hon. Gentleman is wrong on that. It was on average for those who received single payments, but I remind him of something of which he may not be aware. It is by no means the case that all young ladies in those circumstances received single payments. About 20 per cent. of new mothers may have done, but certainly not much more than 25 per cent. received the top level. It is certainly not an average figure in the sense that the hon. Gentleman suggests.
      Mr. Frank FieldThe Minister has just told the House that the Department had to do that complicated sum and how much it should budget for that part of social security
      92
      expenditure. Will he tell us what the estimate was for the first year of the new scheme's operation? When he has given us that figure, will he compare it with what would have been paid out if the £25 for each qualifying mother had still been in existence?
      Mr. Major: The hon. Gentleman can be provided with those figures. I shall have them for the clause stand part debate or my hon. and learned Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security will.
      We have made no secret of the fact that the abolition of the flat rate grant which was spread so widely will certainly have led to a saving. I do not have the precise figures, but I shall endeavour to obtain them in time for that debate.
      The hon. Member for Derby, South also referred to a minor, although perhaps, important matter on funeral payments. She referred to the meanness of the proposition that one return journey to arrange or attend a funeral was adequate. That is a matter for regulations. The hon. Lady may well be right in what she says. We shall certainly consider whether it is one of the matters that we can change.
      I have dealt with some of the underlying points made by the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East. I thought I recognised that compelling phrase that he used, "the dustbin of history." However, as my Parliamentary Private Secretary has been unable to find what I thought it referred to, I shall skip lightly over that point in the interests of avoiding controversy. The hon. Gentleman may have borne in mind in his remarks the fact that what is proposed after April 1988 in terms of free welfare foods is that income support families will continue to receive free milk tokens for children under 16 and that families on family credit, although they will not receive milk tokens on account of pregnancy, will receive cash compensation to be included in the child credit instead of milk tokens. That will apply only to a child born before the claim was made.
      The Government's intention and the general aim is to provide help in cash rather than in kind. That is the underlying proposition of the new family credit which is wider and more generous than the present FIS scheme.
      As regards the low income scheme to which the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East referred, I make no particularly derogatory remarks about that scheme. However, I simply observe that it has the rather derisory take-up of only about 7 per cent. at present. It is not as valuable as the hon. Gentleman appears to think.
      It is true that vitamin tokens are to be abolished as a benefit, but the hon. Gentleman may not yet be aware that they will instead be available free from health clinics from a date still to be decided. He may not have been aware of that point.
      The hon. Member for Coventry, South-East also referred to France and one or two other countries in Europe and to precisely what was provided there. There are five countries within the European Community that do not pay a universal maternity grant. The proposition that perhaps underlay the hon. Gentleman's remarks, that Britain was being uniquely ungenerous, although I put the matter more mildly than the hon. Gentleman, is perhaps not the case.
      The hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye, with a notable disregard for precisely what the amendment is about, referred to maternity payments for mothers under

      93
      16. It is perfectly true, as he knows, that my hon. and learned Friend and I some time ago in a conversation with the One Parent Family Group agreed to consider that matter.
      When we examined the matter in 1986, during the passage of the Social Security Bill as it then was, we were entirely unconvinced by the arguments for extending the provision to mothers under 16 years of age. I am not unsympathetic to the various arguments that have been advanced and I understand the concern that hon. Members feel. I am familiar with the forceful arguments that have been advanced on behalf of one-parent families, for example. There is, however, a genuine dilemma which is moral as well as administrative. Were we to extend the principle to those under 16 years of age, we would overturn a long-standing principle of supplementary benefit which we believe to be correct—the principle that a child under the age of 16, even if she has given birth to a child, remains the dependant of her parents or guardian. I understand the arguments for and against that principle and I can clearly see both sides of the coin, but I am not inclined to think that we shall be able to make the change that is advocated. In no sense am I ruling it out categorically, but it is not a matter for primary legislation. It is something that would be dealt with by regulation rather than by an Act of Parliament.
      I do not wish to raise hopes that we shall be able to make the change that is being urged upon us, but I am prepared to say that I shall consider further any fresh arguments that may arise. I say that without any wish to give the Committee the impression that I shall be persuaded easily that the argument that is being urged upon me is the right way to proceed.
      Mr. Kennedy: The hon. Gentleman has made a helpful statement and I appreciate that he is being indulgent in responding in such a way. He has spoken about the legal position—
      The Chairman: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that I have been indulgent, too, and that he should not push his luck.
      Mr. Kennedy: I recognise your indulgence with gratitude, Mr. Walker.
      I understand that under family law in England all mothers have full legal responsibility for the care and provision of their children. Under section 17 of the Supplementary Benefits Act 1976, a mother of any age is liable to maintain her child. I appreciate the Minister's concern for the principle that someone under the age of 16 is still in the ward, as it were, of her parents, but under existing social security legislation certain conditions are placed upon mothers.
      Mr. Major: Having said that he would not push his luck, I rather fancy that the hon. Gentleman did. If your tolerance can be stretched slightly further, Mr. Walker, let me say that section 17 is ever present in my brain, as indeed is the ruling in Gillick v. West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Committee. However, I am not in the business of being pushed any further upon that proposition. I have sought to dampen down expectation that I shall be able to help, and that I would reiterate, but I am prepared to consider any fresh argument that may be advanced either in the Chamber this evening or subsequently.
      Mr. Frank Field: I am grateful to the Minister for his statement that he will think again. The issues that are now
      94
      before us have been discussed on a number of occasions since I have been a Member of the House of Commons. Perhaps we might have a more wide-ranging debate on a future occasion. As I understand it, it is unlawful for someone to have sexual intercourse with a girl under the age of 16 years. That factor, too, should be borne in mind in our discussions. Given that there are 1,400 pregnancies each year as a result of under-age sexual intercourse, we should as well as—
      The Chairman: Order. We are getting a long way from the amendment and the Bill. I hope that my tolerance will not be stretched too much.
      Mr. Field: Perhaps I might be allowed to complete my sentence, as it were, Mr. Walker. When we think about meeting the needs of young mothers under the age of 16 years, we should think at the same time about the other issues that the Minister has raised that come within the term "family responsibilities". These issues apply throughout the social scale.
      The Chairman: I hope that the Minister will bear these matters in mind for the moment when we debate them.
      8.45 pm
      Mr. Major: Indeed I shall, Mr. Walker. I shall bear in mind also that you would prefer me to hear them in mind silently this evening.
      Dr. Godman: May I relate what the Minister has said to the last sentence in the amendment, which reads:
      "to meet the cost of prescribed items."
      There is an important point of principle. If a young girl chooses not to terminate a pregnancy, it is essential, surely, that she and her family, especially if they are living in poverty, be given all the assistance that they need.
      Mr. Major: I do not dissent from that proposition. The hon. Gentleman has said that if the young girl and her family are living in poverty, they should be given the assistance that they need. In the circumstances that he envisages, the maternity grant will be paid. The issue is to whom it is paid—to the child mother's parents or the child mother herself. In the circumstances that the hon. Gentleman has outlined, there is no question of the payment not being made. The proposition upon which the Government rest currently is that, for many of the reasons that underlie what the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) has in mind, payment should be made to the child mother's parents rather than to the under-aged mother herself. That is the substantive point. When there is great poverty, I think that the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow and I are at one.
      Our aims in abolishing the £25 universal maternity grant and the system of supplementary benefit single payment for maternity leave are twofold. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Birkenhead should contain himself. I think that I have shown that, if he wishes to intervene, I shall be prepared to allow him to do so. There is no need for him to chunter to me from a seated position.
      The Chairman: The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) has done well enough without any further encouragement.
      Mr. Major: I am always prepared to accept wise advice, Mr. Walker, and I trust that the hon. Gentleman is as well. If both of us do so, we shall make some progress.
      Our intention, first, is to provide a fairer system which makes a realistic contribution towards the costs of a new

      95
      baby. I reiterate that we wish to have a fairer system that contributes realistically towards the costs of a new baby for all low-income groups, whether in work or not. It has not yet been said by anyone who has contributed to the debate that the proposition before the Committee will not extend help to many low-income groups in work. It should be made clear also that they would not receive help under the present system. That should be borne in mind by those who are concerned primarily with the level of income rather than the status—employed or unemployed—of the person receiving the income.
      Our second aim is to simplify the existing system so that everyone is a good deal clearer about what he or she will receive than at present. I fear that the amendment would destroy both of the propositions that I have put before the Committee. I am not in a position to commend it to the Committee and I shall not do so.
      To accept the amendment—
      Dr. Godman: I am grateful to the Minister for allowing me to intervene. I do so to remind him of my question about the right to apply for a loan to meet the requisites that we are discussing. I thought that he would reply to that question.
      Mr. Major: I think, Mr. Armstrong, that the hon. Gentleman's question goes a good deal wider than the proposition that is before us. I believe that I would be in even more trouble with you, Mr. Armstrong, than with your predecessor in the Chair if I were to deal with the issue now.
      To accept the amendment would mean returning to a system under which it would be necessary to prescribe, as the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East said, the number of plastic pants, feeding bottles, nappies and other accoutrement that a mother is likely to need on the arrival of a new baby, whether it be the first child or not. Most hon. Members, but clearly not all—I make no critical point about this—are agreed that such a rigid system would not be an especially satisfactory way of dealing with needs that we all wish to see met. The amendment seems to support a rigid system for the future. The hon. Member for Derby, South is clearly an unrestructured supporter of a complex system.
      We believe that our aims are best met by a flat rate payment, which has clear, qualifying rules to target it at those who are most in need. We think that is what we have. We also feel that it is in the best interests of the claimant to leave her with complete freedom as to what she buys with the money. Our proposals represent a significant improvement over the present arrangements. I hope that the hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) will be disinclined to press the amendment to a Division, but if she does, I must advise my hon. Friends to resist it.
      Ms. Jo Richardson: I hope that I can stretch your tolerance, Mr. Armstrong, or rather the tolerance of Mr. Walker, who has just vacated the Chair, in referring to the under-16s. I intended to refer to them on Third Reading, and perhaps I will. The matter was raised by the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy). The Minister says that, without any commitment, he might reconsider the whole matter of the under-16s if he can be presented with fresh arguments. I do not know what fresh arguments we can present to him.
      96
      It seems to me that all the arguments that have been presented so far are good and valid. The plain fact is that the Minister seems to underestimate the number of young women under 16, who, for one reason or another—it is not for us to inquire necessarily into their family circumstances—would be better off, and whose child would be better off, if the money were paid directly to them, not via the parent, who may or may not pass the money over. We cannot always inquire into the delicacy of family circumstances.
      I do not know why the Minister is so resistant to our argument. I do not know whether he thinks that, because one is under 16, one will simply go out and spend the money on a video tape. I have met young women of that age who, unfortunately in some cases, have become pregnant. They have taken the matter extremely seriously and have been frightened, and a little bit of money in their hand to cope with their difficult situation is badly needed.
      The Minister said that it would be so much better to have a flat rate of £80 and not continue with the present complex system. He called my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) an unreconstructed supporter of the present system, which she certainly is not. I know that she would agree that the system needs streamlining, but not in the way in which the Government have done it, which is simply to wipe out many of the benefits that women will have until the ruling is introduced.
      Much mention was made last week of the £60 average that women got from various other benefits which, with the £25, brought the payment up to £85. My hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South reminded me a few moments ago that last year, when we debated the Social Security Bill, now an Act, the Maternity Alliance said that the average amount that was paid out in other benefits was not £60 but £143. I am not sure whether my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) referred to that point in a speech that he made in Committee about the additional benefits.
      Dr. Godman: I am sure that the Minister and his officials will correct me if I am wrong on the matter, but I am fairly certain that in 1985 and perhaps 1986 the average payment to claimants in those circumstances was well over £143. It was closer to £200.
      Ms. Richardson: Perhaps I was being conservative. I am sure that in many instances the payment was nearer to £200. That just shows the situation that women face.
      At the end of a speech that I made on Thursday, I referred to what Finland provided for pregnant women, in the form of a basket of goods full of maternity and children's wear. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State£indeed, the Minister of State has just repeated it£said that most people would wish to choose and buy their own baby clothes. That is true, but even with the present bases upon which we give pregnant women money, most of us realise that many women do not have enough money to buy the clothes now.
      There are an awful lot of hand-me-downs. Clothes are passed on not just in the family but from one woman to another. Many of the clothes are well worn. It is not a matter of handing on new things. That is happening because the woman who is newly pregnant cannot afford the clothes. The same applies to maternity clothes. Women pass on to one another two or three maternity outfits. That

      97
      is not because they want to do it; it is because they cannot afford to buy new clothes for themselves, even with the present payments. The £80 that they will get will not enable them to buy new clothes, so the old system will continue, almost like a jumble sale.
      It is clear to me that both the Ministers and the Government do not live in the real world, yet, as many hon. Members have said, in some senses the Department lives in the real world—because it produced the list of maternity items and their cost. The cost for a vest, a sleeping suit, a cardigan, a pram suit, a wrap or a shawl, plastic pants, 24 napkins—they will not go very far—feeding bottle and teat. a cot, a cot mattress, a pram or carry-cot, cot sheet, cot blanket and baby bath amounts to £187·45, on the Department's estimates. So how does the Minister think that £80 will go anywhere near that?
      The figure that catches my eye most is 24 nappies. That is what the Department recommends as a sufficient quantity. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist), whose experience is perhaps the most recent in the House, will realise that 24 nappies go nowhere. As he said, if one lives in a damp council house or council flat and one does not have a tumble drier, one will need an awful lot more than that. I believe that it would he much better for parents to be encouraged to use disposable nappies.
      Mr. Nellist: I want to make the point that 24 nappies in the first few weeks of a baby's life, at six a day, would last only four days. I must stress the point that if someone does not have a washing machine or tumble drier, more nappies will be required because of the frequency of the need to wash them. I agree also that disposables are more convenient. However, over the two or three years that a baby needs nappies, when it comes to choosing between either terrys or disposable nappies, disposables are a damn sight more expensive.
      9 pm
      Ms. Richardson: We have all been grateful to hear about the recent personal experiences of my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East. I know that other hon. Members have—I was going to say "had babies", perhaps that is not entirely correct—had experience of babies, but perhaps my hon. Friend's more recent experience is more useful.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East also referred to European comparisons. The Minister's rejoinder simply contained details of other European comparisons, which were worse. Do we want to aim for the worst rather than the best? Surely the United Kingdom wants the best practices and not the worst. The Minister's rejoinder was unacceptable.
      The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) flitted in and flitted out and made one crack in passing. He was an opponent of mine during his first election campaign in 1974. I was quite sorry to see that he came to the House eventually. In his comments today he tried to rubbish the idea of a Ministry for Women to which my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East referred. When Labour is in power, we shall have a Ministry for Women—[Interruption.] I wish that Conservative Members would remember that their female constituents will read the report of this debate and will understand that, for the first time, a Labour Government will have a Ministry that will do its best to pull together
      98
      the disadvantages and deprivation suffered by women in social security, in employment and other matters. The Ministry will monitor and ensure that benefits place women on a proper, equal footing and give them the level of support to which we believe that women, as more than half the population, are entitled. It ill-becomes Conservative Members continually to rubbish women.
      We have had an interesting debate and I propose to end now—
      Mr. Francis Maude: Hear, hear.
      Ms. Richardson: The hon. Gentleman says "Hear, hear" no doubt because we are talking about women.
      I propose to finish now by inviting my hon. Friends to vote for amendment No. 3 because we want to show the Government that we do not believe that they have treated pregnant women and women with babies in a decent fashion, but have treated them meanly.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 110, Noes 160.

      Division No. 84]

      [9.02 pm

      AYES

      Alton, David

      Hardy, Peter

      Anderson, Donald

      Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Haynes, Frank

      Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Hoyle, Douglas

      Barron, Kevin

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Beckett, Mrs Margaret

      John, Brynmor

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

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

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Kennedy, Charles

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

      Lamond, James

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Leadbitter, Ted

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

      Leighton, Ronald

      Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

      Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Litherland, Robert

      Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

      Livsey, Richard

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Clarke, Thomas

      Loyden, Edward

      Clelland, David Gordon

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      McKay, Allen (Penistone)

      Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Coleman, Donald

      McWilliam, John

      Conlan, Bernard

      Marek, Dr John

      Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

      Maxton, John

      Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Corbett, Robin

      Mikardo, Ian

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Crowther, Stan

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Nellist, David

      Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

      O'Brien, William

      Dewar, Donald

      O'Neill, Martin

      Dormand, Jack

      Park, George

      Douglas, Dick

      Patchett, Terry

      Dubs, Alfred

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Eadie, Alex

      Pendry, Tom

      Eastham, Ken

      Pike, Peter

      Evans, John (St. Helens N)

      Raynsford, Nick

      Fatchett, Derek

      Redmond, Martin

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Richardson, Ms Jo

      Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

      Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

      Fisher, Mark

      Rogers, Allan

      Flannery, Martin

      Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Rowlands, Ted

      Forrester, John

      Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

      Foster, Derek

      Silkin, Rt Hon J.

      George, Bruce

      Skinner, Dennis

      Godman, Dr Norman

      Snape, Peter

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Spearing, Nigel

      Hamilton, James (M'well N)

      Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

      Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)

      Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

      Hancock, Michael

      Tinn, James

      99

      Wainwright, R.

      Winnick, David

      Wallace, James

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Wareing, Robert

      Mr. Don Dixon and

      Welsh, Michael

      Mr. Ray Powell.

      NOES

      Alexander, Richard

      Hayes, J.

      Amess, David

      Hayward, Robert

      Ancram, Michael

      Heddle, John

      Ashby, David

      Hickmet, Richard

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Hicks, Robert

      Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

      Hind, Kenneth

      Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

      Hirst, Michael

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

      Baldry, Tony

      Holt, Richard

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Howard, Michael

      Bendall, Vivian

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

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

      Biggs-Davison, Sir John

      Hubbard-Miles, Peter

      Blackburn, John

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Jessel, Toby

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Key, Robert

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

      Bright, Graham

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Brinton, Tim

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Browne, John

      Knowles, Michael

      Bruinvels, Peter

      Knox, David

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Lawler, Geoffrey

      Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Budgen, Nick

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Burt, Alistair

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Butterfill, John

      Lester, Jim

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Lightbown, David

      Carttiss, Michael

      Lilley, Peter

      Cash, William

      Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

      Chapman, Sydney

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Chope, Christopher

      Lord, Michael

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Luce, Rt Hon Richard

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Lyell, Nicholas

      Cockeram, Eric

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Cope, John

      MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

      Couchman, James

      Maclean, David John

      Crouch, David

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Madel, David

      Dunn, Robert

      Major, John

      Durant, Tony

      Malins, Humfrey

      Evennett, David

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Eyre, Sir Reginald

      Mather, Sir Carol

      Fallon, Michael

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Farr, Sir John

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Favell, Anthony

      Mills, Iain (Meriden)

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Fletcher, Sir Alexander

      Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Murphy, Christopher

      Forman, Nigel

      Nelson, Anthony

      Forth, Eric

      Newton, Tony

      Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

      Normanton, Tom

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Norris, Steven

      Franks, Cecil

      Ottaway, Richard

      Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

      Page, Sir John (Harrow W)

      Gale, Roger

      Page, Richard (Herts SW)

      Galley, Roy

      Pawsey, James

      Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      Gower, Sir Raymond

      Pollock, Alexander

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

      Porter, Barry

      Ground, Patrick

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

      Powley, John

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Price, Sir David

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Proctor, K. Harvey

      Hannam, John

      Rattan, Keith

      Hargreaves, Kenneth

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Harris, David

      Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

      Harvey, Robert

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Rowe, Andrew

      Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

      Ryder, Richard

      Hawksley, Warren

      Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

      100

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Thurnham, Peter

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Waller, Gary

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)

      Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Stradling Thomas, Sir John

      Wood, Timothy

      Sumberg, David

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

      Mr. Michael Neubert and

      Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

      Mr. Michael Portillo.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Clauses 1 and 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    New Clause 1

      APPROVAL BY PARLIAMENT
      `In section 83(3) of the Social Security Act 1986, after paragraph (c) there shall be inserted the following paragraph:
      "(cc) regulations prescribing amounts under section 32(2)(a) above;"'.—[Mrs. Beckett.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mrs. Beckett: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      This is a minor and relatively technical matter, but it is one which the Government might do well to consider. The intention is to ensure that regulations made in this context come before the House on the affirmative rather than the negative resolution procedure. This is the only way in which to ensure that the regulations are debated other than by relying on the Government's good will and their acceptance of a debate on a prayer.
      The Minister will no doubt stress that the Government have every intention of ensuring that the first set of regulations are debated as we propose and therefore the new clause is unnecessary. We assume, being charitable souls, that even this Government, having, for example, halved the money going to the poorest mothers, do not intend that halved sum to stand in perpetuity. We assume that the Government intend to uprate the sum from time to time and, indeed, to table an amendment to assist them in that procedure. If the Government have that intention, it seems that the regulations that ensue should be treated as other uprating regulations and be debated under the affirmative procedure. If the Government have no such intention, the Minister can tell us now and we and the other place will know where we stand.
      9.15 pm
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Nicholas Lyell): The reason for making regulations subject to the affirmative resolution procedure is to provide adequate opportunity for Parliament to debate the issues. In this instance, however, the matters concerned have already been debated twice, once during the passage of last year's measure, and again on this Bill. It is a little difficult to imagine that the House will wish to go over the matter again in some weeks, rather than in months, as it is unlikely that new facts would arise from such a debate.
      It is proper to point out that the mere fact that an amount of benefit is subject to an affirmative instrument is no guarantee either that the sums will change or that the matter will be debated. Obviously, it is always open to the Opposition to table a prayer and seek to have it debated. Bearing in mind the recent debates, it does not seem that

      101
      there is a strong case for this amendment, nor for an affirmative resolution of the House, should uprating arise in future.
      Mrs. Beckett: I do not accept the Minister's argument. Should uprating be considered, it would be correct for the matter to be debated under an affirmative resolution. As happens from time to time in our proceedings, it may well he that the Minister did not previously recognise that this was the purpose of the debate. In order to give him time to consider further this reasonable proposition, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
      Bill reported, without amendment.
      9.17 pm
      Mr. Major: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      This one-page Bill has already generated a few pages of Hansard over a rather short period and I do not think that I need add very much to that weight of paper now, not least because I suspect that Opposition Members who are scribbling on their pads wish to take up some of the time available over the next few minutes.
      On Second Reading, I explained in considerable detail the background and objectives of the Bill. We have discussed several related and, thanks to the interventions of the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy), unrelated subjects in today's debate. It may be appropriate if I recap briefly on why the Bill is needed.
      The present system of help with maternity and funeral costs is widely acknowledged to be in urgent need of reform. That, at least, is common cause across the Floor.
      Mr. Frank Field: Increase, not reform.
      Mr. Major: Not just increase; reform, too. The hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong. The system fails to give effective help to many people on low incomes who need assistance, while it provides a large number of small grants to people who do not need them. That is undoubtedly true. Even the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) with his well-known generosity with taxpayers' money will appreciate precisely that proposition. Therefore, we have proposed a much more realistic system, concentrating the available help on people on low incomes, whether in or out of work. I look for some acknowledgment from the Opposition Benches of the fact that there will be help for people in work as well as for those out of work, which did not previously apply. Even the hon. Gentleman must acknowledge that that is not a cut but a positive improvement in the available help.
      Our proposals were outlined in both the Green Paper and the White Paper on social security reform in 1985, and were debated at length during the passage of the Social Security Act 1986, not least by the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman), who is chuntering happily on the Back Benches.
      Dr. Godman: Unhappily.
      Mr. Major: The hon. Gentleman is unhappy. I am deeply concerned about that, although I must confess that it is not one of my life's ambitions to keep him happy, and no doubt he will say that 1 have not failed.
      Parliament approved the essence of these proposals not long ago, and we are here this evening, as the House knows, only because it has emerged that a few vital words necessary to implement the policy that Parliament
      102
      approved were inadvertently omitted from the 1986 Act. We thought that we had the powers necessary to carry out the policy that Parliament had approved. Subsequent events and advice from our wise friends the lawyers told us that that was not the case. It would clearly be wrong to overturn so soon what Parliament had approved because there were defects in the legislation. We have no intention of doing that or of jettisoning or delaying these much-needed reforms because of such a technical defect. The Bill is designed simply to correct that defect so that the report can proceed as planned.
      When the Social Security Act was introduced, it provided, among other things, for a social fund to be set up. It provided for payments out of that fund to meet
      "maternity expenses; funeral expenses; and other needs".
      We singled out maternity and funerals for special mention for two reasons. First, we always intended these payments to be rather different in nature from other social fund payments. Decisions on many social fund payments will be based on a flexible approach to individuals in varying circumstances, something that the current supplementary benefit system signally fails to provide.
      Decisions on maternity and funeral payments will be based on clear-cut criteria. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Birkenhead is interrupting regularly. We look forward to his intervention from the vertical rather than the seated position. If people meet the criteria that we are setting out, they will get the payment. [Interruption.] The House may get a speech from the hon. Gentleman, but it will not come if he keeps on interrupting me so that I take up too much of the available time.
      Mr. Frank Haynes: The Minister is goading my hon. Friend.
      Mr. Major: Nothing is further from my mind, and the hon. Gentleman should know that.
      When we first began to consider this matter, it was decided to refer separately in the Bill to maternity and funeral payments. Secondly, this formulation made it easier to introduce the social fund in two stages, with maternity and funeral payments starting in April. 1987. This has the advantage of providing us with a year's experience of operating the social fund before it takes on its new and novel responsibilities, in April 1988.
      Those were the proposals that we put before the House last year, and we spent many happy hours, upstairs and downstairs, debating this. The House will be relieved to know that I have no plans to go over all that ground again. On Report, we strengthened the provision for reviews of disputed decisions with the introduction of social fund inspectors. We gave this unexpected novelty, responding to the concern that had been expressed. The Bill was amended in the other place at the end of June to provide that all social fund decisions should be based on regulations and should carry the same appeal rights as other social security benefits.
      As the House knows, we did not feel able to accept those amendments in total, because they would have replaced what is clearly a better and more flexible system with one that, for most social fund payments, would be rigid and inappropriate. However, we made some changes in July in response to the concerns that had been expressed. We further strengthened the provision for reviewing cases with the appointment of a social fund commissioner, and we recognised the special nature of maternity and funeral payments in the social fund by

      103
      making them, unlike other social fund payments, based on regulations decided by adjudication officers and subject to the normal appeals procedure.
      Dr. Godman: The Minister may or may not remember that I have asked several questions about the social fund commissioner. For example, I asked from where he or she was to be recruited. Is this to be an internal appointment within the Department, or is the person to be brought into the Department from elsewhere?
      Mr. Major: I have just explained that the matter that we are discussing this evening is based upon regulations that are to be decided by adjudication officers and that it will be subject to the normal appeals procedure. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman's question goes a little wider than the subject that we are debating this evening, and I must leave my response to it to a more suitable time.
      The changes that we have in mind were approved by Parliament, with the result that the Social Security Act 1986 now provides that payments may be made out of the social fund
      "to meet, in prescribed circumstances, maternity expenses and funeral expenses; and to meet other needs in accordance with directions given or guidance issued by the Secretary of State."
      In this context, the term "prescribed" means
      "specified in or determined in accordance with regulations."
      The next step— I can reassure the House that this history lesson on the background to this Bill is coming to an end— was for those regulations to be laid. We did that on 16 December. They aimed to give effect to the policy, well known to this House, that was made clear during the proceedings on the 1986 Bill—that is, that effective help would be directed to people on low incomes, with a flat rate sum for maternity and payments for the full, reasonable cost of funerals.
      That is the substantive concern that has guided the propositions that we have put before the House from the time of the Green Paper onwards. The Bill seeks to ensure that those propositions may be carried into effect. It is designed to correct the defect that arose in the redrafting of the Bill last July and that was spotted at the time that the regulations were submitted to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. The Bill corrects that defect and ensures that the reforms can proceed in the way that we planned. I commend the Bill to the House.
      9.27 pm
      Mrs. Beckett: The Opposition remain concerned about the inadequacy of the provision that will be made under the Bill. The Minister's argument went nowhere near convincing us that we were mistaken. He said again this evening that the maternity grant would be realistic and referred to it as concentrating the available help on low-income families both in and out of work. He failed to notice— although I acknowledged this in my opening remarks on our first amendment— that help will be made available through the social fund to a wider group of people, but I pointed out then— and I remain convinced now—that to make help available to a wider group when one is halving the amount of help that is made available to anybody who manages to make a claim is not exactly generous. It means that, although a wider group among the poorest may be able to claim, they will receive far less. I fail entirely to understand why the Minister imagines that that will be welcomed by the Opposition.
      104
      We have always questioned why these payments should be made under the social fund. That thought came to my mind when I heard the Minister explain how the treatment of these payments under the social fund will differ from the treatment of other claims and payments under the social fund. The Minister referred to the fact that there are separate arrangements for appeal and for adjudication. When he replies, I hope that he will clarify that point.
      The Minister also referred to the fact that there will be special rights of appeal, but I understand that, under the regulations as they were originally drafted and laid, the right of appeal is to exist only in relation to the specified circumstances under which such a payment is to be made—in other words, to whether someone is entitled to a payment, not to whether the payment is adequate. That seems to be only half an appeal.
      I wonder whether it was fully realised in the other place when the Minister's noble Friend made the concession that the amount of the payment could not be queried, but only whether any payment should be made. It is a rather curious matter, because we well remember that in the earlier debates on these issues it appeared that the Government's main position was that a truly independent appeal could not be allowed for most of the items claimed under the social fund. That was because a truly independent appeal would have to look at each claim on its merits and would be bound to bust the Government's cash limits. The Government keep telling us that this part of the fund is not cash limited. If that is the case, why is it not possible for the appeal system for this part of the fund to stand on all fours with the present appeal system?
      My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) spoke about the social fund commissioner. I cannot call to mind any information about where that commissioner may be appointed from, but I can tell my hon. Friend that, from answers that I have received, it appears that the social fund inspectors that he will appoint will be drawn from names given to him by the Secretary of State, and that the inspectors will be subject to directions by the Secretary of State, though only to the advice of the commissioner. If the Minister thinks that that is an independent system of appeal, his view of what is independent is typical of this Government's view, and it is not a view that would be shared by people outside.
      We are worried about the lack of understanding, even in this House, of how this part of the social fund will work. I notice that on Second Reading two questions were raised about this matter.
      Dr. Godman: These inspectors may have a modicum of independence, but surely they will be part of the career structure of the Department. We are not likely to encounter, or are we, non-conformists? In order to maintain their access to the career structure, they will conform.
      Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is right. I understand that it is intended that the officers will be nominated by the Secretary of State and will be subject to his orders. I cannot understand how anybody could think that that is an independent system of appeal.
      As I say, two questions were asked on Second Reading about how this part of the social fund will work. I shall clarify the answers given and press the Minister on the information that he gave. One hon. Member asked the Minister if a grant for funeral expenses would be given to

      105
      someone who might be entitled under income criteria to one of the qualifying benefits—income support, housing benefit or family credit— but who was not claiming income support at the time. The Minister said—I do not think that 1 paraphrase him too much—that it would be in keeping with the spirit of the Government's proposals if such a person were entitled to reimbursement for funeral expenses. It might be in keeping with the spirit of the proposals, but it is not in keeping with the letter of the regulations. They quite specifically say
      "in respect of the period"
      a person has to be
      "in receipt of supplementary benefit, family income supplement or housing benefit".
      I should be grateful to the Minister if he could clarify this point, because his hon. Friend who asked the question might have been misled into thinking that the Government are being more generous than they are.
      Another hon. Member asked about a widow who borrowed money from her son to meet a funeral payment and the Minister told him that such a person would not now need to do that. The Minister's reply was quite fascinating. Is he saying that the rules which apply now about single payments— namely, that if one has borrowed money and met an expense the need for reimbursement no longer exists— will not apply under the social fund? 1 think that this is the first time that such a suggestion has been made. I should be pleased to hear the Minister tell us that that will be the position, and 1 should welcome clarification from the Minister or from his hon. Friend. If the Minister is not saying that someone who borrowed money would be entitled to reimbursement, he seems to be saying that people will be more aware of their rights under the social fund than they were under the single payment scheme—even though they will not have more rights than they had before.
      The. hon. Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs Bottomley), who I am sorry to say is not in her place, said that it was perfectly all right to abolish the maternity grant and single payments in their present form. She said that it did not matter that single payments were being abolished because they were not at present claimed on anything like a sufficient basis. I accept the argument that single payments are insufficiently claimed, but it is not clear what magical transformation is expected to take place which will mean that people are much better informed and find it much simpler to make claims under the social fund than under the present system of single payments. This is apart, of course, from the detailed list of entitlements which go with single payments but which could easily be simplified if the Government were prepared to be rather more generous in their payments. A deliberate decision by the Government keeps these matters complicated. It is not necessary for them to be so complicated simply because they are set out in regulations.
      I am especially sorry that the hon. Member for Surrey, South-West is not here. I should have warned her that if social fund claims turn out to be easier to make and people find it easier to claim and receive money than under the single payments system, the Government will take steps to abolish them at the earliest possible date. One reason given to us for the abolition of single payments is that too many people claim them and they are drawing too much money. The hon. Lady is probably mistaken in her basic point.
      The whole concept of a social fund with a limited budget is deeply alarming. Not only the Opposition but
      106
      almost all groups which are aware of and have commented on the Government's proposals are alarmed. On all other aspects of the social fund, matters are even worse than we were first told. It is now apparent that loans will be made only to someone who has been on income support for as long as six months. It is apparent that the Government envisage repayments of up to 10 or 15 per cent. of people's benefit being made. It is far from clear what will happen to someone who is judged by the social fund officers not to be in a position to repay such loans. It appears from what I have read of the Government's statements that the Government intend to rule that if a person is not sufficiently well off to repay a loan he will not get anything. I should be interested to know whether the Minister is able to clarify that point.
      As in the social fund as a whole, we are seeing under the Bill a return to officers of the DHSS choosing, as their predecessors did in other agencies, between the deserving and the undeserving poor. We are seeing a step away from provision by right, with people having a clear and understood basis on which to claim. I do not say that they had a simple basis on which to claim. I recognise that the system has been inflexible, especially under this Government, but at least people were able to go through the check list of demands and make a claim as of right. Instead of that, we are back to people being asked to go to the DHSS and plead for charity. We remain convinced that these proposals are mean, divisive and damaging. We shall oppose them on Third Reading.
      9.38 pm
      Mr. Kennedy: I wish to speak briefly on Third Reading to confirm that my right hon. and hon. Friends will vote against the Bill.
      Mr. Frank Field: Well done.
      Mr. Kennedy: Both parties will be in the same Lobby.
      Dr. Godman: We shall guide them.
      Mr. Kennedy: I have completely lost the thread of my comments. I shall start again. I confirm that the alliance will vote against the Bill.
      The most offensive aspect of the Government's actions is that, as I said on Second Reading, this will be the first in a long line of measures which will result in DHSS Ministers being told by their lawyers to rewrite the legislation or be hauled before the courts. They will have to return time and again to the Dispatch Box or to Committees bringing forward more and more alterations to legislation as a result of the social security reviews. This is but the tip of the iceberg.
      The fundamental reform announced by the Secretary of State has ended up running into sand. It has been fundamental in the impact it has had on the most vulnerable groups in society but, as the Secretary of State knows, it has not been fundamental in the extent to which it has provided for a fairer, simpler, more efficient social security system.
      For example, attention has not been given by Ministers to improving take-up levels. They have made some nods and gestures in that direction, but much of their determination has been to contain, if not to reduce, costs. However the Minister may try to dress it up, the Bill is a cost containment, if not a cost reduction, exercise. The Minister cannot have it any other way.

      107
      It is worth noting, for the purposes of the Official Report, what the Social Security Consortium has said. It has continued to raise, among other issues, the practical working of a cash-limited system; the proper definition of community care—for example, grants from the social fund; the unreasonable restriction that loans will not be available to claimants who have been in receipt of income support for less than six months; the issue of mothers under the age of 16 years that the Minister dealt with a few minutes ago, which remains outstanding; and the fact that the £80 level of grant is thoroughly inadequate.
      All of these matters, and many others, including independent rights of appeal, remain outstanding, despite the fact that the legislation has been working its way through the system for over 18 months. It is unsatisfactory that, before we have implemented the reform wholesale, we are faced with pre-emptive legislation tidying up the mess which is already anticipated. It is not that the mess will be upon us once the system is up and running; it is in advance of that. Lawyers and DHSS draftsmen are foreseeing that the system will be chaotic. What we have experienced over housing benefit will be nothing compared with what we shall get from the social security reviews. There seems to be no comprehension of that among Ministers.
      We have tried to improve the Bill, which may be a necessity in view of the Government's existing legislation, but it is highly offensive and throws up some of the glaring anomalies that the social security reviews will give rise to.
      The maternity grant that the Minister is proposing is inadequate in real and cash terms compared with the level following the last general election in 1983.
      The system for funeral expenses is not the most sensible system, and I reiterate the point made on Second Reading that it would have been more sensible to have a system with a flat rate payment, with an additional top-up at the discretion of local officers to help people at a time when they most need it. Any sums given could be reclaimed out of the estate of the deceased depending on the circumstances. In that way, much of the distress, which will inevitably take place, could be avoided. It would have been fairer and would have helped to target resources more effectively to those most in need.
      The Government have been largely deaf throughout the social security reviews, and this one-page piece of legislation is a further example that that condition has not improved.
      9.45 pm
      Mr. Richard Page: I had not proposed to take part in the debate, but I have been surprised at how long the Bill has taken to get through the House.
      I leave aside the reasons for the oversight in omitting the provisions from the Social Security Act, because I wish to examine the direct clash of political philosophies that the Bill produces. Conservative Members believe that those who can help themselves should do so and that we should assist those who cannot. The Opposition believe in a blanket pay-out for everyone.
      The only common ground over the Bill is the agreement that reform is needed. The maternity grant has remained unchanged at £25 since 1969. It is a derisory sum for those of straitened means. The death grant of £30 has remained
      108
      unchanged since 1967 and is a mere drop in the bucket for anyone who has to pay for a funeral. It is nothing to those who can afford to pay for a funeral and it is little help to those who cannot. That is why I believe that the Bill is necessary. The low level of the grants means that they are of little help to people in need. Giving the grant to everyone does not help those who really need the help.
      I am pleased that the £80 maternity grant and the meeting of the reasonable costs of a funeral will not be subject to budgetary constraints. That is an important factor which must be made clear to those who try to denigrate the Bill. However, there may be discussion and dissent about the meaning of the words "reasonable costs". I hope that those who will have to interpret those words will be given clear and generous guidelines.
      People who have to bury loved ones cannot run funeral costs through an audit. They are under emotional pressure and they may agree to various arrangements that may not be wise. I hope that the Government will issue guidelines to social security offices to make sure that undue pressure is not put on those who may have agreed to unsuitable arrangements.
      I am surprised that one matter has not come to light in the debate. [HON. MEMBERS: "The hon. Gentleman has not been here."' I have read the various Hansard reports, because I have been approached by local pensioners' groups who have been exceedingly worried about the existing arrangements and have not been satisfied with a mere £30 death grant. People on low incomes have been decidedly worried about that grant and have been asking me for several years to press for an increase. I am delighted that the Government have introduced the Bill and I am surprised that the Opposition are trying to block it.
      I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister, but I hope that the £500 savings limit will be increased. That limit is against our political philosphy. The limit should be higher because, as a comfort and security, people should be able to have more than £500 to set against a rainy day before they are asked to dip into their pockets. I support the measure because it is in line with the Conservative party philosophy of helping those who need it most.
      9.51 pm
      Mr. Frank Field: The Minister has considerable ability at the Dispatch Box. That ability has been deployed tonight, as on other occasions, to describe what this measure is about.
      I wish to make a short contribution about the Bill's aims. In spite of the generosity of spirit with which the Minister introduced the measure, he was covering up an unbelievable cock-up by the Government. The Minister told us that our amendment was merely technical. If that amendment had been carried, a coach and horses would have been driven through the Bill. So much for it being a mere technical amendment.
      Being also of a generous nature, I should not have drawn attention to that if it had not shown the Government's mean approach to our amendments in Committee. Had the Government accepted one of our amendments, which prescribed the levels of benefit, perhaps we should not have needed this squalid Bill. That was disguised by the quality, cleverness and adroitness of the Minister's tongue tonight. Despite all the wonderful talk from the Government Front Bench, claiming that this was a targeting measure, the Bill introduces a cut. Although some people will receive more than they might

      109
      have received under the previous scheme, overall the Government will save money to deploy elsewhere— perhaps in the social security budget. With a general election coming up, we do not need to guess where those savings will be made.
      Although this does not appear in Roper's "Life of More", in the wonderful film on the subject there is a scene in our Great Hall after Rich has committed perjury. More goes up to Rich, picks up the chain of office round his neck and asks Rich what it is. Rich says that it signifies that he is Chancellor for Wales. More says to Rich that to lose one's soul for the world is one thing, "but for Wales?"
      The difference between the Minister and Rich is that Rich did not know that he was doing wrong. The Minister knows that this is a squalid little measure that cuts benefit for large numbers of vulnerable women. The Minister lost his battle in the Department, but he still thought it worth fighting. It is a sign of hope for us that the Minister knows that the measure is wrong. I am sad to say that that hope will not be extended to many of our constituents.
      9.54 pm
      Mr. Nellist: This is a mean, despicable little Bill. It is significant that in the last two hours we have heard only one contribution from the Tory Back Benches, and that contributor obviously does not understand the debate. The Bill does not represent an extension or a reform of the rights of pensioners and expectant mothers, but imposes a cut in the benefits which they could expect to receive. It ends a statutory right to the present level of benefits and introduces instead a measure which, as has become crystal clear tonight, will be inadequate to meet their needs.
      By means of the Bill the Tories are creating a generation of cash-limited children. We have talked about the £25 maternity grant, which was introduced in 1969, and we have heard that according to the Department of Health and Social Services the grant should be about £180., According to the Health Education Council and the Health Visitors Association, it should be about £400. According to some other sources, such as the Daily Mirror and the magazine that is entitled "Parents", the grant should be anything up to £700. All that is on offer this evening at the late stage of Third Reading is £80 for expectant mothers. Hundreds of thousands of mothers on low incomes who are not entitled to or not claiming the qualifying benefits will be denied even the £80 that we have discussed.
      It is worth remembering that one in four households has a woman as the sole or main breadwinner of the family because of the number of single parents and the consequences of mass unemployment. I happen to think that the best approach would be to increase the level of real national minimum wages so that people have enough money in their pockets from their earnings to enable them not to have to rely on handouts from the Government. That would be a better approach than merely to increase the level of benefits.
      The introduction of the Bill will exacerbate another problem. If a mother is unable to receive from the state the necessary level of support when the first baby comes along, there will be the insidious progress of the bounty bag in our hospitals. The manufacturers of the various aids to women, of nappies through to bottles, for example, will provide one each of a small number of items as samples as a form of almost subliminal advertising in the hope that they will buy the material later when they leave hospital.
      110
      The Minister has refused to say how the sum of £80 has been arrived at. Instead, he has referred to pressures on the Department over the allocation of funds. He has not really denied the argument that has been advanced forcefully by myself that the sum was based on the number who would be entitled to the grant and the amount set aside for the purpose. The second was divided by the first and the result was £80.
      The Bill perpetuates the Social Security Act 1986 in continuing to place the main burden of the rearing of children on the individual, especially on the working class woman. I consider—I believe that my view is shared by the majority of Labour party members—that the burden should be borne by society as a whole. In other words. we need a universal system of statutory maternity grants that are sufficient to allow children to be given an adequate beginning and reflect genuine costs. Such a system should be coupled with maternity and paternity leave and an expansion of nursing and child care so that both parents can experience the joys and responsibilities of bringing up children.
      These reforms should be wedded to an increase in wages for midwives and other supportive staff such as health visitors who are disgracefully low paid by the Government. The first step should he to get rid of the Bill. If we are talking about a massive expansion of health and social services, we need a change of Government. Finances should be under the control of a Labour Government so that we can provide the help that British working people so richly deserve.
      9.58 pm
      Dr. Godman: It is plain, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) has said, that, despite the Minister's courtesy, fluency and intellectual skills, the Bill is a dismal correction of a squalid Act. The social fund is designed to save money. In translation, that means that the poor will become poorer.
      The Minister referred to a realistic maternity benefit, yet he is talking about £80. Two examples of many from my constituency involved sums that were just short of £200. These payments were received by young pregnant women. In other words, claimants will receive less, not more. They will have the right to appeal, for what that is worth. There is no independent system of appeal. However, the inspectors and the rather curious animal that is known as the social fund commissioner could redress grievances. The commissioner or the inspectors may examine recent records of maternity grants and single payments awarded to claimants. Were that to happen, applicants in, for example, Strathclyde would receive payments much higher than those envisaged by the Government. However, that, I regret to say, is a wholly unrealistic view. The present system, as I have said on many occasions, is both cumbersome and obscure. It causes a great deal—
      It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
    Ordered,
    That, at this day's sitting, the Social Fund (Maternity and Funeral Expenses) Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr . Durant.]

  Social Fund (Maternity and Funeral Expenses) Bill
  Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  Dr. Godman: The present system causes a great deal of distress to claimants, especially those new to social welfare. I am curious about the social fund commissioner. I understand that young women in these circumstances will obtain loans from the social fund only, when they have received benefit income support for six months.
  The proposals stand out in stark contrast to the Government's promise of tax cuts. Here we see the Government at their pernicious worst. We see tax cuts alongside benefit cuts. That, surely, is a disgrace to the very many poor people in Great Britain.
  10.2 pm
  Mr. Haynes: I shall be brief, bearing in mind that another debate will follow this one. I suffered in Committee, and I am suffering once again from some of the squalid things that have been pushed out by Conservative Members.
  I wish to refer to a couple of Right-wing Tories who spoke without having listened to the debate. They made a contribution and got it on the record in the hope that their constituents would take note. They were participating in the debate but had not been here to hear every word, unlike other hon. Members who have sat here during the debate this evening. What we have witnessed from the Tories is a disgusting state of affairs. [Interruption.] It is no laughing matter either. I remember the things that the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Page) had to say. I hope that he will have to respond to his constituents, especially to the women of this nation, because the mickey was being taken out of them when some of my hon. Friends were speaking.
  When a Labour Government return to office, my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) will be the Minister for Women and will do a first-class job on their behalf. We do not want any cracks from Conservative Members about that.
  We have been talking today about the cradle to the grave. I make no bones about that. I heard the horrible things that were said by Tory Members in Committee and they have been repeated tonight.
  Some Conservative Members have arrived back in the Chamber. One of them, the hon. Member for Mid- Worcestershire (Mr. Forth), made a quick intervention, nipped off and now he has come back.
  On the question of the death grant, I have experienced over many years as a member of a local authority—
  Mr. Robin Corbett: Speak up.
  Mr. Haynes: I never thought that I would hear that from a colleague.
  When I was a member of a local authority we had to find places in a graveyard for a pauper's funeral. I believe that the proposals in the Bill will mean that there will be more paupers' funerals.
  Mr. Major indicated dissent.
  Mr. Haynes: The Minister shakes his head. He is not living in the real world. I do not know where he and other Conservative Members go when they are supposed to be
  112
  back in their constituencies. I get around, talk to people, and find out about their serious difficulties. It is high time that the Minister and his colleagues did the same.
  In my constituency people experience many financial difficulties, especially over burials. I am trying to say to the Minister—I hope that he will take it in—that I have reason to believe, because of my experience, that there will be more paupers' funerals in the future.
  Mr. Major rose—
  Mr. Haynes: I shall not give way. It is 10.2 pm, and we are moving on to a prayer. We are cutting the time for that debate—
  Mr. Major rose—
  Mr. Haynes: The final point that I wish to make—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Major rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Major.
  Mr. Major: The hon. Gentleman feels deeply about these matters. Let me try to put his mind at rest. The underlying thrust of what we are seeking to do is to make sure that the very poorest people who have no resources get not just £30 but the full cost of the funeral. That is the point. The hon. Gentleman's remarks about proper funerals are 100 per cent. wrong.
  Mr. Haynes: The Minister is stipulating the type of funeral. It is not fair. He is forgetting those who will not qualify. They are struggling right now. I tell him this: he will have a good send off. [Laughter.] That is funny. The Minister can afford to have a good send off. There will be many more like us who can afford a good send off, but we represent people who are struggling in this world. They are struggling in our constituencies—[Interruption.] I am making my point for the people whom I represent, and other hon. Members have been making their points for the people whom they represent. So the Minister can come off it. He can take the grin off his face. He can think seriously about what we are saying. There will be serious difficulties with the Bill. I tell the Minister this. When we get back into office, we shall repeal it.
  10.7 pm
  Ms. Richardson: As we have gone beyond the time that we expected, I shall be only a couple of minutes. If this miserable little Bill, which was introduced because of some draftperson's mistake— [Laughter.] Conservative Members laugh at everything, do they not? It is all funny to them. If the Bill has done nothing else, it has highlighted the meanness of the Government when it comes to dealing with vulnerable people, as so many of my hon. Friends have said. When pregnant women should be having as relaxed a time as possible, in a difficult period in their life, as well as in the delightful period when they have the child, the Government make it difficult for them to get the benefits and goods that they need to make their life as easy as possible.
  Nobody has ever suggested that the £25 grant did not need uprating. We have always said that, but to do it in the way that the Government have and in effect cut down the benefits that have now accumulated for pregnant women and babies, is not the way to do it. We need decent benefits as of right— not means-tested. As my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist)

  113
  said, we need decent maternity and paternity leave. I add one thing to his package— parental leave. The Government have consistently blocked it for goodnesss knows how many years, and doubtless will go on blocking it until we have blocked them out of government.
  With that package of benefits and leave, one can at least ensure that the child and the parent have a decent beginning, with a new little life. Apart from the Government, not a single body that I have met likes the Bill or any other aspect of the Social Security Act 1986. [Horn. MEMBERS: "Name them."] If anyone can name a body that likes the Bill, I shall be happy to hear it. I cannot find a single person or body of people who believe that the social fund in particular is not really the begging bowl. People believe that we are returning to those days which we had all thought had gone for good. With this measure, as with others, the Government are taking us back into Dickensian days.
  10.9 pm
  Mr. Lyell: The hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) said that this debate took us from the cradle to the grave. I commend the hon. Gentleman to listen to his hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field). I agree with the hon. Member for Birkenhead on one point, although, if I may politely do so, I quarrel with him on another. I agree with his comment— and I noted his words carefully because they are the essence of the Bill—that an increased number of people in the targeted groups will get more than they would have received previously. That is the essence of the Bill. We are righting the wrong which the hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) has just acknowledged existed—
  Mr. Frank Field: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Lyell: No, I shall not give way.
  Mr. Field: Give way.
  Mr. Lyell: I shall not give way.
  Mr. Field: My point was that while some women will gain more, the very poorest will gain less. So much for the Government's targeting.
  Mr. Lyell: Mr. Speaker, you will recall that that is not exactly what the hon. Gentleman said.
  The hon. Gentleman was running down Wales in the form of its Attorney-General in the 1550s and he referred to "A Man for all Seasons". I commend to the House my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) who is indeed "A Man for all Seasons" not only in this Bill, but, as the House will remember, especially in matters of exceptionally cold weather. Although the Bill has had its chilly moments I shall answer one or two points raised in the debate, especially those raised by the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett).
  The hon. Lady raised the matter of appeal and adjudication and asked whether there would be a right of appeal simply on circumstances and whether that was adequate. Of course, in relation to maternity payments, the matter is to be prescribed. The Bill is before the House so that that payment may be prescribed. However, there will be a right of appeal on circumstances and on the amount given against the listed items in relation to funerals and, as has been emphasised, the allocation for funerals to the targeted groups is far more generous than the previous provision.
  114
  In connection with appeal, I commend to the House, the comments made by Lord Denning in another place. He saw the proposal coming from this House as being simple, fair and just machinery. He said that he had seen a lot of over-complicated, over-lengthy and over-costly procedures and he commended the appeal procedures to the other place.
  With regard to the point about the widow who borrowed and who would no longer need to do so, my hon. Friend the Minister of State was right. It is now possible to give full help with a funeral. The rules will he simpler and it will be easier for people on low incomes to get help. That is of the essence of the Bill. The Bill targets help on those who have the greatest need.
  Mr. Beckett rose—
  Mr. Lyell: Problems are being tackled on the principle of concentrating help where it is needed. The level of help given to families and individuals in these wider categories will, for the great majority, be a significant improvement upon what they receive today. I commend the Bill to the House.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 174, Noes 117.

  Division No. 85]

  [10.15 pm

  AYES

  Alexander, Richard

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Amess, David

  Evennett, David

  Ancram, Michael

  Eyre, Sir Reginald

  Ashby, David

  Fallon, Michael

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Farr, Sir John

  Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

  Favell, Anthony

  Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

  Fletcher, Sir Alexander

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Baldry, Tony

  Forman, Nigel

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Forth, Eric

  Bellingham, Henry

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Bendall, Vivian

  Franks, Cecil

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Gale, Roger

  Blackburn, John

  Galley, Roy

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Bottomley, Peter

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Ground, Patrick

  Bright, Graham

  Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

  Brinton, Tim

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Bruinvels, Peter

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Hannam, John

  Budgen, Nick

  Hargreaves, Kenneth

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Harris, David

  Butterfill, John

  Harvey, Robert

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Carttiss, Michael

  Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)

  Cash, William

  Hawksley, Warren

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Hayes, J.

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hayward, Robert

  Chope, Christopher

  Heddle, John

  Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)

  Hicks, Robert

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hind, Kenneth

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Hirst, Michael

  Cockeram, Eric

  Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

  Cope, John

  Holt, Richard

  Couchman, James

  Howard, Michael

  Crouch, David

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

  Dicks, Terry

  Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)

  Dover, Den

  Hubbard-Miles, Peter

  Dunn, Robert

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Durant, Tony

  Jackson, Robert

  NOES

  Alton, David

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Anderson, Donald

  Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

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

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Caborn, Richard

  Barron, Kevin

  Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

  Beckett, Mrs Margaret

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

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

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Clelland, David Gordon

  Jessel, Toby

  Nelson, Anthony

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Neubert, Michael

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Newton, Tony

  Kershaw, Sir Anthony

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Key, Robert

  Normanton, Tom

  King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

  Norris, Steven

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Ottaway, Richard

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Page, Sir John (Harrow W)

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Page, Richard (Herts SW)

  Knowles, Michael

  Pawsey, James

  Knox, David

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Lawler, Geoffrey

  Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Pollock, Alexander

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Porter, Barry

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Powley, John

  Lester, Jim

  Price, Sir David

  Lightbown, David

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Lilley, Peter

  Raffan, Keith

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Lord, Michael

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Rowe, Andrew

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Ryder, Richard

  McCurley, Mrs Anna

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Maclean, David John

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

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

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Madel, David

  Sumberg, David

  Major, John

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

  Mather, Sir Carol

  Thurnham, Peter

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Waller, Gary

  Mills, Iain (Meriden)

  Wheeler, John

  Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

  Wood, Timothy

  Moate, Roger

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

  Mr. Francis Maude and

  Murphy, Christopher

  Mr. Michael Portillo.

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Litherland, Robert

  Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)

  Livsey, Richard

  Coleman, Donald

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Conlan, Bernard

  Loyden, Edward

  Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Corbett, Robin

  McNamara, Kevin

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  McWilliam, John

  Crowther, Stan

  Marek, Dr John

  Dalyell, Tam

  Maxton, John

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'Ili)

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Dewar, Donald

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Dormand, Jack

  Nellist, David

  Douglas, Dick

  O'Brien, William

  Dubs, Alfred

  O'Neill, Martin

  Eadie, Alex

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Eastham, Ken

  Park, George

  Evans, John (St. Helens N)

  Patchett, Terry

  Fatchett, Derek

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Pendry, Tom

  Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

  Pike, Peter

  Fisher, Mark

  Raynsford, Nick

  Flannery, Martin

  Redmond, Martin

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Richardson, Ms Jo

  Forrester, John

  Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

  Foster, Derek

  Rogers, Allan

  Foulkes, George

  Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

  George, Bruce

  Rowlands, Ted

  Godman, Dr Norman

  Sheerman, Barry

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

  Hamilton, James (M'well N)

  Silkin, Rt Hon J.

  Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Hancock, Michael

  Snape, Peter

  Hardy, Peter

  Soley, Clive

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Spearing, Nigel

  Haynes, Frank

  Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Strang, Gavin

  Howells, Geraint

  Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

  Hoyle, Douglas

  Tinn, James

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Wainwright, R.

  John, Brynmor

  Wallace, James

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Wareing, Robert

  Kennedy, Charles

  Welsh, Michael

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Winnick, David

  Lambie, David

  Lamond, James

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Mr. Don Dixon and

  Leighton, Ronald

  Mr. Ray Powell.

  Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

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

  Dockyard Services (Devonport) Order
  Mr. Speaker: I understand that it will be for the convenience of the House to take both prayers together.
  10.25 pm
  Mr. Martin J. O'Neill: I beg to move,
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Dockyard Services (Devonport) (Designation and Appointed Day) Order 1986 (S.I. 1986, No. 2243), dated 15th December 1986, a copy of which was laid before this House on 18th December, be annulled.
  As you have said, Mr. Speaker, with this it will be convenient to take also the following motion:
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Dockyard Services (Rosyth) (Designation and Appointed Day) Order 1986 (S.I. 1986, No. 2244), dated 15th December 1986, a copy of which was laid before this House on 18th December, he annulled.
  This debate has been long awaited, as this is the third occasion on which we have tried to introduce it on the Floor of the House. It is of considerable importance to the 20,000 workers whose terms and conditions of employment will be altered from 5 April 1987. The two orders give effect to the Dockyard Services Act 1986, define the areas of the dockyard and the functions to be carried out within them, and specify the designated date of 4 April 1987 as being the date on which contractorisation will begin.
  The prayers mark the end of a lengthy process which has involved consultation and Committee stages. At no stage has any of the pressure from the Opposition made any major impact on the Government's thinking of attitude. The fact that the Government are alone in support of the principle of contractorisation, that they have been discredited by Committees which have within their ranks majorities of Conservative Members, that the Public Accounts Committee, the Defence Select Committee and unanimous opinion outside the House have been against the proposal, has mattered not a whit to the Ministry of Defence.
  Section 1(6)(b) of the Act, concerning the legal, economic and social implications of transfer for the employees is the most sensitive part. It was the subject of what has come to be known as the Denning amendment. In another place, Lord Denning was able to insert a provision placing responsibility on the Government to secure some form of consultation. That form of consultation has been wholly unsatisfactory. In last Monday's debate on the Royal Navy, the Minister clearly knew how many redundancies would result from contractorisation and how many contractors Babcock had in mind, but he would not tell the House and he will not tell the trade unions. It makes a complete mockery of the Government's responsibilities to disclose the economic and social implications of the transfer if the unemployment consequences are not made clear.
  The unemployment consequences affect not only those who work in the yards and their families, but the communities and those who will work in the yards under different auspices—es and those in the course 'Of study and training. Those awaiting retirement are unclear about the circumstances surrounding their pension rights. The condition of employment of those who may be taken on by the new employers because of skill shortages may be different from those already in employment. People in one yard may be operating under
  118
  different terms and conditions of employment from those in another, because there will be no responsibility on the employers to ensure similar standards of pay and conditions and, most importat, pensions conditions, in the two yards.
  This debate comes late at night after two false starts, and I do not wish to take up the time of the House unduly, because I know that a number of right hon. and hon. Members wish to speak. I imagine that there will be few voices heard in support of the orders. Among the work force and the management there are grave forebodings about the effects that these two orders will have as they make the way clear for contractorisation.
  In every debate that we have had on this topic, we have been united on the outstanding contribution of the work force in times of crisis and national emergency and, the commitment of both the management and the workers to contribute their best to the realm. For many of the workers, this has been an expression of their life's work—a continuation of service to the country that started in the Navy. For others, it is simply the maintenance of proud family traditions.
  The willingness to sacrifice, as shown at the time of the Falklands conflict, can never be translated into pounds and pence. It cannot be translated into the profit and loss accounts about which the Government have been speaking, especially for the contractors who are out to make a fast buck, or for the loss of jobs of those workers for whom the accountants have no further use.
  These two yards have given public expression to a rare combination of effort and skill. From the labourers and the skilled craftsmen to the designers and managers, from the deck hands to the admirals, civilian and sailor alike have combined to make sure that those who defend our shores, in whatever craft, have done so in the knowledge that no effort or expense has been spared. We believe that our seamen are the best in the world, and they are entitled to the best. Whether the new consortia can maintain those high standards remains to be seen. We hope that they will.
  It has to be stressed that the disruption and uncertainty that this wretched Act and these orders will cause in the communities can end only in undermining the work of the yards. The work force feels that the consultative processes have not been fulfilled, and the communities sense that their futures are in danger, so the Government should think again about the whole scheme. Let us make sure this evening that we force the Government to think again, by voting against the orders. That will ensure that we have the time and the opportunity to look for a better solution than the crazy scheme of contractorisation which is embodied in these orders.
  10.33 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Archie Hamilton): These two orders refer respectively to the Devonport Royal dockyard and the Rosyth Royal dockyard.
  The Dockyard Services Act does not specify the dockyard employees who will transfer on vesting day. Rather, section 1(1) defines the "Qualified dockyard service employees" as those persons employed in or in connection with the "dockyard undertaking" in the Civil Service of the Crown on such day as the Secretary of State appoints by order. The "dockyard undertaking" is itself defined as the provision by the Crown of "designated dockyard services", which are to be designated by order.

  119
  It follows that the question of who are qualified dockyard service employees is answered by reference to the designated services.
  The orders do three things— they designate the dockyards that are to be affected, they designate the dockyards services—that may in future be provided by contractors, and they appoint the date for the purposes of determining who are the qualified dockyard service employees. With your agreement, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall consider those three aspects in that order.
  First the dockyards. After all the debate which there has been on the Government's policy for the dockyards there can be no hon. Member who is not aware that the dockyards in question are those at Devonport and Rosyth. During the consideration of the Dockyard Services Bill the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Denzil Davies) and his hon. Friends were concerned that the arrangements in the Bill could be applied to any other dockyards that might subsequently be created. To address this concern, and with the agreement of Opposition Members, the Bill was amended to provide that the only dockyards which could be designated by order were
  "those dockyards which are Royal Dockyards when this Act comes into force."
  So the Act put the matter beyond doubt, and the orders respectively designate Devonport royal dockyard and Rosyth royal dockyard.
  I turn now to the designation of the "services" in the orders. Since the wording in both orders is identical, my comments apply equally to both dockyards in this respect. As I have said, the designation of services is in order to facilitate the transfer of the appropriate staff. Section 1(1) of the Act refers to the services as being
  "for or in connection with ships or vessels or related establishments in the service of the Crown, provided at such dockyards, as may,…be designated by the Secretary of State by order."
  When the Bill was considered last year, my hon. Friends referred to the services that it was proposed should in future be provided by contractors. The orders are based very closely on the information provided before, but examples of particular equipment and services have been included. As hon. Members can see, the work of the dockyards has been described under five headings.
  The first will be recognised as the main task of the dockyards—that of repairing, maintaining, refitting and modernising ships and vessels in the service of the Crown. The words "ships and vessels" are apt to include both surface ships and submarines. Since the latter include nuclear submarines, it might be for the convenience of the House if I were to repeat what my hon. Friends have made clear on many previous occasions.
  The managing company at the dockyard will be required to comply, in the same way as does any other contractor employed on sensitive defence work, with the stringent security rules that have existed under successive Administrations. Also the company will be required to operate under the terms of a nuclear site licence issued under the Nuclear Installations Act 1965. Radiological protection of the work force will be as high a priority in future as it is now, and the contractor will have to satisfy the Health and Safety Executive that the legal obligations set out in the Ionising Radiation Regulations 1985 are being met.
  120
  As those hon. Members who have been closely involved with the dockyards will know, their work is not limited to repairs and refits of vessels. They also repair, maintain, overhaul and test naval equipment and machinery, and examples of such equipment are given under the second heading. The third refers not only to work on machinery equipment used in the dockyard but to that used in
  "establishments related to ships or vessels in the service of the Crown".
  As the order makes clear, it is not the work of other establishments that we are intending to transfer to dockyard contractors but rather work that has been traditionally carried out at the dockyard for other establishments. This includes the work of maintaining the equipment for naval training establishments, or, for example, cranes, generators and high pressure air systems for other fleet and civil shore establishments.
  Some dockyard staff who have been employed on such work for other establishments— particularly those furthest away— are expected to remain in the civil service and to be transferred to the strength of the establishments concerned. Discussions on this are being held with the unions involved.
  Under the fourth heading are listed examples of the naval equipments which the dockyards manufacture, and these speak, I believe, for themselves. Finally, the list refers to support and utility services, and mentions in particular compressed air, gas, electricity and water. These are services customarily provided by the dockyards, not only for themselves but also for the naval base and other local establishments and ships alongside. It is sensible that the dockyard should continue to provide such services.
  I turn now to the last of the three aims of the orders— the appointment of a date for the purposes of determining who may be considered qualified dockyard service employees.
  As hon. Members can see, paragraph 4 of the orders seeks to appoint that date as 5 April 1987—that is to say, the day before the planned vesting day of 6 April 1987. It is proposed, therefore, that those employees to whom the arrangements apply who are employed immediately prior to vesting day will be transferred to the contractor. As the House will know, there are some 17,750 industrial and non-industrial employees in the dockyards. Between now and the appointed day of 5 April 1987, some 400 staff at Devonport and 320 at Rosyth are planned to transfer from the dockyard to the naval base commander, remaining in the Civil Service.
  As my right hon. Friend the then Minister of State for Defence Procurement said during the consideration of the Bill, we have made our proposals known to transfer to the staff of the managing director of the dockyards those employed in the dockyard laboratories. Similar arrangements will be made for those who work in the pay offices who will be required to deal with future dockyard personnel and for catering staff and estate maintenance staff. The trades unions are aware of these intentions.
  Before leaving the matter of the appointed day, I can inform the House that my right hon. Friend will shortly be writing to the trades unions summarising the considerable amount of consultation which has already taken place with them and setting out his proposals for the final stages of consultation in the period leading up to vesting day on 6 April 1987. As soon as my right hon. Friend has written, I shall place a copy of his letter in the Library of the House.

  121
  Since most of the employees' conditions of service transfer unchanged, there is, we believe, sufficient time between now and vesting day for any outstanding consultations to take place. We hope, therefore, that the trades unions will now consider the way ahead speedily and approach the series of meetings we are proposing in a positive and constructive manner.
  I have explained the content of the two orders and the reasons for them. They carry forward in a realistic way the Government's plans in respect of the future management arrangements for the dockyards which, as the trades unions have now heard direct from the most senior Royal Navy officers concerned on the Navy Board, offers the best way forward for the Royal Navy, the dockyards, the work force, the taxpayer and the local regions. The Government believe that there is no better way forward and that is why we ask the House to pass these orders.
  10.41 pm
  Dr. David Owen: The Minister's lack of enthusiasm for this legislation was quite obvious from the way that he rushed through a civil servant's brief. This is a fairly miserable day, but I suppose we ought to ask the Minister to justify the decision that he has announced to the House. There is no better starting point than a document, issued on 8 October 1986, which sets out the timetable for evaluating the bids for the two dockyards. I shall deal only with Devonport. The document says that the contract negotiations should be completed by "early December 1986" in order to meet the vesting day which was planned for 6 April.
  The contract negotiations have not been completed, and here we are debating in February what should have been agreed in December. The contract, which was to be signed at the end of December, has still not been signed. The parallel running was to start in early January, but I understand it has just started. Any objective look at the Government's own timetable, published in October, shows that the vesting date for Devonport should not be 6 April. The Government find themselves in great timetable difficulties but they are intent on pushing ahead regardless.
  The Minister must answer a few questions. The first one is about pensions. On vesting day will the dockyard work force know about its pension arrangements? Will any substantive negotiations be completed about pension arrangements? Will the workers know the detail of their redundancy payments, or will these matters be left until after vesting day, to be settled when the members of the work force are, technically, no longer civil servants? The men have a right to know the Minister's intentions and the House, which has been ignored throughout these proceedings, has at least the right to put to the Minister that it is extremely unfair to the work people to leave the matter over for decision.
  It is true that the Royal ordnance factories have not settled the matter, but they were going through a transition and the workers there were still under Government control when their pension arrangements were being left open. The dockyard work force will no longer be under any form of Government control and will be the responsibility of the agency. We are entitled to be satisfied about those issues.
  It is my judgment, for what it is worth, that if the unions are not given ample time for the negotiations—they cannot be rushed through between now and 6 April—they would be wholly entitled, if they saw fit to do so under the terms of the legislation and of the obligations to the
  122
  European Community under its various laws, to take the Government to court. If the unions take that decision. they will have my full support.
  I am glad to see the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Clark) in his place. He was the first to sense the right contractor. On 2 October, the Plymough Evening Herald made a perceptive comment on the hon. Gentleman: "Clark backs American Bid". We all wondered whether the hon. Gentleman had some special line and whether, being a member of the Government, he was going to tell us something. The trouble is that he backed the wrong American company. He was. after Foster Wheeler. There is little point in a Plymouth Member of Parliament, or anyone else for that matter, spending his whole time criticising Brown and Root, which has been given the contract. Whether we like it or not, for some months at least, we are saddled with the company and Plymouth will have to make the best of it.
  As for the Libyan connection, it is a fact that it is not illegal to carry out work for the Libyan Government. It is strange that at Vickers Barrow the part of the new submarine build that cannot be seen by any American is the propulsion unit, yet an American-owned company will be responsible for repair and refit involving the propulsion unit of our nuclear submarines. Anyone who believes that the United States navy would dream of giving a contract for the nuclear propulsion unit of any of its submarines to a British company is not living in the same world as me. It is an extraordinary fact that we keep United States personnel away from the propulsion unit of our nuclear-powered submarines, yet we pass the repairing and refitting to an American-owned company, Brown and Root.
  As I said, we have to live with Brown and Root. How it handles the work force in Plymouth, the wage negotiations, the pension arrangements and redundancy payments is of crucial concern to us. I make it clear that my job is to defend my constituents' interests and I shall treat Brown and Root with an open mind. If the company treats the work force well, negotiates well and takes account of the fears of Plymouth city council, Devon county council and Cornwall county council, I shall treat it well, too. I am not in the business of rubbishing that company. The problem is the Government, and I am certainly in the business of rubbishing them.
  I still do not know the position of the hon. Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes) on the preferred option. When we first considered these matters on 2 December 1985, she said that she could not support the Government. The hon. Lady said:
  "If the Government cannot change to the plc fallback position, which is my preferred option".—[Official Report, 2 December 1985; Vol. 88, c. 46.]
  The hon. Lady then seemed to vacillate about supporting the agency management proposal, provided that it was the dockyard management—the very people whom we were told were not capable of running the dockyard efficiently, which was why we needed to introduce agency management. When agency management for the dockyard management was not granted. we heard little from the hon. Lady about the Government-owned plc. I do not know whether she is in favour of the agency management or whether she will vote for the order. Perhaps we shall hear from her.
  I shall deal with one of the points put forward by the hon. Member for Drake. She said, mistakenly, that one

  123
  cannot have a trading fund outside the Civil Service. As I made clear in the Navy debate, it is possible. I made it clear that it was possible to do so in a memorandum to the Select Committee on Defence. The only option to which the Government would possibly be converted now would be the Government-owned plc. One gathers from the management of Brown and Root that it is a ritual. No one in Plymouth believes that there is any consultation, but on 13 February the trade unions will be told that Brown and Root is the preferred contractor. I do not intend to go through the pretence of believing that the Government are listening to the debate in terms of the substantive decision. I assume that they will go ahead and railroad the date of 6 April. I reiterate my serious complaint that, as I understand it, none of my constituents know what their pension arrangements or redundancy terms will be.
  It is unfair and unrealistic to pass on the redundancy commitments after a period of time to the agency management. Those redundancy commitments must be underwritten in full by the Government. To do anything else would be to treat these loyal people who have served the nation extremely well, very poorly indeed. This is a miserable order on a miserable Bill, and 6 April will be miserable day in Plymouth.
  We have not discovered from Brown and Root how many redundancies there will be. It has said that there will be no more than 2,000 compulsory redundancies, but that does not give us any clue as to how many jobs will be lost in Devonport dockyard; nor does it give any clue as to how many jobs will be lost in a knock-on effect. The working assumption seems to be that over a 10-year period we will lose 6,000 jobs from the general management work force and another 2,000 to 3,000 jobs in knock-on effects in Plymouth. If that is the case, the present level of Government assistance for Plymouth to attract new industry is woefully insufficient.
  I strongly urge the Minister to try to persuade the Secretaries of State for Employment and for the Environment to take more active measures to help the economy of the far south-west. We will find it difficult to replace those jobs in a male, skilled industry without greater help for the far south-west. This decision alone should justify the creation of a far south-west development agency, and the sooner the better.
  10.52 pm
  Mr. Robert Hicks: Even at this late stage it is worth emphasising that the provisions contained in the orders relate to the defence and security of the nation and to the servicing of the Royal Navy in particular.
  We have rehearsed the arguments as to why changes are necessary, and few people would dispute that fact. The majority of people recognise the changing nature and volume of the type of work undertaken in the dockyards. It stems from the fact that there are fewer ships in the Royal Navy, refits occur less frequently and less time is taken for refits.
  In recognition of that fact, in April 1985 the Government published their consultative document. There were three options, but one of them was euphemistically called the preferred option—the introduction of agency
  124
  or commercial management. Everything that the Government have undertaken since April 1985 has been with that sole objective in mind.
  I expressed the fear at the outset—which I have repeated on a number of occasions inside and outside the House—that the system of agency management is speculative and unproven. There is no comparable defence model anywhere in the world on the scale required for the administration of our royal dockyards. The defence and security of the nation is what we are considering. A preferred contractor has been announced for Devonport, which is the consortium comprising Brown and Root, the Weir Group and Barclays de Zoete Wedd, which currently holds 45 per cent. of the shares.
  Some people have argued that with the announcement of the preferred contractor some of the anxieties and uncertainties felt locally, not only by the work force but by those in the local economy, have come to an end. I suggest that the contrary is the case. We are not certain what the projected employment figures will be. We know that the core programme represents about 40 per cent. of the existing workload at Devonport, but we do not know what proportion of the remaining 60 per cent. that will go out to commercial tender will in fact come back to Devonport. However, the Ministry of Defence has told the successful contractor that it can expect a maximum of only 50 per cent. Even if that maximum is achieved, this means that Devonport will take only 70 per cent. of its present volume of work.
  The third variable is the amount of outside work that the dockyard will attract from the commercial sector. Given the depressed state of the Merchant Navy and of shipyards generally, one cannot be optimistic. Devonport represents a microcosm of British industry and technology—no doubt the same is true of Rosyth. Almost every skill and craft is represented there. With uncertainty hanging over it, perhaps for the next five years or so, there is hardly a conducive environment in which to seek new contracts.
  I have been an hon. Member for 16 years and I have never witnessed such unanimity of purpose and outlook locally. The trade unions and the majority of the work force are apprehensive about developments, and the city of Plymouth, supported wholeheartedly by the Devon and Cornwall county councils and the three local district councils all express doubts and fears about the adverse effects of the change. It must be unique in the far southwest for such a consensus of view to exist. I am saddened that the Government have not taken note of that unanimous expression of local concern and anxiety.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I hope that hon. Members seeking to catch my eye will remember that the debate must end at 11.30. It might be sensible to try to share out the time.
  10.53 pm
  Mr. Gordon Brown: As it is three years since the privatisation proposal of Mr. Peter Levene was first divulged to the House, more than two years since the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) first announced his intention to go ahead with privatisation, and more than a year since we started debating the Dockyard Services Bill in Committee, the least that the

  125
  House had a right to expect was that the problems that we identified at the outset about retaining a minimum strategic capability in the dockyards, about retaining British control, about the workload and about apprenticeships would have been resolved before the Minister decided to proceed with the orders before us.
  After more than seven months in Committee in both Houses, after the work of 19 working parties set up by the Minister and his colleagues and after the period of promised consultation, we are no nearer a solution to all the problems that led a civil servant from the Ministry of Defence to describe the Government's plan as the high-risk option for the maintenance of the fleet, that led the Public Accounts Committee to say that on financing it had received from the Ministry of Defence the worst evidence that it had received in this Parliament, that led originally to universal condemnation of the Government's proposals and that have led the trade unions to regard the consultation process instigated by the Ministry in the past few months as nothing more than a charade.
  I leave aside the question of who controls Devonport and Rosyth. In its rush to transfer the dockyards from public to private control, the Ministry of Defence has created conditions under which it has become possible to transfer the dockyards from British to foreign control. In its rush to privatise, the Ministry has failed to secure proper guarantees for jobs, apprenticeships and workloads.
  When the operation began, we were assured that the dockyards would retain a strategic minimum reserve for emergencies to do exactly the sort of work which they had to do during the Falkland campaign. Yet now, one of the virtues that the Minister argues for the contract that he has signed is that there is no agreement on a strategic minimum reserve or capability.
  One of the documents produced for the work force says that the figures on which the Ministry is working do not assume that additional manpower will be retained as a strategic reserve. There are no strategic reserves, no safeguards and no guarantees. The same applies to jobs, workloads and apprenticeships.
  The Government have accepted an obligation under the Dockyards Services Act that they will spell out the legal, social and economic consequences of their actions. They promised only a few weeks ago that they would consult the trade unions about the consequences. The transfer concerns the number of people who will have jobs and the number who will lose them, and yet the Minister has gone ahead in the last few days and signed a contract agreeing to finance a number of redundancies at Rosyth. Tonight he refuses to give a figure, despite obligations under the Act, and claims that the figures are commercially confidential.
  Mr. Archie Hamilton: I shall give the figures at the end of the debate.
  Mr. Brown: Perhaps the Minister will tell us how many redundancies have been agreed at Rosyth and are likely to be agreed at Devonport and why there have been changes, even in the last few weeks, in the workload which the contractor is taking over at Rosyth. Will he also confirm that the cuts in the workload are not because of an inevitable rundown in the work at Rosyth or at Devonport, but because of pressures on the defence budget, because of an extension of intervals between refits,
  126
  because of reduced engineering standards and because of everything that we feared would be the consequence of privatisation?
  The only possible argument in favour of the Minister's proposals, which were accepted so readily by the Admiralty Board, is that they will save money.
  Even if we accept that after 1990 some savings might be made, will the Minister accept that the figures are speculative? If we accept that the transitional cost could be spread over a number of years and not be an immediate cost on the defence budget; if we accept that the transfer of the pension fund is a book-keeping exercise and does not involve more than £200 million in the first instance, the Minister must accept that over the next three years, when the Department's budget is under pressure, we shall lose £15 million by privatisation at Rosyth—and much more at Devonport. That is before the Minister finds that he is held to ransom because of unprogrammed refits by monopoly suppliers who will get their price, not the Minister's price.
  The proposals arise from dogma and ideology. They mean lower standards, less Government control—although the Government foot the bill—higher costs for the Navy and the Treasury, and a reduction in standards and jobs in the dockyards. We have a loyal work force, dedicated civil servants and a concerned and supportive community, yet the Government have betrayed the workers. The workers legitimately claim that they have been let down by successive Ministers in the Department and are being transferred forcibly to the private sector. They are to be forcibly transferred to the private sector. The national interest is to be subordinated to that of commercial gain. I hope that the election comes sooner rather than later so that this insidious proposal can be immediately reversed.
  11.4 pm
  Miss Janet Fookes: I shall make my contribution to this debate rather shorter than I would have wished, bearing in mind the need for other hon. Members to take part in what is essentially a short time in which to consider these orders.
  In passing, however, I register a protest at the way in which this matter has been delayed on no fewer than two occasions. This is the third bite of the cherry, which causes considerable inconvenience to hon. Members and to those outside who take a close interest in these proceedings. We must make a decision now and end uncertainty. From that point of view I welcome the order although I wish to confine my remarks to the order that affects Devonport.
  I register surprise at the fact that the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) does not appear to find my views on this subject sufficiently clear. I thought that I had made them very clear at various stages throughout the time that we have been considering this matter and especially during the Royal Navy debate a week ago today.
  I have always believed that the dockyard should be taken outside the Civil Service. In other words, I have always broadly favoured privatisation in whatever form that may take. I had reservations about the agency management, and I registered those in the House. The turning point for me came when the management team put in its bid, because I felt that that dealt with many of the worries that I had expressed. I am sorry that the right hon.

  127
  Member for Devonport did not feel able to join me in at least welcoming with enthusiasm that bid when it came along.
  There is no lack of logic on my part in giving the management bid my support, because my point has always been that local management has never had full powers to manage and that the whole web and set-up of the Civil Service was a brake upon efficient activities. That was in no way to decry the work of the work force or the local management. Therefore, I was pleased when it became clear, when the preferred contractor was announced, that the management bid, as I call it, was to be subsumed within the winning bid and that there is therefore a strong likelihood that Mr. David Johnston and his team will be incorporated into the management and will still be responsible for the day-to-day running of the dockyard. That seems to me to be a good move.
  I shall deal briefly with certain aspects of Brown and Root. Much has been made by some hon. Members tonight of the number of redundancies. Surely the number of redundancies will depend on how much outside work that consortium or any other consortium brings in when—[Interruption.] I am not sure why that is a cause for laughter. To me it is a key issue. Knowing that there are always ups and downs with Royal Naval work, it makes sense to try to embrace within the dockyard work from outside sources. I cannot tell how much will be brought in, but it is obviously of the greatest importance to the economy of Plymouth that as much should be brought in as possible.
  I should have thought that a consortium with Brown and Root in it would have a reasonable chance. It is not without significance that that company is receiving the Queen's award for industry. This award is not handed out to any old company, and it is an indication of Brown and Root's stature.
  I have also made particular inquiries of Brown and Root, and I have discussed with the chairman the issue of Americans in the dockyard. It is a Royal Navy rule that no foreigner, no American, can view our nuclear systems, any more than the Americans allow us to view theirs. That will continue to be the case and the Brown and Root consortium will be happy with that. It has no objection to that rule.
  I understand also that Brown and Root is keenly interested in and concerned for apprentice training, and we have already had some good news about the number of apprentices who are to be taken on this year in Plymouth. I trust that that will continue to be the position. Members who take a close interest in Plymouth will know that I have always been especially keen and interested in the apprentice centre. I hope that it will become a focus for more and more training, not less and less.
  At the short time at my disposal I wish to say that I do not share the gloom and doom that has been peddled by the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill), or the guarded approach of the right hon. Member for Devonport. I hope that once the decision is made there will be an opportunity to take a constructive approach and to make a real go of the new structure.
  11.16 pm
  Mr. Dick Douglas: I shall not necessarily take up the remarks of the hon. Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes), but I shall address myself to the subject of Brown and Root during my contribution to the debate.
  There is a great rumour circulating in Scotland that the Lord Advocate has been approached with an order, which will be accompanied by a surcharge, to find one Tory in Scotland who is in favour of the measure. I suspect that there is only one—he will be a reluctant supporter—and that is the right hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger), the Secretary of State for Defence. Wee George is a pragmatic gentleman and I do not believe that he would have visited such a proposal on the House and the country. Throughout the contractorisation of the docks we have yet to hear one Tory Back Bencher who is willing to support and speak up for it. I do not believe that there is one who would be willing to do that.
  It would seem that there is a serious deficiency in the order. It designates a number of services, including repair, maintenance, refit and the modernisation of ships and vessels in the service of the Crown, but there is no mention anywhere of main engines or nuclear reactors. That is a serious deficiency in an order of this sort. By their very nature, main engines and nuclear reactors for SSNs and SSBNs are quite apart from anything else. Is the order deficient or is the omission deliberate?
  I have great respect and regard for the hon. Member for Drake, but I advise her not to look at the crystal ball when she can read the book. The thrust of the Brown and Root operations in the United Kingdom is oil related. The concept of an oil-related rig yard is to have a core labour force and to add to it when orders come in. I know something of the yard because I went to Nigg bay during its early operations. It is part of Highland "Fab", of which Brown and Root is a major participant. It may be suitable for oil-related work but it is not suitable for a dockyard operation, where we are looking for continuity of skill and workpeople. I offer that to right hon. and hon. Members who represent Devonport.
  I am not sanguine about Rosyth. I also prefer to read the book and not look at the crystal ball. We are told that Mr. Allan Smith, the managing director designate, is already in the yard. He seems to be quite an honest fellow. in an interview that he gave a few weeks ago in Spotlight, he said:
  "I have a contention which I believe is fundamental. You should never tell an employee a lie."
  That is good so far as it goes. We are told that later on we are likely to get the redundancy figures. Mr. Smith says:
  "There is no need for anything other than natural wastage and, in certain cases, limited voluntary redundancy.
  Enforced redundancy is a last resort which we would wish to avoid under any circumstances."
  As Mr. Smith is in the yard, I presume that the consultation process will become meaningful and that someone will have told the Minister what redundancies he can communicate to the work force.
  Further on in the interview, Mr. Smith is asked:
  "Will pay scales within the new company be substantially different from the present Civil Servant rates?"
  Employees want to know that. Mr. Smith's answer is interesting:

  129
  "Pay scales will be related to the success of Rosyth Dockyard. All employees' earnings are related to company earnings. I don't see that anyone would allow us to cut wages."
  There is no guarantee in that. There is no guarantee that the remuneration of the work force will be commensurate with what it is now earning. That is a bit of sleight of hand. It is not a lie that Mr. Smith is telling, but it is certainly something that is a little different from the truth.
  There is also the concept of bringing new work into the yard. Mr. Smith is asked:
  "There is a great deal of mistrust of commercial management in the Dockyard, how will you overcome those fears?"
  Mr. Smith tells us that new work might be coming in. But there is no guarantee about the type of work. He continues:
  "Babcock Thorn have every intention of coming into the Dockyard and staying, not just for the seven years of the Term Contract, but beyond that although a second Term Contract would have to be negotiated."
  Mr. Smith looks forward to other further work, but it is not clear what it will be. Essentially, the dockyard has a guaranteed workload with a core programme. It is always much easier to attract new business if one already has a heavily loaded core programme. One has a yard with a core programme, and trying to attract new work that may not be related to it is the problem. There are real dangers in that.
  Anyone who thinks that this cock-eyed idea will facilitate servicing and keeping the Navy afloat, which is the sole purpose of the dockyard, is stoned out of his tiny mind. It is significant that the Minister cannot move from his brief. He shows the flexibility of mind of someone learning to read by rote. He has no idea whatsoever. I doubt whether he has ever been near a dockyard. I advise him, for goodness sake, not to attempt to go near Rosyth because I would not be willing to guarantee his well-being.
  11.19 pm
  Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: After listening to the Minister tonight, the House will know that I will be the next Member of Parliament for South Hams. We need a swing of about 45 per cent. and anything is possible after listening to the Minister's comments tonight.
  Last Monday the Minister referred to the savings that the exercise would produce. He said that more than £320 million would be saved over the next four years and more than that thereafter. Not one person in Devon, Cornwall or anywhere else in the country would believe that. The Minister did not say where he got the figure from; he probably just thought it up. It was not in his brief tonight. However, perhaps he has the figures in his brief for the redundancies.
  The redundancy figure has varied. Brown and Root estimated the figure to be 2,400 on one occasion and 3,200 on another. The right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) on Monday and again tonight has estimated the figure to be about 6,000 plus about 2,000 indirect job losses. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes) does not know how many redundancies there will be but hopes that they will all be taken up by private work in the dockyard. We hope that the hon. Lady is right. However, I guess that she is not. The industry is in such a state that the amount of work coming from that source will be very marginal indeed.
  I want to thank the Minister for making the arrangements for my visit to Devonport dockyard just
  130
  before the Recess. I must report to the hon. Member for Drake that the people I met did not have anything nice to say about her. She will have to get off the fence before the next election because everyone in Devon and the local authorities in Devon and Cornwall are opposed to the Government's actions at the moment—
  Miss Fookes rose—
  Mr. Hamilton: And many Conservative Members are opposed to this including the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Clark) who says that he will try to get extra money from the Government because of the enormous loss of jobs that will result from this exercise.
  This exercise will be the biggest issue in the election in the south-west, including my Bill for the establishment of a south-west development agency which I asked the right hon. Member for Devonport to support. He refused, as did the hon. Member for Drake. That was a wonderful idea to resolve the unemployment problems of Devon and the south-west, but Conservative Members turned it down, with the exception of the hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Speller) who agreed to sponsor my Bill.
  The consequences of the Government's policy will be devastating in terms of jobs and job opportunities in the south-west. Every hon. Member from the south-west is aware of that. If they had the faith in their convictions that they should have, they would join the Opposition in the Lobby to support the workers in their areas by opposing the Government's dogmatic approach to a very important issue of national security.
  11.22 pm
  Mr. Michael Foot: If there is anything more disgraceful than the proposition that the Government have put before us, it is the way in which they have pushed this measure through the House. I remember vividly on the Second Reading of the Dockyard Services Act 1986 that the former Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) did not even turn up to move the Second Reading.
  On this squalid occasion tonight, the Minister has not answered any of the arguments and the Government have not carried through any of their commitments. They should have consulted properly with the workers concerned. Those discussions and negotiations have been a farce, as everyone who has read the reports in the Western Morning News and elsewhere will be aware. This has been an absolutely disgraceful way in which to treat people who have given tremendous service to this country for nearly 400 years.
  The Royal dockyards have served the nation and the Navy and have been publicly owned. The Government have, without any consultations or commitments to the people involved, wrecked the whole of that process. They cannot even tell us how many people will be thrown out of their jobs and what will happen to those people when they have lost their jobs. They cannot tell us what will happen to the royal dockyards when that happens. As soon as the Labour party wins the next election, we will scrap this measure which should never have been brought before the House.
  11.24 pm
  Mr. Archie Hamilton: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall reply to the debate.
  The right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) wanted details of the information given to the work

  131
  force on pensions. A consultative document on pensions and an outline of the proposed new scheme were sent to the unions in April 1986. The non-industrial unions attended a joint meeting in August 1986 to which the industrial unions were invited. Industrial and nonindustrial unions declined to partake in further discussions until a meeting this month. Our intentions for the new pension scheme are clear. We shall set up schemes which replicate the Civil Service scheme as closely as possible. The consultative document fully illustrates that intention. I hope that the unions will come and talk, which so far they have been slow to do. It is in their interests.
  On redundancy, we have always made it clear that redundancy requirements under the new employer would take full account of reckonable service in the Civil Service pension scheme, would reflect Civil Service redundancy procedures and would pay equivalent levels of benefit. Babcock Thorn and Devonport Management Ltd. have given undertakings, written into the term contract, that existing Civil Service terms will not be changed without negotiation and agreement with the trade unions. A paper setting out those arrangements in more detail will be passed to the unions later this month. I hope that they will come to discuss it.
  I told the hon. Members for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) and for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) that I would tell them about job losses rather than redundancies at Rosyth. Under the Government-owned plc, we forecast 1,160 job losses during the first four years. Since we signed the contract with Babcock Thorn, it has said that it expects no redundancies in the first year, because the workload is such that it will be unnecessary. The company believes that there will be job losses of 200 a year for the next three years. So they will be running at half the rate that we expected under a Government-owned plc. It is expected that those losses will be covered by natural wastage, although there will be some voluntary redundancies. It is highly unlikely that there will be compulsory redundancies.
  If either of those hon. Members was my Member of Parliament, I would resent the alarm and despondency that they are trying to spread among the work force at Rosyth. It is the most appalling nonsense, when one considers that those job losses will be covered by natural wastage. What on earth do they think they are doing?
  As the House will know, for Devonport we have only a preferred contractor, although my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State wishes to make a decision on the future of Devonport later this month. In those circumstances, we cannot come to a firm agreement over job losses there.
  Mr. Gordon Brown: Does the Minister accept that 600 redundancies in an area of high unemployment are wholly unacceptable and unnecessary? What is the status of the assurance from Babcock International about the first year of the contract?
  Mr. Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman did not hear me. They are not 600 redundancies; they are 600 job losses, and most will come from natural wastage. It is a great pity that he cannot even hear.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, South-East (Mr. Hicks) reflected the worry at Devonport. I accept that, but we must remember that what is worrying the work force at Devonport is the falling workload of the
  132
  naval refitting programme. That would be a problem whatever management we had at Devonport. We have always believed that if we introduced private contractor management to Devonport, much more work would be brought in. My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes) also mentioned that. We cannot avoid the problem of a declining workload. Far fewer ships are coming in to be refitted, and we must amelioratethe job losses whatever form of management the dockyard has. My hon. Friend the Member for Drake was right to say that we must make the decision now. I am glad that she does not share the gloom and doom of Opposition Members. She is right not to.
  Apprentices were mentioned. This matter is an important criterion when assessing the bids. Both Babcock Thorn and Devonport Management Ltd. have stated a commitment to apprentices and the continuation of training. Babcock Thorn intends to take on about 100 at Rosyth in 1987 and Devonport Management Ltd. intends to take on about 125 or 150 in 1987 and much the same in the following two years, according to its preliminary indications.
  The hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) has great ambitions in the west country, as we can see, but I am not sure that they are shared by many right hon. and hon. Members. My hon. Friend—
  It being half-past Eleven o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Prayers against statutory instruments, &c. (negative procedure)).
  The House divided: Ayes 104, Noes 152.

  Division No. 86]

  [11.30 pm

  AYES

  Alton, David

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Anderson, Donald

  Foster, Derek

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Foulkes, George

  Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

  George, Bruce

  Barron, Kevin

  Godman, Dr Norman

  Beckett, Mrs Margaret

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Hamilton, James (M'well N)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)

  Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

  Hancock, Michael

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Hardy, Peter

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

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Caborn, Richard

  Haynes, Frank

  Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

  Hicks, Robert

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

  Howells, Geraint

  Clay, Robert

  Hoyle, Douglas

  Clelland, David Gordon

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Coleman, Donald

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

  Kennedy, Charles

  Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Corbett, Robin

  Lamond, James

  Crowther, Stan

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Dalyell, Tam

  Leighton, Ronald

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

  Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

  Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

  Livsey, Richard

  Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Dewar, Donald

  Loyden, Edward

  Dixon, Donald

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Dormand, Jack

  McNamara, Kevin

  Douglas, Dick

  Marek, Dr John

  Dubs, Alfred

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Eadie, Alex

  Maxton, John

  Eastham, Ken

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Evans, John (St. Helens N)

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Fatchett, Derek

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

  Nellist, David

  Fisher, Mark

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  133

  O'Brien, William

  Skinner, Dennis

  O'Neill. Martin

  Soley, Clive

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Spearing, Nigel

  Park, George

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Patchett, Terry

  Strang, Gavin

  Pike, Peter

  Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Wallace, James

  Redmond, Martin

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

  Wareing, Robert

  Rogers, Allan

  Welsh, Michael

  Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

  Winnick, David

  Rowlands, Ted

  Sheerman, Barry

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

  Mr. John McWilliam and

  Silkin, Rt Hon J.

  Mr. Allen McKay.

  NOES

  Alexander, Richard

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Amess, David

  Dover, Den

  Ancram, Michael

  Dunn, Robert

  Ashby, David

  Durant, Tony

  Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

  Evennett, David

  Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Fallon, Michael

  Baldry, Tony

  Favell, Anthony

  Bellingham, Henry

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Forman, Nigel

  Blackburn, John

  Forth, Eric

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Franks, Cecil

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

  Bottomley, Peter

  Gale, Roger

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Galley, Roy

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Bright, Graham

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Brinton, Tim

  Gow, Ian

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Bruinvels, Peter

  Gregory, Conal

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

  Budgen, Nick

  Ground, Patrick

  Burt, Alistair

  Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

  Butterfill, John

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Carttiss, Michael

  Hannam, John

  Cash, William

  Hargreaves, Kenneth

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Harris, David

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Harvey, Robert

  Chope, Christopher

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)

  Cockeram, Eric

  Hawksley, Warren

  Cope, John

  Hayes, J.

  Couchman, James

  Hayward, Robert

  Crouch, David

  Heddle, John

  134

  Hickmet, Richard

  Mills, Iain (Meriden)

  Hind, Kenneth

  Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

  Hirst, Michael

  Moate, Roger

  Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

  Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

  Holt, Richard

  Murphy, Christopher

  Howard, Michael

  Neubert, Michael

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

  Newton, Tony

  Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

  Norris, Steven

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Hubbard-Miles, Peter

  Ottaway, Richard

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Page, Sir John (Harrow W)

  Jackson, Robert

  Page, Richard (Herts SW)

  Jessel, Toby

  Pawsey, James

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Key, Robert

  Pollock, Alexander

  King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Powley, John

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Price, Sir David

  Knowles, Michael

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Lawler, Geoffrey

  Raffan, Keith

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Lester, Jim

  Rowe, Andrew

  Lilley, Peter

  Ryder, Richard

  Lord, Michael

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  McCurley, Mrs Anna

  Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

  Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

  Maclean, David John

  Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Thurnham, Peter

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

  Wheeler, John

  Madel, David

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Major, John

  Wood, Timothy

  Marlow, Antony

  Mather, Sir Carol

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Mr. David Lightbown and.

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Mr. Michael Portillo.

  Question accordingly negatived.

  Dockyard Services (Devonport) Order

    PRIVILEGES
    Ordered,
    That Mr. Attorney General be discharged from the Committee of Privileges and Mr. Solicitor General be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]

  Education Reorganisation (Sutton)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]
  11.40 pm
  Mr. Neil Macfarlane: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for giving time this evening to answer a debate about a subject of enormous concern to my constituents in Sutton, Cheam and Worcester Park. That concern is felt equally by my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman), who hopes to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, when I have finished my speech.
  I fully appreciate the locus under which the Department of Education and Science has to operate when considering these proposals, which ultimately come to the Secretary of State. I fully understand the quasi-judicial role of my hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State over the next few months. These are early days in considering the radical and debilitating options that have been offered to Sutton's residents by the alliance council.
  I ask my hon. Friend to look at the problem facing parents in Sutton as they try to fathom the reasons behind these damaging, destructive and extreme proposals. Let no one be in any doubt—they have all the hallmarks of Socialism, reminiscent of the 1970s, when the Lib-Lab pact did so much to undermine the country. Education in Sutton is now being undermined, and, if the residents do not make their feelings known, we are in for a decade of educational chaos, rather like those years in the 1960s, when other local education authorities embarked on a programme of chaos, thus generating some of the disasters in national standards.
  In Sutton, we have not had disasters until now. My hon. Friend knows well that Sutton has always had a high success rate, and any analysis will show it to be one of the top three education authorities. I find it impossible to comprehend the thinking behind these options—if any thinking has been done. It seems on the face of it to be pure political dogma. Before I offer that theory, we must look at the individuals involved in encouraging our people in Sutton to follow them down the path of social destruction. The social consequences on the community are the first item that we have to consider.
  It is revealing to note that in the ranks on the new alliance council in Sutton there is a plethora of social scientists. I will not be uncharitable about that profession, because there is no doubt a worthy function for it. However, I fear that not much social science has gone into their thinking on the options paper.
  There is widespread anxiety in the teaching profession over these issues. All the work done by our excellent head teachers and their staffs will be lost, and in Sutton we have a devoted teaching force. There is concern among parents, especially those whose youngsters are in primary school or just embarking on their secondary schooling. Anxiety in the home quickly affects youngsters, and any talk of major reorganisation tends to destabilise the community. By the nature of things, it will be prolonged, and thus have an enormous impact. There is no progress in schools when there is reorganisation. There is simply regression, and that is bad for the confidence of the teaching staff, parents and pupils. It undermines many socio-economic factors. Many people are put off moving into the area; housing prices can be affected; it can undermine commerce and
  136
  industry in many ways. Therefore the social factors are absolutely critical. There are many areas that we have to look at, but social factors are an essential element in our consideration of these problems.
  As for financing such a project, it looks as though Sutton has a looming problem over rates. I predict huge increases for my constituents before the year is out. One knows that the authority is increasing the number of staff and that it has retained the Marketing and Opinion Research Institute to handle the public consultation exercise for rates and local services. Even without the cost of education reorganisation, which admittedly would be over a period of years, we are heading for the title "Big spender of the south." I must warn my constituents to read the small print of the questionnaires very closely, because these papers are not what at first they appear to be.
  We can take comfort from the words of Lord Diplock in a judgment in 1983. He said that a rating authority owes a duty to its ratepayers to deploy the full financial resources available to them, to the best advantage. Equally we know that section 76 of the Education Act 1944 also has the effect that a local authority is required to avoid "unreasonable public expenditure."
  The Audit Commission has also made some important observations, detailing some of the steps that should be taken. It said that the authority should
  "determine the cost of doing nothing in financial and educational terms before any options are considered."
  It goes on to say that rumours are more damaging than reality and that the council should release a discussion paper outlining the problem and the cost of doing nothing and also publish the full range of options, with the cost and educational options spelt out for discussions before the local education authority decides what course to adopt.
  I noted, too, in the publication "Education" dated 3 October 1986 an article by the deputy chief education officer of Devon, a county that is also going through this particular reorganisation scheme. He said:
  "It is necessary in any but the simplest scheme to have a second round of public consultations where the preferred option of the council is presented."
  Time will tell whether we have a local authority in Sutton that recognises expertise and advice. At the moment it appears to be hell-bent on pursuing political dogma.
  I turn to the third category that I want to examine—education in Sutton. It is a vital area for consideration. I must emphasise that my grave concern about the future of our young people in no way hinges upon grammar schools versus comprehensive schools. In Sutton we have a range of schools. Anybody who studies the prospectus of the local authority will see that that is so. I am anxious to retain the system that has served us and that is serving our youngsters so well. I cannot stress that point too strongly. It is serving us extremely well.
  I said at the outset that our record is in the top echelon of the nation's educational achievement. The statistics show it, from the Inner London education authority's statistical survey to the recent Sheffield survey that was published not only in the Daily Express but in The Times Educational Supplement, which carried it on 30 January 1987. Indeed, in its statistical bulletin 13/84 the Department of Education and Science shows, in a regression analysis, that Sutton is the only local education authority among the London boroughs to have better actual passes than that forecast, or "fitted", by my hon. Friend's Department.

  137
  I shall quote the two extremes. I refer to the assessment of the London borough of Sutton by the Department of Education and Science. It said that no graded results should reveal a percentage of just under 8 per cent. Actual passes were just on 6·5 per cent. At the other extreme an assessment made by the Department of Education and Science suggested that those with one or more higher graded passes at O level or CSE should be 57·7 per cent. Sutton achieved over 60 per cent. In the category of one or more passes at A level, the suggested forecast figure by the Department is 18·8 per cent. Sutton achieved nearly 25 per cent. That gives some idea of how successful and effective we are.
  Those statistics are open to everybody, wherever they may be, to review. Anybody who studies them will conclude that we have excellent results under the present system. Her Majesty's inspectorate report of 1983 recognised the all-round competence of Sutton's education system. I offer one comment from that report. The report says:
  "The secondary schools are pleasant, well-ordered institutions, with hard-working and committed teachers. The courtesy and discipline of pupils and students is impressive—the achievement of pupils is generally satisfactory. Pupil achievements in public examination is good and teachers in Sutton's secondary schools are more likely to be graduates than the national average."
  That is not a bad series of recommendations to begin with. If we had more time in this debate I could enhance the evidence for the local education authority to note. I and Conservative councillors in Sutton have tried to elicit from the council what reasons it has for wishing to smash a good system. It is clear that reorganisation is not necessary as a result of falling rolls because the local education authority, under Conservative leadership, and under the education committee chairmanship of Mrs. Mavis Peart, took some difficult and unpopular decisions and closed four schools, taking out all the surplus places that it was necessary to take out. That was consistent with the need to allow for the expansion in rolls in the early 1990s. That fact is well acknowledged by the district auditor. In stark contrast, many other local authorities have had serious problems with falling rolls and surplus places and some are having a second and third reorganisation within 15 years. That is destabilising, but not so in Sutton's case where stability was acknowledged by the careers inspectors.
  Another argument that I have heard used in favour of reorganisation in the council is what it claims is lack of opportunities for a wide range of subjects in either grammar or secondary modern schools. This is arrant nonsense, because Greenshaw comprehensive school in my constituency offers 23 CSE opportunities. Cheam high school, which is a secondary modern, offers 29, and it is the same throughout the borough. There is an enormous range of opportunities. We have linked courses with the college of further education, TVEI CPVE and so on. There is a broad curriculum and to say that there is not is to demonstrate ignorance. It is disappointing to note that the council has refused to offer the status quo as an option in its so-called consultation. That is against the advice of just about every organisation and, indeed, the circular from the Department of my hon. Friend the Minister. I rather feel that someone in Sutton's education committee is, perhaps, pursuing a personal vendetta against his or her former school and that that is the target of the strategy. I notice that twice in council the alliance voted against further consultation on a preferred option
  138
  and my evidence so far is that this so-called consultation is meaningless, because parents have to unravel nine listed options, all of which, inevitably, mean change. Where is the leadership?
  There are so many disadvantages to reorganisation on comprehensive lines and even more with a break at 16 years of age. First, we would have total chaos and disruption for a minimum of 10 years. Secondly, the proposals will have a disastrous effect on the staff. Thirdly, quite clearly the proposal is wholly unnecessary in the education sense. Fourthly, there will be more mixed schools, which most parents dislike. Fifthly, schools will become larger, and social problems are likely to start. Sixthly, there will be endless disruption for pupils between the ages of 16 and 18 as the local education authority tries to set up a tertiary college, and the problem will be compounded if the denominational schools refuse to join in.
  The cost of building a new tertiary college or an extension at Carshalton college of further education would seem never-ending to the ratepayer. Disruption would be prolonged for the student. That is further evidence of the total disarray that we could expect—all because the alliance says that it has a manifesto commitment. Judging by the results of the election last May, I tend to doubt that.
  The alliance says a great many things about its reasoning for going comprehensive and encouraging 11 to 16 schools. It says that the 11-plus is too restrictive on the primary school curriculum and that it dominates work in all primary schools. That is nonsense. What does a child have to undertake—merely two verbal reasoning tests and one practical test? Head teachers are under instruction not to coach or pressure the children. The alliance claims also that the 11-plus puts pressure on parents. It says that it is considering banding- testing children at 11 plus—to allocate different abilities fairly between comprehensive schools. Furthermore, I am told that the chairman of the education committee has said that the alliance does
  "not object to tests—just to the pressure it puts on parents".
  The alliance council says also that the 11-plus is not an accurate prediction at that age for sorting out children into different schools and thus influencing future careers. That, too, is nonsense. Pupils can and do transfer, but not many do because, in general, parents are totally satisfied and do not seek a transfer for their children.
  I note with growing anxiety further pronouncements from the alliance group. It says that secondary modern schools cannot provide a full range of advanced level subjects and that, therefore, the pupils are at a disadvantage. That is absurd. Non-selective pupils do not, on the whole, have the ability to take advantage of a full range of A-levels. At the Greenshaw comprehensive school, non-selective pupils in the main do not take the A-level courses. They opt for CPVE, one-year re-sits, CET, and so on. In addition, pupils can transfer from one school to another or to Carshalton college of further education. The message that must be put across to the alliance council in Sutton is that, nowadays, at 16 years of age there is a choice.
  The council tells us that the comprehensive system offers all pupils similar opportunities. Our present system offers all those same opportunities. The non-selective schools have the same range of subject options as the comprehensive school. Changing the system will not make any difference. The alliance council also says that our

  139
  grammar schools offer solely academic subjects. That is patently absurd, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State understands. Business studies, TVEI, CDT are part of a grammar school curriculum.
  The council's paper, which is now available for analysis, states:
  "This leaflet invites you to help decide the future pattern of secondary education in Sutton. The move to a comprehensive system is a tremendous opportunity to make real improvements in the quality of our schools and the Council is determined to let everyone have a say in how this can best be done.
  The Council decided to move to a comprehensive system"
  Where is the choice? That is the alliance council's interpretation of consultation. It is decided by the committee; it is now a fait accompli. There is nothing liberal about these proposals.
  But the most challenging issue facing teachers and parents is the alliance proposal in the paper to go for a tertiary college for students at age 16. This is a major break with our tradition in Sutton. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will recall that, in the early part of this decade, I chaired a research group inquiring into education for 16 to 19-year-olds which was composed of all interested organisations. I do not think that that system is suitable for Sutton. It may well be suitable in some large metropolitan cities. A break at 16 may be beneficial. But at Sutton parents, teachers and head teachers will have to think very carefully before caving in to pressure from the alliance for this wholly new dimension to education in Sutton.
  The future position is made clear in the option paper:
  "In Sutton the tertiary college would be based on the present site and premises of Carshalton College. The premises would have to be extended and would cater for about 2,200 full-time equivalent students instead of 1,400 as at present."
  Everything that we read about the proposals is a mess. If the proposals go ahead, I foresee a barren wasteland for education in Sutton, especialy in the 16–19 years age group. I see that for an entire generation and beyond. These proposals are disreputable, deceitful and designed to destroy.
  Mr. Nigel Forman rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. Does the hon. Gentleman have the consent of the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Macfarlane) and the Minister?
  Mr. Forman: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  I shall speak briefly in the strongest possible terms in support of my hon. Friend and his carefully researched speech. The proposed reorganisation of Sutton schools will be damaging, disruptive and expensive. It will be damaging to schools of proven worth, such as Wallington boys school and Wallington girls school. It will be disruptive to an excellent local education system which caters successfully for the full range of pupils and educational needs. It might force certain schools, such as Wilson's, which are an asset to the borough into the private sector. It will be expensive. Estimates of the cost of going comprehensive vary, but the figure could be as high as £12 million to £14 million for building works alone.
  My hon. Friend has already quoted the chairman of the local education committee, who claims that the move to a comprehensive system will provide a tremendous
  140
  opportunity to raise quality. I strongly dispute that. The quality of Sutton schools is high. Parents have been in the habit of moving into the borough for the quality of education provided, and the only consequence of such a damaging reorganisation will be to lower standards and demoralise pupils, staff and parents alike.
  It is pretty good cheek for Mr. Penneck, the chairman of the local education committee, to end his message in the popular version of the consultation document by saying:
  "Your Council wants to hear from you".
  What a slippery contrast to the local election campaign of last spring, when the alliance parties were careful to disguise their true preference for a comprehensive system.
  What is on offer now to parents and pupils is nothing more than a damaging, disruptive, Socialist-inspired plan to go comprehensive smuggled into the realm of political possibility in a false alliance prospectus. At the least, local people should be encouraged to go out and cast their votes for the existing system, the status quo. Any other outcome would be an act of gratuitous vandalism by local alliance and Labour politicians, who should know better if they claim to be in touch with local feelings. I appeal to them to think again before it is too late. If they do not, they will bear a heavy responsibility for which the vast majority of local people and my constituents will not forgive them.
  12.3 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Bob Dunn): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Macfarlane) on obtaining this early Adjournment debate on the proposed reorganisation of secondary education in the London borough of Sutton. I am grateful, too, for the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman). I should also like to pay tribute to my good friend, Mrs. Mavis Peart, for all the good work that she has done in the past and will continue to do in the future in the London borough of Sutton. I am aware that this issue is currently stimulating a great deal of local interest and discussion.
  As my hon. Friends know, a standard set of procedures comes into play when a local education authority wishes to change the organisation or pattern of provision of its schools. These procedures are laid down by sections 12 to 16 of the Education Act 1980. Briefly, the requirements are that when a local education authority or, in certain circumstances, the providers of a voluntary school wish to establish, discontinue or alter the character or size of a school they must publish proposals explaining their intentions.
  During the two-month period following publication, it is open to interested parties to submit objections to the proposals. If such objections are made, or if the Secretary of State has given appropriate notice to the local education authority, or if the school concerned is a voluntary school, the proposals fall to be decided by the Secretary of State and may not be implemented without his approval.
  I should also mention that, although it is not a requirement of the Act, it has been established in the courts that those likely to be affected by proposals have a legitimate expectation to be consulted before such proposals are made. I understand that Sutton LEA has now reached that stage. It has issued a consultation paper seeking observations on a number of options with a view to publishing proposals later in the year.

  141
  When the Secretary of State is deciding on proposals to establish, discontinue or alter schools, he is under a general duty to act fairly. In other words, he must judge each proposal or set of proposals on its merits, taking into account both the arguments of those making the proposals and the views of those objecting to them.
  My hon. Friends will, I am sure, understand that it is important for the Secretary of State to avoid prejudging the issues involved in such proposals. They will not, therefore, expect me to say anything about the proposed reorganisation that is the subject of this debate. I hope, however, that they will accept my assurance that I have
  142
  listened very carefully to what has been said tonight, and that the points will be taken into account, along with other representations that we may receive, before a decision is reached on any proposals that may come to my right hon. Friend.
  I thank my hon. Friends for the great interest that they have shown in the issues that they have brought before the House. I note their remarks most carefully.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at six minutes past Twelve o'clock.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS
  Overseas Allowances
  Overseas Allowances
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  State Security
  State Security
  Child Destruction
  Child Destruction
  Housing Disputes
  Housing Disputes
  Justices of the Peace
  Justices of the Peace
  Diplomatic Immunity
  Diplomatic Immunity
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Radio Telephone Licences
  Radio Telephone Licences
  Disabled People
  Disabled People
  Hearing Aids
  Hearing Aids
  Tropical Forests
  Tropical Forests
  Household Bleach
  Household Bleach
  South Africa
  South Africa
  Surinam
  Surinam
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Prevention of Terrorism
  Prevention of Terrorism
  News International, Wapping
  News International, Wapping
  Safety Glass
  Safety Glass
  Government Data Network
  Government Data Network
  Satellite Broadcasting
  Satellite Broadcasting
  Drink Driving
  Drink Driving
  Rape
  Rape
  Removal of Vehicles
  Removal of Vehicles
  Detainees' Property
  Detainees' Property
  Infant Life (Preservation) Act
  Infant Life (Preservation) Act
  Wandsworth Prison
  Wandsworth Prison
SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND
  State Security
  State Security
ENERGY
  Power Stations
  Power Stations
  Electricity Supply Industry
  Electricity Supply Industry
  Sizewell B
  Sizewell B
  Electricity Generation
  Electricity Generation
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Falkland Islands (Fisheries)
  Falkland Islands (Fisheries)
  Turkey
  Turkey
  Cyprus
  Cyprus
  BBC World Service
  BBC World Service
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Birkenhead (School Merger)
  Birkenhead (School Merger)
  Class Sizes
  Class Sizes
  West Hatch School, Chigwell
  West Hatch School, Chigwell
  School Meals
  School Meals
  Education Act 1981
  Education Act 1981
  Lancashire County Council
  Lancashire County Council
  Liverpool University
  Liverpool University
  School Accommodation
  School Accommodation
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Petroleum Revenue Tax
  Petroleum Revenue Tax
  European Community Budget
  European Community Budget
  Government Data Network
  Government Data Network
  Capital Transfer Tax
  Capital Transfer Tax
  Small Businesses
  Small Businesses
  Energy Saving
  Energy Saving
  Covenants (Tax Relief)
  Covenants (Tax Relief)
  Higher Rate Taxpayers
  Higher Rate Taxpayers
  VAT
  VAT
  Disabled People
  Disabled People
  EC (Own Resources)
  EC (Own Resources)
  Stamp Duty
  Stamp Duty
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Rural Economy
  Rural Economy
  Grey Seals
  Grey Seals
  Sheep Farmers
  Sheep Farmers
  Bees (Varroasis)
  Bees (Varroasis)
  Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowances
  Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowances
  Green Pound
  Green Pound
  Beef
  Beef
  Pork
  Pork
  Suckler Cow Premium
  Suckler Cow Premium
  EEC Food Exports
  EEC Food Exports
TRANSPORT
  Motorways (Warning Systems)
  Motorways (Warning Systems)
  A1-M1 Link Road
  A1-M1 Link Road
  Motorway Service Areas
  Motorway Service Areas
  PSV Tests
  PSV Tests
  Motorways (Facilities)
  Motorways (Facilities)
  M3 (Barend to Chilworth)
  M3 (Barend to Chilworth)
  Heavy Lorries
  Heavy Lorries
  Motor Vehicles (Child Restraints)
  Motor Vehicles (Child Restraints)
  A38(M) Birmingham
  A38(M) Birmingham
  Fishing Industry (Light Dues)
  Fishing Industry (Light Dues)
  BREL (Crewe)
  BREL (Crewe)
  Trains (Punctuality)
  Trains (Punctuality)
  Trunk Roads
  Trunk Roads
  Car Ownership
  Car Ownership
  British Airways
  British Airways
EMPLOYMENT
  Hotels and Guest Houses (Insurance)
  Hotels and Guest Houses (Insurance)
  Jobcentres (Staffing)
  Jobcentres (Staffing)
  Job Clubs
  Job Clubs
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Skill Shortages
  Skill Shortages
  Special Employment Programmes
  Special Employment Programmes
  Community Programme
  Community Programme
  Liverpool Royal Institute
  Liverpool Royal Institute
  Liverpool Heritage Developments Ltd.
  Liverpool Heritage Developments Ltd.
  Manpower Services Commission Schemes
  Manpower Services Commission Schemes
  Sizewell Public Inquiry
  Sizewell Public Inquiry
  Manufacturing Jobs
  Manufacturing Jobs
  Average Incomes
  Average Incomes
  Training
  Training
  Small Firms
  Small Firms
  Table Office (Computerisation)
  Table Office (Computerisation)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Opposition Parties (Financial Assistance)
  Opposition Parties (Financial Assistance)
THE ARTS
  British Rail Pension Fund
  British Rail Pension Fund
SCOTLAND
  Mental Patients
  Mental Patients
  Chiropodists
  Chiropodists
  National Health Service Property (Sales)
  National Health Service Property (Sales)
  NHS Property (Closures)
  NHS Property (Closures)
  NHS (Job Losses)
  NHS (Job Losses)
  Hospital Beds
  Hospital Beds
  Accommodation Assistance
  Accommodation Assistance
  Cervical Cancer
  Cervical Cancer
  Disabled Children
  Disabled Children
  Grey Seals
  Grey Seals
  Drug Misuser Groups
  Drug Misuser Groups
  Light Dues
  Light Dues
  Farmers (Bank Borrowings)
  Farmers (Bank Borrowings)
  Disabled People
  Disabled People
  Teacher Training
  Teacher Training
  Neo-natal Deaths
  Neo-natal Deaths
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Rates (Non-payment)
  Rates (Non-payment)
  National Health Service Hospitals
  National Health Service Hospitals
  Anglo-Irish Agreement
  Anglo-Irish Agreement
  Housing
  Housing
  Appointments (Disabled People)
  Appointments (Disabled People)
  Special Educational Needs
  Special Educational Needs
  Handicapped Children
  Handicapped Children
  Education Expenditure
  Education Expenditure
  Cash Limits
  Cash Limits
WALES
  Improvement and Repair Grants
  Improvement and Repair Grants
  Rhondda Valley
  Rhondda Valley
  Housing Starts
  Housing Starts
  Home Education
  Home Education
  Welsh Language
  Welsh Language
  Cardiodiagnostic and Cardiac Surgery Unit
  Cardiodiagnostic and Cardiac Surgery Unit
  YTS
  YTS
  Rural Economy
  Rural Economy
  Machynlleth (Hospitals)
  Machynlleth (Hospitals)
  NHS (Corporate Programme)
  NHS (Corporate Programme)
  Water and Sewerage Facilities
  Water and Sewerage Facilities
  NHS Hospitals
  NHS Hospitals
  NHS Property
  NHS Property
  NHS Staff
  NHS Staff
  Hospital Beds
  Hospital Beds
  Long-Stay Mental Patients
  Long-Stay Mental Patients
  Legislation
  Legislation
  Handicapped Children
  Handicapped Children
  Doctors
  Doctors
  Dentists
  Dentists
  Dentistry (Cost)
  Dentistry (Cost)
  Hospital Patients
  Hospital Patients
  Health Care
  Health Care
  NHS Expenditure
  NHS Expenditure
  Prescriptions
  Prescriptions
  Spectacles
  Spectacles
  Doctors
  Doctors
  Patient Costs
  Patient Costs
  Drugs
  Drugs
  Hospital Budget
  Hospital Budget
DEFENCE
  Precision Guided Munition System
  Precision Guided Munition System
  Phoenix Project
  Phoenix Project
  Air Defence Systems
  Air Defence Systems
  DROPS
  DROPS
  Cash limits
  Cash limits
  "Keeping the Peace"
  "Keeping the Peace"
  Defence Projects
  Defence Projects
  Boeing AWACS
  Boeing AWACS
  Orbital Slots
  Orbital Slots
PRIME MINISTER
  Alcohol
  Alcohol
  Nurses
  Nurses
  Accommodation (Public Servants)
  Accommodation (Public Servants)
  Pay Increases
  Pay Increases
  Draught-Proofing
  Draught-Proofing
  Children's Play
  Children's Play
ENVIRONMENT
  Canary Wharf
  Canary Wharf
  Town and Country Planning
  Town and Country Planning
  Photochemical Oxidants Review Group
  Photochemical Oxidants Review Group
  Atmospheric Effects Review Group
  Atmospheric Effects Review Group
  Acid Rain and Tree Damage
  Acid Rain and Tree Damage
  Water Pollution
  Water Pollution
  Less Prosperous Regions
  Less Prosperous Regions
  Animal Snares
  Animal Snares
  Anti-Apartheid Group
  Anti-Apartheid Group
  Park Vista, Greenwich
  Park Vista, Greenwich
  Radiation
  Radiation
  Deep Mining (Environmental Effects)
  Deep Mining (Environmental Effects)
  Automobile Emissions
  Automobile Emissions
  Houses (Radon Levels)
  Houses (Radon Levels)
  National Parks
  National Parks
  Sports Council
  Sports Council
  Flooding
  Flooding
  Housing Costs
  Housing Costs
  Derelict Land Grant
  Derelict Land Grant
  Household Formation
  Household Formation
  Football Clubs
  Football Clubs
  Local Authority Finance
  Local Authority Finance
  Children's Play
  Children's Play
  Lancaster House
  Lancaster House
  Fuel Consumption
  Fuel Consumption
  Rates
  Rates
  Housing Costs
  Housing Costs
  Home Ownership
  Home Ownership
  Homelessness
  Homelessness
  Urban Development Corporations
  Urban Development Corporations
  Docklands
  Docklands
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Organ Transplants
  Organ Transplants
  Hepatitis
  Hepatitis
  AIDS
  AIDS
  Benefits
  Benefits
  Disabled People
  Disabled People
  Dialysis
  Dialysis
  Alternative Care
  Alternative Care
  NHS (Closures)
  NHS (Closures)
  NHS Staffing
  NHS Staffing
  Hospital Beds
  Hospital Beds
  NHS (Property Sales)
  NHS (Property Sales)
  NHS Statistics
  NHS Statistics
  Mental Hospitals
  Mental Hospitals
  Soya Milk
  Soya Milk
  Corporal Punishment
  Corporal Punishment
  Severe Weather Payments
  Severe Weather Payments
  Heating Allowance
  Heating Allowance
  NHS (Expenditure)
  NHS (Expenditure)
  Patient Records
  Patient Records
  Birth Statistics
  Birth Statistics
  Draught-proofing
  Draught-proofing
  Mr. and Mrs. Donoghue
  Mr. and Mrs. Donoghue
  Benefit Office (Dispute)
  Benefit Office (Dispute)
  Handicapped Children
  Handicapped Children
  Maternity Payments
  Maternity Payments
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Casepaper Location
  Casepaper Location
  Abortions
  Abortions
  Mortgage Interest Payments
  Mortgage Interest Payments
  Leukaemia
  Leukaemia
  Single Payments (Birmingham)
  Single Payments (Birmingham)

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

Drugs: Customs Seizures
Lord Rodney: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what conclusions they draw from the Customs and Excise drugs statistics for 1986.
The Secretary of State for Employment (Lord Young of Graffham): My Lords, because drug misuse and trafficking are illicit activities and subject to changes in fashion, it is difficult to draw firm conclusions from the provisional Customs drug seizure statistics for 1986 which were announced last month.
The approximate 45 per cent. drop in heroin seizures reflects a similar decrease in other western European countries. Together with a marked reduction in the purity of heroin seized at import and a slight increase in street prices, this suggests that less illicit heroin was in circulation in 1986. However, despite these encouraging signs, the Government do not consider that there is room for complacency. Heroin is still a significant problem and the continued rise in Customs seizures of cocaine and amphetamines is of great concern.
Lord Rodney: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend the Minister for that very interesting reply. Can he tell the House whether any progress is being made on the development of automatic detection devices for drugs?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend, but, alas, I am unable to inform the House at this moment whether progress is being made in new devices for detecting drugs. I shall however write to my noble friend and put a copy of the letter in the Library. We must be a little cautious about the precise changes in technology lest those who are interested find out too much.
Lord Shaughnessy: My Lords, can the noble Lord the Minister tell us what progress, if any, is being made in combating the production and trafficking of illegal drugs in the source and transit countries before they reach these shores?
Lord Young of Graffham: Yes, my Lords. We are, of course, in concert with our European neighbours, placing officers in many of the countries from which these drugs emanate. We have, in the whole of this field, the demonstration of an unfortunate use of enterprise. It is important that we should look at the sources of drugs and see what steps we can take to
420
reduce their export potential. But it is also important that we keep these matters under as close a scrutiny as possible ourselves.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that we shall study the final figures with very great interest when these are published? In the meantime, does the noble Lord now realise that the operation of free market forces, to which the Government are so much addicted, is proving in this field most difficult for them to control?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for his ingenuity in somehow once again being able to bring the general economic picture into this field. Happily, we live in a market economy; happily we benefit greatly from it, but occasionally, we have to look at some small aspect of it.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, arising out of the question of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, is not the obvious answer to nationalise the production of this product and thereby diminish it?
Lord Hooson: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that there is a perceptible change of attitude, particularly among young people, towards drug taking, and is this not the result of much more publicity being given to its effects? Are there not signs of resistance in the increased price on the street where the number of purchasers has gone down?
Lord Young of Graffham: Yes, my Lords. But this is a field of changing fashions. While it is true that our provisional figures show a 45 per cent. decrease in the amount of heroin seized, there was a 20 per cent. increase in the amount of cocaine. We have to keep a close watch on this whole developing field and see what steps we can take at the right time.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, did my noble friend read a report a couple of days ago about a large quantity of drugs from Nigeria? Would Her Majesty's Government consider putting a customs officer in Nigeria as they have done in Pakistan and various other countries?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, at the present time we have two drug liaison officers in Pakistan, two in India, two in Latin America, one in the Caribbean and one in the Mediterranean area. Another is shortly to be posted in Europe. I shall certainly take note of the noble Lord's suggestion and communicate with the relevant authorities.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the Government's difficulty in following the advice offered to it by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, is that under current profit ratios, the Government would immediately privatise it?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am grateful for the great effort that is required to climb once again to the commanding heights of industry.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, is not what is really important the number of officers who can be appointed to this very important job? I refer not merely to increased office staff but, if I may use a very old-fashioned phrase, to the number of riding officers who are actually on the ground, going round and investigating the matter? Can the noble Lord give us any figures?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, the number of preventative staff is going up. It should be of some comfort to all in your Lordships' House that last year the number of arrests went up by 37 per cent. and the number of seizures by 19 per cent. I do not believe that numbers of people are as important as their output in the number of arrests.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does the Minister agree that in this vicious and terrible business of illegal drugs, the real contribution in efforts to reduce it and to bring it under ultimate control comes from the public sector? The officials that he has named, such as the Customs and Excise, are all folk in the public sector. Do Ministers not think that they deserve some credit for their endeavours?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, it is extremely difficult not to give credit to Customs officers, to the police and to all of the public sector for their great endeavours. This is hardly an activity for the private sector.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the recent swoop by the Spanish police on some British people living in Spain and trafficking in drugs is most encouraging?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I think that we should all take credit when the police swoop on any nationalities anywhere in order to reduce this vile trade.

Iran: US Arms Supply
2.43 p.m.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have been consulted by the United States Government about the advisability of supplying arms to Iran in return for help in releasing American prisoners in Lebanon.
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Lord Trefgarne): No, my Lords.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that that is a result of the exceedingly myopic policy held by this Government? Is he further aware that the abandonment by our ally the United States of its former policy of having nothing to do with terrorists in this context has caused grave disruption within the United States itself and, equally, grave anxiety in Europe? Perhaps the United Kingdom Government
422
could ask the United States to consider the appalling upset that it has caused by the abandonment of its former policy.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, it seems to me that the cause of the difficulty to which the noble Lord has referred is the fact that hostages were taken in the first place. The right way forward, therefore, would be for those hostages to be released.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, would the noble Lord be kind enough to tell the House what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government about the sale of arms to Iran? Have arms or any defence equipment been sold to Iran by companies in this country? Is it true, for example, that Plessey has entered into a contract to sell air defence radar to Iran? If that is the case can he tell the House how Her Majesty's Government justify this, in view of the fact that the Government have frequently said that their great wish is to see the Gulf War coming to an end?
Secondly, can he say whether the Government are satisfied that we are kept fully informed by the United States of its policy in the Middle East?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, our policy on the sale of defence equipment to Iran—and to Iraq too, for that matter, because they are both locked in a most unhappy conflict, as the noble Lord will know—is well known. As part of our scrupulously maintained impartiality in this conflict we refuse to sell to either side defence equipment which will significantly enhance their capability to prolong or exacerbate the conflict. The detailed guidelines were set out by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in another place on 29th October 1985, and those guidelines remain in force.
The noble Lord asked me about Plessey radar. I can confirm that a proposal from Plessey to sell static AR3D radar to Iran does not breach our strict guidelines for defence sales to Iran and Iraq. The installations would be set up on permanent sites along Iran's northern and eastern borders facing the Soviet Union.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Lord saying that where one member of NATO indulges in an activity that could possibly result in armed conflict, this Government will never make representations either to NATO generally or to the country involved?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I do not think I said any such thing.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, can the Government tell the House anything about the means they propose to use to ensure that the Plessey radar is indeed installed along the northern and eastern frontiers of Iran and not along the western frontier?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I do not think I can go any further than to say that that project has been found to be wholly in accordance with our policy, and naturally we shall ensure that the necessary assurances are in place.

AIDS: Hospices Register Proposal
2.47 p.m.
Baroness Lane-Fox: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty' Government whether they will establish a national register of hospices, especially in view of their role in nursing those suffering from AIDS.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Baroness Trumpington): My Lords, to establish a national register of hospices would pose considerable practical problems. There would need to be an agreed definition of a hospice and an agreed set of standards for medical, nursing and other forms of care. None of this has been established. At present an independent hospice must register with the district health authority as a private nursing home. Health authorities will know which homes in their area are able to care for terminal patients. At a national level, the hospice informaton service at St. Christopher's Hospice in Sydenham already maintains a list of most hospices in the United Kingdom.
Baroness Lane-Fox: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that very informative reply. Does she agree that the hospice movement is a very important adjunct to the National Health Service in giving this special care, and as such deserves to be relieved of the huge burden of day-to-day fund raising to cover in-patient costs?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am sure that all your Lordships would agree that the hospice movement does wonderful work in caring for the dying. The level of spending in support of an individual hospice must be a matter for local health authorities. Thirty-eight hospices are now entirely supported by local health authorities. Where a hospice plays an essential part in a health authority's overall plans for terminal care services, we are asking health authorities to make an appropriate financial contribution. The relative costs of hospice and hospital care will depend upon the needs of the particular patient.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, in view of the Secretary of State's recent visit to San Francisco—I think this was one of the matters he went into there—can the noble Baroness say whether the Government will make available to health authorities additional money where they feel it is necessary to assist the foundation of a hospice? Will she not also agree that a great deal of the cost of the terminally ill suffering from this unfortunate disease would be better borne by the hospice movement than by the National Health Service?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services intends to hold a conference before Easter on the provision of care outside hospital for AIDS sufferers. It will bring together the experience of those
424
in the relevant professions, the statutory and voluntary services, and the Churches. The aim is to identify more clearly what our priorities and response should be in the years ahead.
There has been much new thinking and work on this matter in the United States of America, where the average length of stay for an in-patient during the progress of the disease is 31 days compared with at least 50 days in England. This is particularly so in San Francisco, where the figure is 12 days. My right honourable friend will report on what he has learnt during the conference.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that I am well aware of what is being done in my part of the world by private hospices? That is supported. However, what resources does the National Health Service have for the provision of hospices?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, many health authorities, local authority social services departments and voluntary bodies are already working together to provide care for terminally ill patients in their own homes as well as in hospices and hospitals. As I said, the NHS itself runs 38 hospices as well as contributing towards the cost of many of the voluntary units. We shall shortly be issuing new guidance to all health authorities asking them to review their services for the terminally ill and to plan to rectify any deficiencies in collaboration with the voluntary sector.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, is the noble Baroness the Minister aware that there is a considerable amount of voluntary effort at present being made in various parts of the country to raise funds to provide the hospices so urgently required? They are not always getting assistance from the Government. Can the noble Baroness give an assurance that such efforts will be given every possible assistance, within reason, to achieve that aim?
Secondly, will the noble Baroness reconsider the Government's attitude regarding the provision of a register? I agree with the noble Baroness who tabled this Question that this is a very important matter and that such a register should be provided.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, with regard to a register, it is important that local people should know what is provided locally. It is useless for someone who lives, for example, in Canterbury and who wishes to go to a hospice to know that there is a hospice in Glasgow. It is the local picture that is most important.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, in view of the increasing death rate of people suffering from AIDS, does not the noble Baroness the Minister agree that there may not be enough nurses who are trained in the care of young people who are dying? Does she not further agree that there could be a danger of these dedicated few nurses becoming burnt out?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, as I said, we are discussing, through the means of this conference, the various ways and means in which we can improve care for the terminally ill. I am sure that training will form

425
part of that conference. My right honourable friend will be interested to learn what nurses have to say at the conference.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, as regards the hospice movement and the proposals the noble Baroness has described which the Government are now making, and in view of the fact that the Question refers to AIDS, is the noble Baroness saying that separate and additonal hospices are now required for this terrible disease?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am saying that a variety of methods of care is needed for AIDS patients. It is not necessary for them to be in hospital for the whole of their illness. They may need very specialised care which can only be provided by a hospital. They may prefer to be in a hospice, for different reasons. There is also care in their own homes, where many sufferers may prefer to be looked after. A variety is needed.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister tell the House the latest figure for deaths from AIDS in this country?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the figures that I have are today's figures. There have been 686 cases of AIDS, of whom 355 have died.
Baroness Lane-Fox: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that she spoke of 38 hospices that are funded, yet in a recent Written Answer the number given was 83? I believe that the true number is well over 100. It is that discrepancy which worries us. Is my noble friend aware that it is thought that hospice care is a great deal cheaper than keeping terminally ill people in hospital?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I have an awful feeling that the figure of 83 should have been 38. I apologise if there has been a slip-up in the correspondence from that point of view. There are about 100 hospice units in the United Kingdom with between two and 40 beds. Thirty-eight of those units are NHS-run, but they may still receive some voluntary income.

Police: Increased Manpower
2.56 p.m.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how much police manpower has increased since 1979.
The Minister of State, Home Office (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, there has been a total increase of 15,732 since May 1979, including 10,239 additional police officers, in England and Wales.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that encouraging and
426
interesting reply. Can he tell the House what action has been taken to ensure that more police officers are returned to operational duties?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as my noble friend will be aware, we are seeking to encourage the use of civilians for some police work in order to make well-trained officers available for operational duties. That is what we are seeking to encourage. A number of forces have significant posts where police officers could be replaced by civilians. I can tell my noble friend that as a result of the manpower increases announced last May, a further 1,200 posts will be made available by civilians able to do jobs that officers used to do.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, has the increase in police manpower been able to keep pace with the increase in crime since 1979?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, police manpower has increased. Of course, we all remember the low base from which we started in 1979.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, are there any plans to increase the number and the duties of traffic wardens? Also, is it thought that when the Crown Prosecution Service gets going this will provide some relief to police manpower?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, that was one of the reasons why the Crown Prosecution Service was set up. As regard traffic wardens, I am afraid that under the remit of this Question, I am unable to help the noble Lord.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether the strength of the police is now up to the increased establishment that has been given? Has there been any improvement in the processing of applicants? The House was recently told of the very long wait that people experience before learning whether or not they are accepted. Has there been an improvement?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, at the end of November last year, there were 1,792 police vacancies, which is an average deficiency of about 1.5 per cent. In 1979, the average was about 6.5 per cent. We hope that before long police manpower will be up to the limit for each police force and budgets have been made accordingly
Lord Mellish: My Lords, because democracy demands that everything should be made as difficult as possible for the average policeman, can the Minister say what improvement is to be made in the time that a police officer spends writing out reports? It is a known fact that eight or nine hours in any one day are devoted to writing reports on crimes committed two or three days earlier. Is it not time that something was done about that? The employment of civilians on such routine work is vitally important so that policemen can be out on the beat.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as the noble Lord will know, a certain amount of the work of officers can be undertaken by civilians, but the writing of reports is extremely important, and even more important when

427
more and more people seem to want to criticise the police. It is essential that the facts are put down accurately, and, alas, that takes time.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, what is the official terminology that is applied to the civilian assistance to the police? Are they known as "coppers' narks"?
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, I raised a second point which my noble friend has overlooked. Are the applicants being more rapidly processed than they were? It was taking over six months to let an applicant know whether he or she had been accepted. Has that position been improved upon?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am afraid I do not know, but I shall look into the matter for my noble friend.
Lord Rodney: My Lords, can my noble friend say what action is being taken to encourage members of ethnic minorities to join the police force?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the Government is keen to see an increase in the number of black and Asian police officers. A very useful national conference of police recruiting officers was held last October and we are now considering how to put its recommendations into effect.

Business
3 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Report stage of the Teachers' Pay and Conditions Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7 p.m. for approximately one hour and that during this adjournment the Trafford Park Development Corporation (Area and Constitution) Order 1986, and the Weights and Measures (Carriage of Solid Fuel by Rail) Order 1987 will be taken.

Takeovers and Mergers (Employee Protection) Bill [H.L.]
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to provide new rights to information and consultation for trade unions, their members and employees of companies involved in a takeover, merger, sale of a subsidiary or transfer of engagement. 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.

Select Committee on Private Bill Procedure
3.2 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, on behalf of the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Wells-Pestell be appointed to the Select
428
Committee on Private Bill Procedure in place of the Lord Oram.—( The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Teachers' Pay and Conditions Bill
3.3 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Termination of existing arrangements]:
Baroness Seear Baroness Seear moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 5, at end insert—
("( ) The provisions having effect under this Act shall govern the remuneration and other conditions of employment of schoolteachers until permanent arrangements have been established in a manner agreed between teachers, their employers and the Secretary of State or until the expiry of this Act under section 6, whichever is the sooner.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I am aware, as your Lordships will be, that on all sides of the House there is unanimous agreement about the objectives of the Teachers' Pay and Conditions Bill, which are to overcome the disruption in schools, to get the schools working again, to provide a promising career for professional teachers and to establish the kind of education system which will give our children the opportunity to learn and the country, which depends on the schools, the prosperity and kind of civilisation that it seeks. Therefore, there is no disagreement about what the Bill tries to do.
On this side of the House there is also unanimous agreement that we wish to return as fast as possible to negotiating procedures so that all those employed in the education service have the right to negotiate their pay and terms and conditions of employment, and so restore to them—as the Bill does not restore it—their common right, as agreed under international conventions, that public employees should be able to take part in such negotiations.
In the debate at Second Reading it became clear to me at any rate that the Government also intended that sooner or later there should be a return to free negotiation. However, that is not on the face of the Bill and there is no doubt that the need to have it on the face of the Bill is of prime importance. It is implied in the periods, in the words of the noble Lord who spoke for the Government and in the acceptance of the amendment to include the word "interim"; but it is not on the face of the Bill.
There is also agreement that the position of the Secretary of State has to be properly safeguarded. After all, taxpayers' money makes a very large contribution to the total expenditure of the education service. It is agreed that it is right and proper for the Secretary of State to be able to exercise a very powerful influence on the negotiations and on the pay received by teachers throughout our schools.
With so much agreement, it may be asked: why have we tabled these amendments this afternoon? We are doing so just because we agree with the primary purpose for which the Government have put forward this Bill; but we do not believe that the Bill as it stands will achieve its purpose. That is the point of these amendments.
Noble Lords on all sides of the House must have received, as I have, a very large number of letters coming from all levels of the educational world, not just from one union but from all unions, from head teachers, administrators and all parts of the education system. These people do not believe that the Bill as it stands will lead to the peace and development inside schools that are the common objective of us all. That is why—and for no other reason—we are moving these amendments today. We believe that the Bill, amended as we propose, stands a very good chance of achieving the peace in our schools that the Government desire and we are convinced that it will not be achieved unless the Bill is amended.
Even in today's press we see that there is a danger of further disruption and the threat of another one-day strike. Over the past two years the schools have suffered badly in this way. It is not asking too much that the Bill should be amended so that it can be made acceptable and that peace can return to the schools.
I should have said, my Lords, that in moving this amendment I wish at the same time to speak to Amendments Nos. 5 to 25, if that is acceptable to the House.
Lord Elton: My Lords, will the noble Baroness tell us whether she is also speaking to Amendments Nos. 18 to 25 and various other large dollops which together seem to make up a fairly coherent whole?
Baroness Seear: My Lords, they are in fact consequential amendments and it will be easier if I may speak to them together. I thank the noble Lord very much. In my anxiety to start I had forgotten to say that.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am terribly sorry, but for the purposes of the record and subsequent debate we need to know the other amendments to which the noble Baroness is speaking.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, does the House wish me to name them all? I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 5 to 15, 18 to 25, 27, 30, 33 to 36, 38, 40 to 43, 45 and 46. The amendments are long, but they are in fact not very complex and I think that noble Lords will see that they make up a rational whole. The first intention is to set up a committee. We accept that there has to be a committee because we do not believe that it is possible at this stage to return to a Burnham Mark II, however much we might like to see that in future—and we hope that it will be the near future. However, we accept that at present it is not a practical proposition.
As proposed in the Bill, the Secretary of State will form a committee. However, under our amendment he will form it after consultation with all the interested parties. There is no queston but that the people on the committee will be representative, although we have included in the amendment the right of the employers and the unions to veto an unacceptable person on that committee. That can be done only if there is a two-thirds majority in favour of the proposal. All our amendments require a two-thirds majority for any changes. In that way we hope to avoid the type of disruption by small sections that has bedevilled negotiations over the past two years.
430
The committee will be set up. It will take evidence from teachers, teachers' organisations and employers; and, it will receive recommendations from the Secretary of State. The committee will formulate proposals on the basis of the evidence taken. Those of your Lordships who have sat on such bodies (as I have) will know that by the time the evidence is taken one has a good idea of what is and what it not acceptable.
It is likely that the committee will then be able to put forward recommendations which will command the requisite support. Those recommendations will then go to revised negotiating bodies. In the amendments, we have included proposals for a revision of the negotiating bodies. Those negotiating bodies will work on the basis of a two-thirds majority When the proposals go to those bodies there can be negotiations within the framework of those proposals.
There are then three possibilities. If the proposals are acceptable to both sides of the negotiating body and to the Secretary of State they become operative, and that is the end of the matter. They are confirmed and become the terms and conditions for teachers' employment until there are further negotiations. If the two sides and the Secretary of State decide on alterations which are acceptable to all three parties, including the Secretary of State, they are confirmed and then become the terms and conditions of employment for teachers. At that stage, it is possible to have what amounts to full negotiations. If it is agreed with the Secretary of State, the two sides can alter the proposals that have been put forward. The two sides will have to have the support of two-thirds of those voting. If however the recommendations are unacceptable to either party, they can go back to the committee and if the committee cannot arrive at a settlement with the parties then—and only then—will the matter go to arbitration.
Two proposals will be put before the arbitrator and he must accept one of them. He cannot vary the proposals. The point of that is plain. The fact that the arbitrator must accept one of the proposals will be a tremendous incentive to the parties to put up proposals which will appear sensible to any reasonable arbitrator. If one side puts up totally unacceptable proposals, the arbitrator will obviously accept the other side's proposals.
It is highly improbable that the matter will have to go to arbitration except on rare occasions because we are trying to re-enact a process of sensible negotiation. Within that framework, it is highly probable that it will be possible to arrive at a negotiated settlement. Once the arbitrator has made a decision, the Secretary of State's position is still safeguarded, for at the end of the day he will be able to veto the settlement by an affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament, that would be a last resort. It is improbable that that would happen except on rare occasions.
The proposal is included because we recognise the importance of the Secretary of State's right to have the ultimate say if the proposals, having gone through all the stages, were totally unacceptable from the point of view of cost. We have included that proposal because of the amount of public money involved and the economic consequences of an unacceptable degree of expenditure. Those are our proposals.

431
Your Lordships will see that we are putting back onto the face of the Bill the right to negotiate. We believe that to be of the greatest importance. All the correspondence that I have received has emphasised the teachers' anger at the removal of their negotiating rights. Most of us in the House accept what the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, said in Committee: that the Government want to get back to a proper negotiating system, but that has not been accepted. It would make a great deal of difference to the attitude of the teachers and the teachers' unions if they knew that negotiating rights were to be built into the Bill as it goes through the House. We believe that that will be crucial in gaining acceptance for the Bill.
If a Bill is produced which is unacceptable to the teachers, how does the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, think that it will be enforced? Nearly 500,000 people are employed in the schools. We agree that we are talking not only about pay but about conditions of employment. How can those conditions be enforced unless the teachers support them? In the end, they must monitor them. There is no system of inspectors and no penalties to be applied to enforce those matters in the schools. We are entirely dependent upon the teachers' willingness to go along with the new conditions which we all want to see. The Bill does not provide the framework to obtain that consent. We believe that our amendments do. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the amendments are extremely complex. I have no doubt that your Lordships' House could spend many happy hours analysing and re-analysing the syntax, the references to previous legislation and the suitability of the appearance of certain words on the face of the Bill, and all the other things with which we occupy ourselves in matters of this kind.
I should like to appeal to the House not to do any of that but to think only of one thing: how we are to restore the confidence of the education system—the teachers' and the employers'—in the goodwill of the Government and the country, and to see that their self respect is maintained by negotiating rights? That is what the teachers the employers and the parents are asking for; and if the pupils had an adequate say, that is what they would be asking for. Everyone in this country wants an education service free of disruption. The Government's recipe of an interim Bill with government dictation of pay and conditions of service for three years is a recipe for disruption. It is an attack on the self respect of those who take part in the service.
There are matters on which we disagreed at Committee stage. I put forward a series of amendments which spelt out in detail an alternative negotiating structure from that which is to be replaced. The Committee saw fit to reject those proposals. The noble Baroness put forward a series of amendments which would have set up an interim review body. The noble Baroness has moved on from that stage, and she was right to do so. The proposals that the noble Baroness now puts forward are very substantially better than those put forward at Committee stage. As she made clear in her speech, the noble Baroness is now proposing a series of procedures. Although the amendments do not specifically contain negotiation, nevertheless they make provision for negotiation and I
432
recognise that intention and welcome the amendments to that extent.
There are amendments on the Marshalled List in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Irving of Dartford which I hope would make the conditions for negotiation rather clearer, though the provisions leave the actual negotiating procedures as non-statutory and not on the face of the Bill. Noble Lords may have different views about the applicability of any or further solutions of this kind. However, in the end the education service will demand of us that we somehow restore negotiating rights and self-respect to teachers and their employers. In the light of that, with one important qualification, I shall ask my noble friends to support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear.
The important qualification is on Amendment No. 25. The amendment says:
"The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument direct that a confirmed recommendation shall not take effect or shall take effect subject to such modifications as may be specified in the order".
On introducing the amendment the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, referred to the modifications as being modifications of cost. If that were what the amendment said I should be very happy. Clearly it is right that the Secretary of State should have the overriding power to impose a settlement within a budget which the country can afford. It should not be possible for teachers and their employers to impose a settlement which does not meet a nationally politically agreed budget. Unfortunately the amendment goes somewhat further and does not confine modifications to modifications of cost. It permits the Secretary of State to do what Mr. Baker is proposing to do: to impose in detail a series of scales for different levels of teacher and a detailed structure for the teaching profession.
I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, will find it possible to agree that at Third Reading we can put forward an amendment which would meet that point. If that were the case I am sure that we should have no difficulty in reaching agreement on the matter.
For the outside world the details do not matter, though it is important that we in this House should be accurate. However, the important factor is that negotiations should be maintained and that the teachers and the employers should have a recognisable structure in which to conduct the negotiations. On that basis, I invite my friends to support these amendments.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, my objection to this string of amendments is that they are far too suggestive of a permanent arrangement. I emphasise again that we are dealing with an interim period. We describe it as interim. We have written the word "interim" more emphatically into the Bill and we must stick to that context in all that we do. We must emphasise that this interim period has an early end and should be replaced by something more acceptable and more permanent at the end of it. Otherwise the proposals now put forward for meeting the interim situation may well cause the interim period to be prolonged unduly.

433
I wish that we knew the final answer to Amendment No. 28. If only the Government would grasp this nettle and say that the interim period will end after three years and will not be renewed except by fresh legislation through Parliament, then much else would fall into place. But underlying the Government's approach to the extension of the interim period is the possibility that what is interim may be continued. What is continued is in danger of becoming permanent. The measure in operation during the interim period must be seen to be interim because it is too impossible for it to become permanent.
However, this scheme is too feasible a stepping-stone towards a more permanent review body arrangement. Unless there is suitable alternative machinery ready within three years the review body is staring everybody in the face. Unless some more normal machinery for negotiation can be established I am quite convinced that some kind of review body will be the only solution. However, I do not want to anticipate that. I certainly do not want to draft the measure. There are already plenty of examples of review bodies for that solution to be looked at if and when the situation arises. In the meantime, let us have an interim period which is so ridiculous that it cannot be continued. If we accept the proposals in the Bill that will be the situation. I do not mean that it is ridiculous from the point of view of workability, but rather as a permanent arrangement for a great profession in its negotiation machinery. I therefore hope that we shall stick to the idea of the interim period.
I believe that in the three years which lie ahead—I hope that it will be no more—a lot of work will have to be done and much pain will have to be endured on both sides. Both sides will have to sort themselves out. The Government will have to realign the employers' side, which cannot continue as it was under the Burnham machinery. What is the alternative? I suggest that it will have to be an employers' side composed of the Secretary of State for Education, the Secretary of State for the Environment and representatives of the local education authorities. They will be the official side of this Whitley Council. On the trades union side there will have to a good deal of sorting out to identify the representativeness of the several unions. They will have to draw their boundaries of representativeness and define their constituencies. At the present time this is a fluid situation.
I read in the magazine New Society at the weekend that the membership of the National Union of Teachers fell by 13 per cent. from 291,000 to 253,000 between 1979 and 1985 but the Association of Masters and Mistresses increased by 21 per cent. Their membership rose from 89,000 to 122,000. The figure of 21 per cent. was the level of increase in the past two years in that organisation, reflecting, it is stated, the discontent of a number of teachers with the militant policies of other unions.
We then come to the Professional Association of Teachers. Its number has also increased. The magazine Child Education is recently reported to have taken a public opinion poll among 1,800 primary school teachers. It found that 17 per cent. of those in the poll had changed their union allegiance in the past
434
two years. With that floating membership of unions on the teachers' panel side it is obvious that before very long the employers' side and the public will be entitled to know who speaks for whom and what is the strength of their representative capacity. It is impossible to have a teachers' body representing the staff if there are political or ideological differences between them, or if they have differences of emphasis in militancy.
That is not a basis for negotiation. The basis for negotiation is to find one's constituency and represent it, and be able to deliver when agreements may be reached. I mention that with great sadness because it shows one of the great problems in this situation; but it is clear that that has to be sorted out.
In 1944 Butler said, when confronted with a miscellany of associations, "I want one voice". He did not get it then. Now we have seven voices. That is the difficulty. Again, this is an interim solution. The permanent solution lies ahead. Let us limit the interim period and let the Secretary of State take responsibility for that which is in this Bill. There is no need for us to have amendments and embroider around the Government's policies. Let the Secretary of State take the responsibility which the Bill places upon him. Let him go to an advisory committee of his own choosing and make the best of it, but not compromise those whose interests are at stake, who have not been consulted and whose opinions are not being respected in formulating the proposals in this Bill.
I feel that that is the answer, so that we may know where we are going. This scheme is like Halley's Comet crossing the sky—something with a small head and long luminous tails. This will not do. This will cross the sky and leave no possible indication of what may be the basis of our next months or years. Let it be 1990, my Lords, and not a day later, and let us have this matter firmly settled by the Government before we finish today.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I would not want to say anything to dilute the trenchant lucidity of almost everything that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, has said about the relevance and appositeness of the very large group of amendments which are before us. At this Report stage they constitute very nearly a new Bill. In my view they have so many provisions of detail in them that they should be discussed in Committee and not by the whole House sitting on Report. But I am not suggesting this should be recommitted because I think the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, is right. What we have here is an interim Bill. I was glad that my noble friend emphasised that on two separate occasions in the record when we were in Committee, and also amended the Bill either twice or three times on the face to make clear that it was interim, and he has a further amendment today. There is no question that this is an interim Bill. There is a question as to how one decides when the interim period has expired. We shall be addressing that later. I have views on that. I shall not delay your Lordships now because the views are not relevant.
I am tempted to make observations about the detail of the amendments, about the fact that there is no provision for the voicing of minority opinions within

435
the machinery set up by the Liberal Party committed to proportional representation so that minority opinions can be heard, but that would be provocative, and I would not wish to provoke the noble Baroness into an argument about that.
I feel the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, is absolutely right in saying that this is a functional little Bill to deal with a major problem, not in a dictatorial way by telling the profession and its employers, "This is how you will do it", but in a permissive and liberal way—using the word in a different sense—permitting the profession and the employers to work out their own solution for as long as it takes, or over a period of three years according to what your Lordships may later decide. That seems to me to be the stark alternative to a dictatorial imposition.
Nobody in this House would like the Secretary of State to say at this stage: "Here is the machinery. Get on with it. It is like that forever". Nor can we let things go on as they are. Since 1981 the profession and its employers have totally failed to come up with a solution. That is the major problem. Since the machinery has broken down there is now a subordinate and urgent problem of how to deliver the money already available to the teachers who are earning it. If we do not do that the children will continue to suffer. I ask your Lordships again to think of the children. The parents have to think of them when they are locked out, when they are not looked after, when the lessons are not taught. There will not be a second chance. They will not be children again. How often have we wished that we could go back to our childhood, and we rue the misuse we made of the lessons we were taught! How much worse if there were lessons missing from the curriculum which we had never received.
The problem is urgent. It is one upon which the professional teachers and their employers should concentrate their minds. They should not be denied their money while they do it. The Bill provides for them to have the money. It provides for them to work out with the Secretary of State and their employers how eventually they should solve this problem. I think we should leave the Bill alone and get on with that.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, I should like to support this amendment. I moved an amendment in Committee which was a precursor to this one. It was criticised on a number of counts and I eventually withdrew it for further consideration.
In the amendments we have sought to come to terms with some of the criticisms which were then expressed. I do not wish to labour points unduly which have already been made, but there were three objections raised in Committee. One has again been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby (whose views I always respect), as well as by the noble Lord, Lord Elton. There were three objections which seemed to me to carry weight.
First, it was said that I was wrong to suggest a permanent procedure for determining the pay and conditions of teachers in the future, and that I should have confined what I had to say to interim arrangements set out in the Bill. I suggest that that is precisely what has been done in this case. In the amendments we
436
have met that objection by assigning to the interim committee that is now proposed functions which are different from those assigned to the advisory committee by the Government. There is thus no question in this amendment of the procedure which is now suggested being more than temporary. If it is necessary to underline that still further, perhaps I may point out that in the very first amendment moved by my noble friend Lady Seear it makes it plain that the provisions which we have in mind are to continue until permanent arrangements have been agreed, or (the last clause of the sentence):
"until the expiry of this Act under Section 6, whichever is the sooner.".
If your Lordships will turn to Amendment No. 33—another of those spoken to by my noble friend—you will see that proposes that the word "Advisory" should be left out. That means that the committee which we are now suggesting is essentially an interim one and it is not seen as part of a permanent procedure.
Next, it was said in Committee that the earlier amendment did not state in whom the power to appoint the body which we then had in mind was to be vested, and that that body could not at the same time be called independent and include people drawn from organisations—in particular, teachers' organisations—which represented sectional interests. It will be plain from these amendments that it is the Secretary of State who is to appoint the members of the interim committee which is now proposed; but before exercising that power he must consult with the representatives of the relevant interests. I suggest that nothing could be fairer or more reasonable than that.
The third criticism, which was directed at the earlier amendment, concerned the last stage of the procedure which we then had in mind and which is retained in these amendments; namely, arbitration. I was taken to task in Committee for suggesting that arbitration which would otherwise be binding was to be subject to what I called, I fear rather too loosely, ultimate parliamentary authority, but in Amendment No. 25, to which my noble friend has spoken, I suggest it is clear beyond doubt that it is the Secretary of State who may ultimately reject or modify the findings of the arbitrator by statutory order approved by both Houses of Parliament. I hope also that the rather more precise wording of Amendment No. 13, concerning the powers of the arbitrator to accept or reject recommendations that are referred to him, may help to reassure noble Lords who were concerned about this particular point as regards our proposals in Committee.
In those ways we have sought to take account of the views expressed in Committee, while retaining elements of the earlier proposals that we regard as essential. As I said in Committee, during the interim period—and I stress this once more—in which the arrangements now suggested would operate, our overall aim continues to be at every stage to devise a procedure which encourages the parties to adopt responsible attitudes, to act as single units within each party and to draw closer together in the negotiating process. I hope that in their new and more detailed and, in my view, improved form, these amendments will be supported by your Lordships. I commend them to the House.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, some of the general reservations about this amendment have been very eloquently put by my noble friend Lord Elton. I should like to focus upon what seemed to me to be two practical problems with regard to the amendment before us. The first problem is the way in which the rights of minority teachers' unions might or might not be protected. It seems that the opportunity to exercise a veto by two-thirds majority, vis-à-vis membership, could lead to the exclusion of a small union such as the Professional Association of Teachers, a union which lives up to its name by eschewing strike action in the interests of its pupils.
The second problem concerns the procedures to be involved. It seems as though they are potentially very protracted and may be inconclusive. For example, it appears as though there could be four sets of recommendations and/or vetoes from the committee, the Secretary of State, teachers and employers, and that if they could not be agreed upon the matter would go to arbitration. Further, if I understand the matter correctly, that arbitration would be in the form of a pendulum arbitration. That in itself is also a problem, because it is possible that in dealing with the very complex issues of teachers' pay and conditions of service, pendulum arbitration may not be the most appropriate way. After all, they are dealing not with issues of black and white or upper and lower limits, but with very complex professional issues. So far as concerns the practicalities, it seems to me that these proposals could lead to procedures which might be cumbersome and time-consuming, and could in the end lead to rather unsatisfactory conclusions.
Dealing with two more general points, it has been said by both the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, that the Government's proposals may well lead to continued disruption in the classroom, and that has already been threatened. It seems that that kind of threat is extremely unfortunate. I believe that everyone, and not least the parents and the children in our schools, will begin to lose such residual sympathy as they still have with the teaching profession if the threat of further industrial action is raised in an attempt to put pressure on the passage of this Bill.
Our children have suffered long enough; they have suffered for over two years. They desperately need stability in our schools and in the classrooms. I believe that in these discussions we need to hear more about children's rights as well as the rights of the adult. That applies particularly in view of the salary increase which has been offered by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. Let us not forget that what has been offered to our teachers is generous by any standards: 10 per cent. in real terms above the original generous Houghton award. The offer is also generous in comparative terms with other newly-qualified professionals such as doctors and social workers.
I feel that the teaching profession is in danger of appearing churlish and irresponsible if it threatens further industrial action following the passage of this Bill. I believe that the suggestion that this amendment ought to be considered in order to avert such industrial action really is a non sequitur and not a satisfactory argument.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I wonder whether the House has observed some discrepancy between the attitude of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, who moved this series of amendments, and the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, who is keen for his troops to go into the Lobby in favour of them. It seems to me that the difference could be expressed in this way: the noble Baroness says, "Love my baby"; the noble Lord says, "Love the baby, but for God's sake don't look at it"!
When we come to look at the amendments we can see that, as has been demonstrated by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, they ignore the prime reason for the Bill being before the House; namely, the divisions, both on the side of the employers and on the side of the teachers, that have prevented an agreement for a negotiating machinery. Nor is it the case that the proposals now before us do more than suggest an arbitrary resolution of those difficulties by the provision of two-thirds votes on vital issues. Let us suppose, though it seems to me extraordinary, that any Secretary of State should be compelled, in the case of an advisory committee to himself, to send nominations to external bodies, to have them rejected and then perhaps send another nomination and have it rejected again. Even supposing that we considered that to be a tenable situation, to provide as regards both these bodies that a two-thirds majority should suffice is likely to give on the one side, as set out, a veto to one or two of the larger teachers' unions and on the other side perhaps a veto to a particularly politically aligned group of local authorities.
The same point applies when we come to the recommendations. Once again the Alliance in its amendments appears to have run away from the essential issue, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, has said is to provide an interim period during which agreed measures for future negotiation can be worked out by providing a series of—I was about to say "shortcuts", but the cuts are not very short.
The proposals before us are, quite apart from their merit, extraordinarily complicated. If one looks at the various stages and puts them against a calendar, one begins to wonder whether the secret inspiration behind them is not to be found in the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in which case the one thing of which we could be almost certain is that the teachers would never get any money. The procedures would go on and on and on, and pay settlements would be delayed and delayed. Surely this cannot be in the interests of the teachers. It is not in the interests of the country. I hope that, having given their new thoughts another run, the noble Baroness and her friends will not embarrass the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, by forcing him to go into the Lobby on behalf of amendments which, as he said, are themselves untenable.
Lord Alexander of Potterhill: My Lords, I rise to support these amendments. I have a simple mind and I am bound to concede that I find the situation becoming more and more complicated. It seems to me that there are certain simple issues on which the House should be clear. The first issue is that the Bill, as it stands, will not lead to peace; of that I have no doubt whatever. Peace is what we are all seeking.

439
The second issue is that the amendments do not suggest that this Bill is other than temporary. They accept that it is temporary. They do not seek to make it permanent. They are merely seeking to suggest a formula which I hope in the long term should provide an appropriate machinery for determining teachers' salaries and conditions of service.
I have no doubt whatever that the greatest worry in the education service is the disastrous impact of party politics. Therefore, I accept that any idea of establishing a national joint council (or whatever it may be called) more or less following the pattern of the Burnham Committee is not a practical proposition and would lead only to more trouble. As I see it, we must move towards an independent review body.
This is not a revolutionary idea. We apply it to nurses, doctors, the Civil Service, judges and the police. It is almost a standard procedure for those who are engaged in public service. It was rejected for the teachers by the Prime Minister some time ago—a fact which rather surprised me.
The other matter in these amendments which I greatly welcome is the pendulum review procedure. I have been engaged in negotiations with teachers for very many years. The virtue of the pendulum review procedure is that it imposes the need for responsibility. If there is a normal arbitration in which one side says, "We want this much", and the other side says, "We cannot afford more than that much", the general tendency over the years has been to come somewhere in between. Such a procedure encourages teachers to ask for more than they think they will get; and equally it encourages the local authorities to offer less than they hope that they will be able to settle for. The pendulum procedure says to the teachers, "Do not ask for too much. If you are asking unreasonably for too much, you will lose". Equally, it is saying to the local authorities, "Do not offer too little. Unless you make a reasonably responsible offer, you may be rejected". It imposes responsibility on both sides and that is a good thing.
As to the Benjamin independent review body, I see it as the only hope of, if not getting rid of party politics, at least greatly reducing their impact. Therefore I support these amendments in the strongest possible terms.
I have received almost 200 letters while this Bill has been going through your Lordships' House. Almost without exception these letters are from teachers not seeking trouble. They are from teachers who are very worried and very anxious to find an answer to enable them to get on with the job which they want to do; namely, teaching our children. They all say one thing: "Find a settlement, get party politics out of the education service which prospered for 25 years when party politics played no part in it".
I very much commend these amendments as being constructive in their desire to secure peace and lead to permanent arrangements which will then leave us in peace.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, while discussing this amendment, I should like once again to correct the noble Baroness in her statement that the teachers are well paid. I think that she used the words, "The money
440
was generous". This is not true. If the noble Baroness will compare teachers' pay to that of nurses, the nurses are badly paid. That does not make the teachers well paid. I think it is very unfortunate in the course of this debate that we make the teachers emerge as the enemy. We keep emphasising the fact that they are the ones who are working against the children. Teachers have been badly treated and at last they are attempting to do something for themselves. If we are all going to boast about numbers, I suppose I have received as many letters as everbody else, as an ex-teacher. There has never been any suggestion in those letters that they are going to have another strike. I do not know where this idea which has been mooted has come from. What the teachers want is justice. That is not unreasonable, and therefore anything that we attempt to do must be to bend our minds to that.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, if I may follow on what the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, has said, I have had many letters, as many of your Lordships have. I agree with the noble Lord that the fact that underlines very many of the letters is that the teachers are saying "Please, we want this whole matter resolved. We want peace and we want to get party politics out of this situation to the greatest possible extent that we can."
The question is whether or not the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, is right, and that what is needed is what the Bill is attempting to provide; namely, a short breathing space while everybody can pause and take stock and look at the various options which may be the right ones to go forward with. Or whether or not we can continue the warfare and squabbling and lack of progress which we have at the moment.
Convincing though the noble Baroness Lady Seear, was when she introduced this series of amendments I think that they add up to a system which is not going only to continue the politicisation of the issue but very likely enhance it.
Noble Lords who have chaired an appointed body which is balanced in its membership, but where nobody represents anything in particular—the members represent themselves—will know that that body is usually able to move forward with the general purpose of that particular committee in view. The members bring their various experiences to bear and listen to what people say to them when they consult them, and are constructive. If a body consists of people who feel that they are representing one part or another of those involved in the issue, there is quite different behaviour. Those of us who have chaired the two kinds of body know that. I have chaired both kinds of body on several occasions.
What is being suggested is that two new bodies besides the advisory committee be set up: one consisting of teachers' unions and one of employers. There will be an argument within the bodies as to who is going to be on those bodies. The conditions are set out in Amendment No. 9. It is quite complicated how they have to be set up. As my noble friend Lady Cox said, there is no guarantee that the big boys and girls will not get together to oust the little boys and girls on the teachers' committee. There will have been quite a struggle internally. It is not possible to have 103 local authorities on the employers' committee. So they will

441
have got together in some way to organise that. There will have been a struggle. Before the interim committee is set up at all they have to agree. Within a month they can, by a two-thirds majority, reject individuals proposed on that committee. So you start with a struggle and you start with people who are acceptable to one side and not to another. Eventually you arrive at something the various committees agree.
Then the issues are considered. Looking at the process, the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, very briefly and very ably said that this is like a permanent arrangement—a permanent negotiating and hammering out of agreements. There are six or seven stages at which there is liable to be this kind of disagreement and squabbling in the whole process.
At the end, if everything else fails, there is arbitration—the kind of arbitration where the arbitrator has to accept one suggestion or another, or another. That sort of arbitration is fine if you are deciding one or another level of pay for a set of people. You can do that and it has the effect that has been mentioned, that people tend to bid lower not higher. But these arbitrations are going to be between packages of salaries, very complex salary structures, combined with very complex conditions of service. So it will not be a question of one package necessarily being better than another; it may be that the arbitrator will want to choose a combination. I do not think that that will work, and again it will be a matter for disagreement.
I believe that throughout this proposal—which may be a very well intentioned one—to try to involve people in a different way in the process, there runs a recipe for perpetual argument, disagreement and disgruntlement. Then, at the end of it all, it is suggested that the Secretary of State could turn down by affirmative resolution what the arbitrator had decided. If that is not a disruptive way to end the process, I do not know what is.
On top of all that, it seems to me that this six- or seven-step process may take a very long time. I do not know if the noble Baroness is going to say that she wants it open-ended, but it could well take longer than the three years from now which is proposed. So I think that there are a number of things there which really make the proposed system not at all a good replacement for the simpler, much more flexible suggestion made in the Bill; a suggestion which can give room for plenty of negotiating stances between the Secretary of State and the other bodies and between the other bodies together—but all informal, not set up statutorily. That atmosphere could well produce a good proposal for the future, which might indeed be the independent review body that underlay the first amendment which the noble Baroness moved in Committee and which the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, espoused, but which is not there at all now. That may well be the answer in the end, but it would come at the end of this pause.
4 p.m.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, I am surprised at what has been said after my noble friend Lord Rochester had, I thought, clearly pointed out to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, that this is not an open-
442
ended arrangement that we are proposing. The word "interim" remains on our committee in exactly the same way as it was on the Government's committee, and our Amendments Nos. 1, 5 and 33, as my noble friend Lord Rochester said, all emphasise that. If your Lordships later decide that the provisions should come to an end in 1990 without any further extensions, that would apply to these arrangements in exactly the same way as it would apply to the Government's arrangements.
I was also surprised to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, talking of six or seven stages. There are in fact in this procedure an absolute maximum of four stages, at each of which the Secretary of State can intervene, and of course he has the ultimate override, as indeed he always would.
I was also surprised to hear some noble Lords—I think the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, and possibly the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy—advance the charge of complexity. Frankly, I think that is rather naïve. We are here in an extremely delicate area of industrial relations which has always caused considerable difficulty. A watch, for example, is complex. Complexity is no argument. You have to get the working parts working harmoniously. That is the secret, and it will not be accomplished by the Bill as it stands.
I think it was the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, who spoke of a likely enhancement of politicisation, but the enhancement of politicisation is more likely to come from the Bill than from the arrangements which are proposed in these amendments. We accept that an imposed settlement has become inevitable at this time, but at the same time we say that the Secretary of State must realise that, unless the teachers have an interim framework in which their voice can be heard, there is little chance of his imposed settlement being carried out, and much less of achieving peace in our schools.
I do not think the noble Baronesses, Lady Cox and Lady Carnegy, have quite realised that there are grave practical and administrative difficulties in imposing a contract in great detail between two other bodies both of which are hostile to it, and in putting the duty of implementing it on the very people who most oppose it. How can the Secretary of State expect the heads, after years of staff-room in-fighting, to take on cheerfully the role of fitting the teachers into a pay structure which they resist? The Secondary Heads Association has said,
"You cannot legislate to ensure the commitment of teachers; our fear is that many currently in the profession will simply ignore any conditions imposed by statute, and that the government will be impotent to do anything about it. In short, we see this proposed legislation as inevitably leading to further protracted periods of unrest and disruption in the schools."
Going to the National Association of Head Teachers, who I think represent something like three-quarters of the head teachers in the country, Mr. David Hart the general secretary was quoted in The Times on the 2nd of this month as being worried that some authorities would do nothing to enforce Mr. Baker's 19-point contract. Under the now defunct ACAS agreement so painstakingly reached in November, the unions actually made major concessions on cover for absence, appraisal and hours of contracted work. And, what is more, they

443
undertook to police their side of the agreement. Without that sort of co-operation there is really very little hope of an imposed settlement working.
Now, in these amendments we come forward with proposals that have some chance of getting all the parties on board for an interim period—I repeat interim—that maintains an element of negotiating procedure but ensures that it cannot be sabotaged by minority interests, and which also ensures that the Secretary of State is heard at every stage and leaves the ultimate power in his hands.
On the point of the minority interest which I think was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and, I think, the noble Lord, Lord Beloff—the 75 per cent. trigger for the recognition by the Secretary of State of the teachers and the local authorities body—obviously one has to choose a threshold somewhere. If you raised that threshold to, let us say, 85 per cent., you could then get a body representing 20 per cent. of the teachers, or 20 per cent. of the local authorities from the very outset, knocking the whole scheme on the head. On balance, I think 75 per cent. seems to be a fair percentage to trigger recognition of the representative bodies.
Unless some mechanism is in place, and we believe ours is the best, it is extremely likely—indeed we have already been told this—that there will be further disruption. And, as Mr. Hart said, what we now need is a lengthy period of peace for the sake of the children. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Elton, who mentioned the children.
I believe it is worth saying that these proposals have the support of the National Association of Head Teachers, of the Assistant Masters and Mistresses Association, of the Society of Education Officers and of the Professional Association of Teachers. I believe the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, himself had some connection with that body during the process of its foundation. Their Assistant General Secretary writes:
"I do hope that further debate on this issue succeeds since the Alliance initiative marks a positive and constructive way forward which this Association supports."
So they do not appear to share the worries which were expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff.
I am sure that your Lordships will want this debate to draw to a close, but I believe that one other quotation from the Secondary Heads Association would be appropriate:
"It is the SHA's view that this Bill is a hasty, short term attempt to solve a problem of long standing, and it would be far better to develop a new machinery for the determination of Teachers' Pay and Conditions, by consulting all parties concerned, and arriving at a solution which will command broad support in the profession and in the community generally.".
That is what we propose within the time limits specified by the Bill. I hope very much that your Lordships will be able to support these amendments in the Division Lobby.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I think that all noble Lords who have listened to the debate on these amendments are grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, for explaining very clearly a long list of
444
amendments. In dealing with these amendments, I ask your Lordships to bear in mind the reason that we are debating this Bill. It is because the existing system for negotiating teachers' pay, the Burnham Committee, which is representative of the local authority employers and the teachers' unions, has for a long time been unable to achieve a consensus on how teachers' pay ought to be structured. While that has been happening, there has been quite severe disruption in our schools, and, as my noble friend Lord Elton reminded us, those who have suffered have been the children. That is why my right honourable friend has brought forward this Bill.
Clause 1 of the Bill abolishes the Burnham negotiating committee and Clause 2 sets up an interim advisory committee in order to give everyone time to decide on a workable new system for teachers' pay. As your Lordships know; my right honourable friend is accompanying this Bill with a very substantial pay offer. However, these amendments would set up a very different and a more powerful committee. The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, pointed out that among the amendments, there are some which say that the committee is to be advisory, but one has to bear in mind that, under Amendment No. 7, appointments to the committee could be vetoed by the teachers or the local authorities. That sounds suspiciously like a packed jury. As my noble friend Lord Beloff cogently argued, it certainly would not produce an independent committee.
The amendments would set up two more committees. One is to be called a teachers' representative body, and I join with my noble friend Lady Cox in being unable to find anything in the amendments which would prevent the larger unions simply excluding the smaller unions—for instance, the Head Teachers and the Professional Association of Teachers, which my noble friend reminded us stands for not going on strike.
Then there is to be an employers' representative body to represent the local education authority. Apparently the governors of aided schools are to have no place on that body, although they employ 20 per cent. of the teachers of this country. As with the teachers' body, some local education authorities could undoubtedly be excluded, but if noble Lords are saying that the job would be done properly and absolutely fairly, we should have a committee consisting of over 100 members.
When the new committee got down to work, it would invite evidence and representations from the teachers' and the employers' representative bodies. Apparently this process could deal with any matter concerning pay and conditions, so the weight of evidence could be voluminous, although it would not include evidence from those teachers' unions and those local education authorities which had been kept off the representative bodies; nor by right would it include views from the voluntary schools.
Under the amendments, my right honourable friend would be allowed to submit his ideas and then the new committee would decide. However, as the new committee would mainly consist of people sympathetic to the local authorities and the larger teachers' unions, I put it to your Lordships that this

445
would not be an independent review of the kind for which the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill, was calling. Nor would it be anything like one.
My noble friend Lady Carnegy criticised these amendments as being a recipe for constant disagreement. I believe that my noble friend was justified in making that remark because there is a very unusual supplement to these proposals. If the timetable permitted—and by this time I think that the teaching profession would be becoming a little impatient—the teachers, the employers and the Secretary of State could think again and put in alternative recommendations, and if nothing could be agreed, there would have to be arbitration. Therefore, there could be as many as four alternative recommendations—not two, with respect to the noble Baroness—before the arbitrator. However, although it may appear to the arbitrator that there is something seriously wrong with each conflicting recommendation, under the amendments he would absolutely have to accept one of them. I understand that this is called pendulum arbitration, and I suggest that it does not seem very appropriate for the complex issues of teachers' pay and conditions.
Then, at the last gasp, after all that, my right honourable friend would be allowed, under the amendments, to go to Parliament and get the whole thing reversed. The Secretary of State's position in the deciding of teachers' pay and conditions is very important. I agree entirely with noble Lords who are proposing these amendments that it must be addressed. But these amendments would so prolong the process of negotiation that at the end the Secretary of State would be in an impossible position if he then felt that a recommendation was unacceptable. I suggest that a great deal more thought needs to be given to the position of the Secretary of State.
I began by saying that the reason for this Bill was that the Burnham negotiating committee on teachers' pay has more or less broken down. Yet these amendments would resurrect the representative features of Burnham. Indeed, the provisions of these amendments are more draconian because they would almost certainly exclude the smaller unions from the process. Then all this would have to be fitted into an enormously complicated system of negotiation. I suggest that the Bill is preferable. The provisions of the Bill set out arrangements for discussion, including discussion personally with my right honourable friend—I gave an assurance on that during the previous stage of the Bill—and for an advisory committee to give advice on intractable issues. I suggest that at the present time that is preferable to these exceedingly complicated amendments that are before us. It is on that simple ground that I ask your Lordships not to support these amendments.
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, in replying briefly to this debate, we accept the proposal put forward by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, that at the last stage the Secretary of State's right to override, through affirmative action, should be confined to pay and not to conditions of employment. That perhaps would simplify the matter.
446
The main thrust of opposition has come, first, from a totally misguided interpretation of what we are saying by those speakers in your Lordships' House who have overlooked the fact that this is an interim proposal. There is no question here that we are saying that this is the last word on what should be a permanent solution. It is interim. I believe that that disposes of a good deal of the opposition from a number of your Lordships today.
My next comment will be brief. As a Member of these Benches, I was slightly entertained by the deep concern for the rights of minorities which was put forward by speaker after speaker on the Conservative Benches. We shall let that pass.
It has been said that these are extremely complex proposals. Negotiations and the settlement of pay and conditions is a complicated business. I would remind your Lordships that in some other countries the negotiation of a new agreement—for instance, for steelworkers in the United States—can take months. I believe that the length of time will be protracted only if, on occasion, it goes right to the very end of the proposed procedures. In the vast majority of cases it will not go to the very end. It could indeed be quite swift. As I said in opening, an experienced committee has a pretty good idea of what is going to be acceptable and what is not going to be acceptable. And so the proposals it puts forward will be tailor made in a form which makes it relatively easy for the authorities to accept.
The parties of course have a considerable incentive to accept. Therefore, while there is a last resort procedure to safeguard the position of the Secretary of State, it is extremely improbable that it will very often get to that stage; and, of course, "very often" does not arise because it is interim.
The objections that have been put forward—and I do not think that they are powerful—have not in any way met the major argument for these amendments. The major argument is that there is no support among the teachers for what the Government are proposing to do. No speaker from the other side has said that they have had enthusiastic support, or any support, from any of the teaching organisations. From this side we have pointed out that we have had support from the head teachers; we have had support from the Association of Assistant Masters; and we have had support from the Professional Association of Teachers.
Perhaps most surprisingly of all, we have had a letter of support from the Society of Education Officers. Your Lordships' House will be aware that these are the people who carry the greatest responsibility for education in this country. They are the extremely able men and women up and down the country who are responsible at local level for education. I understand that they have never previously intervened in discussions of this kind. But they are so concerned about what will happen if the Government's proposals go through that they have taken the extremely unusual step—and I have their letter here—of writing in support of these amendments.
The Government have not told us where their support comes from. They have not answered the point that I put at the beginning: how do they propose

447
to see that the conditions are carried out among nearly half-a-million teachers when there is no support for them? The Government must know that all law at the end of the day rests upon consent. They have not got consent. We have. I beg to move.
4.23 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 124; Not-Contents, 151.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Alexander of Potterhill, L.

Lawrence, L.

Amherst, E.

Leatherland, L.

Ardwick, L.

Listowel, E.

Attlee, E.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Avebury, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Aylestone, L.

Lockwood, B.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Bancroft, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Banks, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Beswick, L.

McNair, L.

Birk, B.

Mais, L.

Blyton, L.

Mayhew, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Meston, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Milford, L.

Bottomley, L.

Monkswell, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Mulley, L.

Brockway, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Nathan, L.

Bullock, L.

Nicol, B.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Northfield, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Ogmore, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Phillips, B.

David, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Raglan, L.

Diamond, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Reilly, L.

Dowding, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Edmund-Davies, L.

Rochester, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Seear, B.

Ezra, L.

Serota, B.

Falkender, B.

Shackleton, L.

Falkland, V.

Shaughnessy, L.

Fitt, L.

Shepherd, L.

Flowers, L.

Silkin of Dulwich, L.

Foot, L.

Simon, V.

Gallacher, L.

Stallard, L.

Galpern, L.

Stedman, B. [Teller.]

Gladwyn, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Grey, E.

Tanlaw, L.

Hampden, V.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hampton, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Hanworth, V.

Tedder, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Hayter, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Henniker, L.

Underhill, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hooson, L.

Whaddon, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

White, B.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jacques, L.

Willis, L.

Jeger, B.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Kearton, L.

Kennet, L.

Winstanley, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Ypres, E.

Kilmarnock, L.

448

NOT-CONTENTS

Allerton, L.

Kitchener, E.

Ampthill, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Annan, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Arran, E.

Layton, L.

Auckland, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Bauer, L.

Lloyd George of Dwyfor, E.

Beaverbrook, L.

Loch, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Long, V.

Beloff, L.

Luke, L.

Belstead, L.

Lurgan, L.

Bessborough, E.

Lyell, L.

Blyth, L.

McFadzean of Kelvinside, L.

Boardman, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Margadale, L.

Brookes, L.

Marley, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Butterworth, L.

Merrivale, L.

Byron, L.

Mersey, V.

Caccia, L.

Milverton, L.

Caithness, E.

Monk Bretton, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Monson, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Moran, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Morris, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Mottistone, L.

Carnock, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Cathcart, E.

Munster, E.

Cawley, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Coleraine, L.

Newall, L.

Colyton, L.

Norfolk, D.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Cox, B.

Onslow, E.

Craigavon, V.

Orkney, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Pender, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Penrhyn, L.

De Freyne, L.

Plummer of St Marylebone, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Derwent, L.

Porritt, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Portland, D.

Dundee, E,

Quinton, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Elibank, L.

Reay, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Richardson, L.

Elles, B.

Rodney, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Romney, E.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

St. Davids, V.

Elton, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Salisbury, M.

Faithfull, B.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Fortescue, E.

Seebohm, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Selborne, E.

Gainford, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Glenarthur, L.

Shannon, E.

Gormanston, V.

Skelmersdale, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Strange, B.

Greenway, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Gridley, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Grimthorpe, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Strathspey, L.

Sudeley, L.

Halsbury, E.

Swinton, E.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Terrington, L.

Harris of High Cross, L.

Teviot, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Henley, L.

Thurlow, L.

Hereford, Bp.

Torrington, V.

Hesketh, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Hives, L.

Trenchard, V.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hood, V.

Vivian, L.

Hooper, B.

Waldegrave, E.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Ward of Witley, V.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Westbury, L.

Kimball, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Kinloss, Ly.

Wolfson, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Young of Graffham, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.32 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 9, after ("until") insert ("the Secretary of State has satisfied himself that arrangements have been made in accordance with sections (Teachers' Pay and Conditions Research Unit) and (Arbitration procedure) and").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 2, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 3 and 4. I can claim credit for not speaking to 33 amendments, even though I cannot claim credit for the brevity of the amendments put down in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Irving.
In a sense many of the arguments about all these amendments have now taken place on more than one occasion. I do not apologise for that, although I heard the noble Lord, Lord Elton, suggesting that complex amendments might better have come at Committee stage and that there might have been a case for recommittal to Committee on the complex amendments moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. I cannot agree with that. The function of this Report stage ought to be to try to improve on the nature of the amendments put forward at Committee stage. If we cannot seek to go forward now, we are not adequately fulfilling our function as a revising Chamber. If we cannot learn from the lessons of the Committee stage and from the arguments put forward by noble Lords opposite us, whichever side we may be on, then I do not think we are adequately meeting our responsibilities.
I accept at once that the Committee has decided that a national joint council with a fully statutory provision for membership on the employers' side and the teachers' side is not acceptable to this House. That was made overwhelmingly clear in a vote at Committee stage, and I do not seek to revive it. However what I seek to put before your Lordships is something rather different, though still with the firm intention of maintaining negotiating rights for teachers and employers. Your Lordships will note that I always say "negotiating rights for teachers and employers", not simply "negotiating rights for teachers", although it is the teachers who have been most vocal in their support of negotiating rights.
The problem with any formulation which one might enter into in this House in relation to negotiation is that there is still no full agreement between the different groups of employers and the different groups of teachers on what the composition of any body should be. Therefore it is impossible to think that any precise formulation could merit both the agreement of your Lordships and the wholehearted consent of all significant bodies of teachers and employers. Therefore we come to the conclusion that the actual process of negotiation cannot be statutory; cannot be written on to the face of the Bill. It must be a matter for negotiation between the interested parties in this interim period. All we can do in putting forward amendments of this kind now is to help to facilitate that process, to help to ensure that any negotiating machinery set up is as well-informed as possible about the issues before it, and to ensure that the Secretary of State has full powers to see that it is so informed. At the end of the day, whatever negotiating machinery
450
has been set up and however it conducts the negotiations, we must ensure that there will be a full stop. It must be the case that, with failure to reach agreement, there shall be some arbitration procedure.
There is nothing new about this. All these procedures have been adopted at various times, and in particular they apply to other sections of the Civil Service. They find their origins, as noble Lords with an interest in these matters will readily recognise, in a report of the committee of Mr Justice Megaw—a committee of which the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, was a distinguished member. They draw on the very detailed and widespread experience in industrial relations of that committee and its members.
What the amendments do is to provide the best possible framework for non-statutory negotiation. What they do do is to attempt to make the negotiating process itself statutory or to set out in detail the effect on other parts of the Bill. It would have been possible to put down another 32 amendments which would have spelt out the effect on the advisory committee. I have no doubt that the Minister has a very effective speech pointing out that the amendments will leave an advisory committee alongside the procedures that are proposed in the Bill. If he wants to be spared the trouble of reading it out, I shall gladly spare him the trouble. I recognise that there is an inconsistency there. I thought it important and I think it important that your Lordships should concentrate in this matter on the really significant issue of what sort of procedure can we adopt over the next three years which will be acceptable and avoid disruption in our schools.
I cannot leave the matter without referring to one or two of the speeches from the Government Back Benches. One or two noble Lords appeared to think that there is something improper about teachers saying that they cannot see how a Government-imposed settlement can be made to work without disruption in the schools, as if there was something threatening about teachers fearing—because it is a fear and not a threat—disruption in our schools if there is an imposed settlement.
I ask your Lordships to think about what will happen in the summer or autumn terms this year if the Bill goes through substantially unamended. It means that the Secretary of State will have to spell out not only the total amount of pay, but also the details, which he outlined at the end of October 1986, of the grades which are to be given the different rises, the steps on each grade and the numbers of promoted posts in each school as well as all the conditions of service which will be on the basis of his 19 points, I have no doubt.
In order for the budget which the Secretary of State has set to be implemented, the education authorities who have not been consulted will have to create those posts, otherwise less money will be available than has been promised. All these new posts carrying special responsibility will have to be imposed on the schools, and head teachers will have to take part in selection. There will have to be advertising for these posts. All this must take place before the budget proposed by the Secretary of State can actually be spent.
If it is suggested that it is the teachers who are proposing disruption and the teachers who are going to

451
cause difficulty at a time of imposition of a settlement, I believe that is totally misconceived. It is the Government's own proposals which are going to cause the problems because the Government are going to throw into the wastepaper basket all the advances which have been made in recent months towards an agreement on conditions of service and towards at least majority support for proposals on the structure of pay as well as for the total amount of pay. I do not appreciate the continued attempt on the part of some speakers on the Government side to put all the blame for disruption on the teachers who, let it be remembered, have not been involved in disruption of any kind since May 1986.
It is necessary to put those points on the record because the matter was raised in relation to the alternative proposals for negotiating procedures. There may be detailed defects in these amendments and it is certainly true that they do not sit as happily in the Bill, as drafted, as one would like. But those problems are not insuperable. We have here a formula, which is capable of being introduced very rapidly, of causing no delay whatsoever and of being adaptable to the needs of the employers and the teachers themselves. I believe that ought to commend itself to the House, and I beg to move.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, attributed to me the view that this Chamber should not be in the business of altering Bills at Committee stage, or indeed at Report stage—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Lord will forgive me: I did not attribute to the noble Lord the view that they should not be altered in Committee. What the noble Lord implied was that no new substantial amendments should be brought forward at Report stage.
Lord Elton: My Lords, a fortiori, the noble Lord said that I had said that the Report stage should not be for modifications of changes proposed at Committee stage. We are dealing with a legislative vehicle and my view is that at Committee stage one brings forward the substantive changes that one wants to make, and that at Report stage one may alter the headlights or the size of the wheels but one does not bring in a double-decker bus with a brass band on the top floor, a debating society on the main deck and no conductor for either. That seemed to me what we were about to do.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Was the noble Lord present at the proceedings on the Financial Services Bill?
4.45 p.m
Lord Elton: I believe that one of the rules of your Lordships' Chamber is to make sure that one's procedures are always relevant, and I am concentrating on this Bill. The amendments in question have a number of objections that can be raised against them. I hope and expect that my noble friends will raise them all eloquently and that your Lordships will decide accordingly.
452
However, I am particularly interested to pursue one aspect which may be of very considerable importance. The amendment challenges what has hitherto been one of the fundamental assumptions of Labour Party economic policy and one of the few assumptions which is shared by the Conservative Party and therefore by the Government—that is, that it is necessary for central government to control not only central government expenditure but the totality of government expenditure. That includes expenditure by local authorities and the amount of borrowing which they require to make. Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to finish this speech because I shall probably go on to say a lot of other things that he may regard as mistaken and it will be easier for him to point them out to me once at the end rather than at intervals throughout my intervention.
In the proposed new clause put forward in Amendment No. 3 in subsection (3)(a) and by reference in Amendment No. 4 at subsection (6) a restrictive power is given to the Government in the person of the Secretary of State; but it is only to set a limit on the money spent by central government. The local authorities are left free to spend as much, to raise as much by rates and to borrow as much, as they want to, regardless of the national interest, regardless of the block grant, regardless of interest rates, and so on. In other words, they need consider nothing except their own immediate conception of their own immediate interests when it comes to that part of their expenditure.
I am certain those terms were clearly intentionally drafted to exclude any restriction by central government on local government expenditure except in regard to money provided by central government. On the face of it that appears to be the purpose of the amendment and I must ask the noble Lord to explain, either in an intervention when I sit down or when he winds up, whether this is an unintentional change of his party's policy which is endorsed by his party and presumably was discusssed at their seaside gathering last week, of which I know very little, or whether it is in fact a departure from Labour Party policy which does not have the authorisation of the party, in which case of course he will not be asking us to vote for it and, if he does carry it, it will be an embarrassment to him.
This is not a trivial matter. It always gives pleasure to noble Lords on the Back-Benches on both sides to suggest that their Front-Benchers are somehow out of step with the executive, the Cabinet or whatever. I must admit that there is a certain piquancy in that; but the fact is that the impact of local authority spending on national economics is of crucial importance. I am sorry to go on about my experience. It is not particularly relevant except in this: I had to answer in your Lordships' Chamber for the decisions of central government on central financing, and the really critical point of tension between central government and local government is the amount of expenditure by local authorities. We had a debate last Wednesday on a Motion introduced by my noble friend Lady Cox, in which we discussed the critical importance that this has.
The noble Lord, by his amendment, is in fact surrendering the control of a very large and important slice of local authority spending and borrowing; and I

453
think that your Lordships ought to be aware of that as well as of the technical educational matters when deciding on the amendment.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I should very much like to speak in support of these amendments. Failing the amendments I have put forward, they would be my choice. I am particularly pleased to see them here because, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said, they are based on the recommendations of the Megaw Committee, consciously or not. That committee sat, after all, for a period of over a year considering the pay of non-industrial civil servants. They came up with proposals which the Government have never fully accepted. A very great deal of work went into the report and many very expert people contributed to it. In my view it is by far the best proposal for a permanent arrangement in respect of non-industrial Civil Service pay. In this case it would be very simply applied to teachers' pay. It has been brought forward as a permanent arrangement. When the interim period is over, I believe this has a great deal to be said for it, and I should like very strongly to support these amendments.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, admitted, in his usual agreeable way, that this series of amendments would start a debate which was to some extent a rèchauffè of the debates which we had at Committee stage. As those debates were quite heated, as he will recall, "rèchauffè" is perhaps an appropriate description of what this does.
He also admitted—and this is perhaps rather damaging—that by putting these two additional bodies into the Bill while not proposing the removal of the advisory committee or of the ordinary machinery which is already in the Bill, he is making what colloquially one could call "a dog's dinner" of the Bill. We are after all at Report stage. If he were to carry this amendment the Bill would go forward to Third Reading, where by convention and by tradition amendments of major importance are very rarely made, in a completely muddled and confused state.
I venture, if I may, a mild protest that the noble Lord speaking for the Opposition from the Opposition Dispatch Box does not bother when putting forward these amendments to put forward consequential amendments, so that if your Lordships were by any chance to accept his amendment the Bill, whether sensible or not, would at least be a coherent and logical whole. What he is asking your Lordships to do now, if he takes this to a Division, is to make a complete nonsense and jumble of the Bill and perhaps leave it to somebody else on Third Reading to try to tidy it up. I suggest that that is not really treating your Lordships' House properly; nor, to quote his own phrase, are we behaving like a responsible revising Chamber.
The proposals themselves are odd and really only come back, as the noble Lord himself did in his speech, to this sacred formula of preserving the negotiating rights of employers and teachers. We have had all this over again. There is nothing in the Bill, as I understand it, to prevent the local authorities and the teachers negotiating to their hearts' content; and if
454
they come out with a sensible and acceptable solution quite clearly the advisory committee would be interested in it and, more importantly, so would my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. So I really suggest to the noble Lord, as to your Lordships, that to go on and on about these so-called negotiating rights and suggest that the Bill would, apparently, automatically wipe out any such negotiations is unrealistic and is not really taking us very far.
I was moreover very interested in what the noble Lord said about disruption—that apparently if there were to be disruption in the schools it would not be the responsibility of those people who were actually effecting the disruption. That is the substance of what he said. What he is saying—and, if I may say so, it amounts to a threat—is that he believes (and several noble Lords have already on the previous set of amendments referred to this) that if the Bill goes through in its present form there will be disruption. There can only be disruption if the teachers see fit, despite the fact that the Government are proposing quite substantial increases in their remuneration, nonetheless to abandon their duties in the schools.
I very much hope, for their sake as well as for the sake of the children, that the teachers do no such thing. They have already damaged themselves very severely in the eyes of public opinion generally by showing a willingness in pursuit of their own ends to prejudice the position and chances of the children for whom they are responsible. Those who were brought up, as I was, to regard the teaching profession as an honourable profession have been disillusioned and depressed by this. And your Lordships must reflect on the response that there must be from the children themselves, to know that the teacher who has appeared to be so interested in their progress, who has shown care and responsibility for them, is suddenly prepared, either of his own volition or on the dictates of his union, to throw all that away and prejudice the academic chances of the child.
As my noble friend Lord Elton said, this is quite a different form of disruption and a much more damaging one than the ordinary industrial dispute. Coalminers come out on strike, as they have been known to do. Eventually they go back and the coal is built up again. But if a child misses a year or two years of proper education, that can never be put back. That is why the teaching profession was always in the past so highly regarded, because it had this special responsibility.
I hope that we shall get this bluntly clear. The teachers' unions—and of course it is the unions rather than the teachers that we are really talking about in this context—may or may not get all that they think they want. They are certainly getting an advance in their earnings of a quite substantial degree. If there is to be any more talk of disruption resulting from this Bill, and from the Government's decisions, let us be quite plain as to where the responsibility for that disruption lies. It does not lie with the Government; it lies with those who disrupt.
After all, most of us from time to time are annoyed by what governments do to us. Sometimes we are annoyed by, for example, decisions on taxation. But in a democratic society such as ours, citizens have to accept the legislation and the legislative decisions of

455
Parliament. Although, as I asked, the teachers do not seem to be getting a bad deal out of this—indeed they seem to have been offered a proportionately higher improvement in their remuneration than almost any other section of society—even if that were not so it is quite wrong for us to conduct this debate on the basis that unless they get exactly what they or their unions want there will be disruption.
The position is that the Government are proposing an interim period during which we can try to get right what has plainly gone wrong. All your Lordships who have spoken earlier have accepted that the Burnham machinery has gone wrong. I think most of your Lordships accept that it will take some time to get it right and the Government's proposal is for a period during which that necessary work can be done. I hope that it will not be work subject to a time-limit, because work subject to a time-limit is apt to be botched. But, so far as the Government are concerned, it will obviously be done as quickly as possible because it is in no one's interest to leave the matter open for so long.
As regards these proposals, quite apart from the weaknesses to which my noble friend Lord Elton referred, the great weakness, as he pointed out, of relaxing control of local authority spending, given the record of the local authorities about which we were talking last week, is a very serious omission indeed. Given that, and given the mess the amendment will make of the Bill, I hope that your Lordships will say to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, "Thank you very much. We would rather not".
Lord Alexander of Potterhill: My Lords, I should like to make one comment on what the noble Lord has just said. I share his view that when I was young the teaching profession was regarded as an honourable profession and I offer no excuse for recent developments. But what the Secretary of State proposes is recognition of an honourable profession is offering a teacher at starting point just £2,000 a year less than is offered to a bus driver.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I had not intended to intervene, but the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, has made a few comments which I feel cannot go without some comment from me. First, he seemed to imply that it is the teachers' unions who are responsible for the disruption and that somehow or other they are not representative of their members. Like many others of your Lordships, I have received lots of letters on this issue; more letters, I think, than on any other issue since I came into your Lordships' House. A very large number of those came from individual teachers and from groups of teachers working in schools.
I had one this morning from a group of teachers in a school. What they say is instructive and interesting, because they are not talking about coming out on strike or anything like that. What they are saying is that they perceive the Bill, as unamended, as being a threat to take away rights that they have enjoyed for a very long time. The say in their letter:
"The Government can in this way legislate away teachers' democratic rights but they cannot force teachers to be enthusiastic or willing. Indeed this Bill would actually discourage and demoralise
456
teachers and the flood of teachers leaving the profession will continue."
It is that kind of issue that we have to be concerned with in your Lordships' House.
I support the amendments in the name of my noble friend. I do not think that they make a dog's breakfast of the Bill. It is a very bad Bill, in my view. The amendments seek to write into the Bill some role for teachers through their organisations and some means by which issues can be resolved. One of the ways in which issues can be resolved is through arbitration and an arbitration board. I speak as one who has served for many years on the Central Arbitration Committee. I believe in arbitration as a way of settling issues, sometimes very complex issues. On the CAC we had to deal with numerous complex issues, often covering many thousands of employees, but we nevertheless managed to arbitrate out way through those difficulties.
For those reasons, I commend the amendments to the House. If passed by your Lordships they will at least demonstrate to teachers that we value them and that we regard them just as highly as other public servants who have some form of input into the way in which their terms and conditions are negotiated.
5 P.m.
Lord Butterworth: My Lords, I ask the House to reject the amendments on three grounds. First, the Advisory Committee on School Teachers' Pay and Conditions is flawed because by giving the Secretary of State the power only to limit central government expenditure it attempts to make an important and fundamental constitutional change by a side wind, by something in the Teachers' Pay and Conditions Bill. If Parliament were to be concerned to alter that control it is my submission that this would not be the right or proper way to do it.
Secondly, we have been given no explanation of how the two new bodies, the advisory committee and the arbitration board, would work with the interim advisory committee. This is probably because the advisory committee on pay and conditions and the arbitration board are really seen as pieces of permanent machinery and are not part of any interim machinery for dealing with the present problem. I suggest that at this stage it would be much too early to settle details of arbitration machinery.
It has been said on all sides of the House that what we wish to see is a short period during which negotiating machinery will be laid down. That is the aim which we must seek to achieve. Once we have the permanent machinery, settlements, I hope, will be achieved by negotiation. To begin thinking about writing in arbitration is the wrong way. Once one starts writing in provisions of arbitration, those who are charged with negotiations begin to think of the stance they will take before the ultimate arbitrators instead of getting down to negotiation. Negotiation comes first, and it is only when negotiations fail that one repairs to arbitration.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, we have heard many different excuses from the other side of the House as to why the various amendments put forward from these Benches and from the Alliance Benches

457
would not be an effective solution to the problem. At Committee stage we heard that the proposals were a replica of Burnham, that they gave no role to the Secretary of State and that they made no recognition of the Secretary of State's financial contribution to teachers' pay. In the debate today we have heard a different set of excuses.
For instance, we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Elton, and just now from the noble Lord, Lord Butterworth, that the proposals do not recognise the Secretary of State's financial contribution and do not recognise the contribution that the local authority would make and therefore the repercussions on the economy as a whole. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said that the proposals are a dog's dinner. I wonder just how much support there is for the various excuses that have been put forward from the Government Benches and whether the real reason for the opposition is the one put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, who in replying on behalf of the Government to the previous debate said (I think these are his exact words):
"These amendments would resurrect the representative features of Burnham".
In other words, what he was really saying is that the Government do not want the representative features. We ought to hear from the Minister when he comes to reply whether this is the fundamental basis of the Government's case.
There are three possible ways of dealing with the situation. First, we have a body which is capable of negotiating and would involve the employers' and the employees' representatives. When I say "employers' representatives" I take account too of the contribution of the Secretary of State. That is one way to deal with the situation. The second way, as was suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, is to have an independent review body. It would have to be a real independent review body such as we have for doctors' pay. The third alternative is for the Secretary of State himself to undertake the powers of imposing terms and conditions on the teachers.
We recognise that because of the time factor the settlement in the current year will be imposed by the Secretary of State. I must confirm that from the correspondence I have received I have gained the same impression as many other noble Lords and noble Baronesses that this Bill does not carry the confidence of the teachers. If we really want to settle the problem in our schools we have to put forward some kind of arrangement that will gain the confidence of the teaching profession as well as that of the other parties involved. As the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said when she introduced her amendment, unless you can carry the support of the nearly half a million people employed in the teaching profession there will be no peace in our schools.
If the Government are concerned about safeguarding the academic future of the children—this point was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and I think we would all subscribe to that—they will recognise that they must give some negotiating rights to the two parties involved. I feel sure that by doing so they will create the good will in which permanent machinery can be agreed upon in
458
the years between now and the end of March 1990, when this Bill is due to expire.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, fairly said at the beginning of his remarks that these amendments do not attempt again to put before the House the idea of a national joint council. Indeed, these are amendments which come from a lesser known part of the Burnham negotiating machinery. I understand that for several years now the secretariat of the Burnham Committee has produced an annual pay data report designed to inform the work of the committee. Amendment No. 3 which is the first of the substantive amendments, would give this work to a research unit within the Office of Manpower Economics. Its reports would inform negotiations but it does not appear that the employers' and teachers' organisations would be bound by them in any way.
Nothing is said in the new clauses about the form of negotiations: so presumably that would be left to the employers' organisations and teachers' organisations. They might, for example, decide to exclude an organisation such as the Professional Association of Teachers from the negotiations just as they tried to exclude the Association of Polytechnic Teachers in the further education sector—a matter which I hope has now been put right by my noble friends Lady Cox and Lord Beloff in an amendment carried during the previous stage of the Bill. However, I suppose it is more likely that we would find the Burnham Committee would be reconvened without the Secretary of State's representatives. In answer to the direct question put to me by the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, I believe that that would be going down a one-way road and it would not be in the right direction.
The role of my right honourable friend under these arrangements seems to be decidedly limited. This is the 64,000-dollar question on what the position of the Secretary of State should be in determining pay. My right honourable friend would refer matters to the research unit and he could make proposals to it; but under these amendments he appears to have no place in the negotiations following a report. He could specify a limit on central government's contribution to a settlement but not on the settlement itself.
That is the point to which my noble friend Lord Elton drew attention. It is an important point. Both Labour and Conservative governments have always hitherto concerned themselves with the total of teachers' pay and the total of expenditure on education. It is necessary to do that if education is to be planned alongside competing national priorities such as the health service, defence and pensions. It appears from these amendments that noble Lords opposite now believe that the total education expenditure is a matter to be left entirely to local authorities. They would specify only a government contribution. This is a very big issue, and not only do I disagree with that but I suggest it is something which simply cannot be dealt with in this Bill.
We then come to the second new clause under Amendment No. 4 about which my noble friend Lord Butterworth delivered a few well-chosen words. It appears from this amendment that arbitration could be invoked by the teachers, the employers or my right

459
honourable friend only when the teachers and the employers have failed to agree on something. That is something which has not come out of this afternoon's debate. It is a seriously diminished role for the Secretary of State. If one considers how this procedure would have worked in recent months it appears that the Labour-controlled local authorities and just two teacher unions would have been able to impose the proposals emerging from the Nottingham-London talks in November, even though those proposals were opposed by the Government, are opposed by many teachers, and are, I believe against the interests of the education service. I suggest that that part of Amendment No. 4 cannot be right.
I have to confess that the Government see nothing in these proposals which would produce satisfactory machinery for determining teachers' pay and conditions of service. The members of Burnham Committee would be at it again, informed but not bound by reports from the Office of Manpower Economics. The Government would have to abandon responsibility for planning education expenditure; and the poor old ratepayer would have no protection against extravagant settlements.
Apart from the procedural point effectively dealt with by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, I believe the arrangements in the Bill as drafted will be far better, bearing in mind that we are talking about an interim period. There will be an independent advisory committee. After it reports there will be discussion involving the teachers, local authorities, voluntary school interests and the Secretary of State in a way that has not happened under the Burnham procedure. The Government's responsibility for planning public expenditure as a whole will be properly reflected with a substantial pay offer.
I conclude by saying that I join with my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter in saying that I believe that the Bill contains the best arrangements which we can work out at the present time. They certainly provide no reason for what is very unattractively called industrial action by a great profession which can only damage opportunities for children. It is on those grounds that I stand by the Bill and resist the amendments.
5.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, there have been four strands in this interesting debate. I refer to strands from the other side of the House. My noble friends will forgive me if I merely thank them for their contributions, as I do the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, rather than go into detail on what they said.
The first is a procedural point which can be dealt with rapidly. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, is opposed to the idea of introducing on Report amendments which would require further amendment at Third Reading and believes that those further amendments are not spelt out fully on the Marshalled List today. I think I represent the noble Lord's views fairly.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I do not think that the noble Lord has taken the point that I sought to make, and no doubt that is my fault. My point is that no attempt is made in this series of amendments to produce a coherent and complete Bill if they are
460
adopted. The Bill is left as a nonsense. I suggest that it is wrong for your Lordships to leave a Bill like that at any stage of the proceedings.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I understand the point made by the noble Lord and I value his contribution. I simply say in reassurance that the amendments which would be required at Third Reading would be extremely simple since they would take out two clauses. No major amendment would be required in any other respect.
The noble Lord, Lord Elton referred to the provisions of subsection (6) of the new clause in Amendment No. 4, as did the noble Lord, Lord Belstead. He suggested that this was a major departure from the policy of both Labour and Conservative parties in the control of public expenditure. Unfortunately the noble Lord concentrated only on subsection (6) of the new clause. This does indeed state that the arbitration board can only produce a binding decision if central government expenditure is contained within the limits imposed. However, the noble Lord neglected to point out that subsection (7) provides that even when a decision purports to be binding the Secretary of State can secure by order that such a decision should not be binding provided he is satisfied on grounds of national economic circumstances that such an order is necessary.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I had seen that as a possible interpretation. However, the idea that the only control by central government over this large slice of public expenditure should wait until the whole rigmarole of arbitration and consultation proposed by the noble Lord is concluded and put forward in a statutory instrument, and then to tear it up and leave nothing in its place as a result of a parliamentary debate, seemed so ludicrous that I did not think that it could be what the noble Lord intended.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have two answers to that point. First, I should have thought that the Secretary of State would only want to use that reserve power as a last resort, and that is the way it is expressed in the Bill. Secondly, it is interesting that the noble Lord has no faith in the legislation of his own government over the past eight years on the control of local authority expenditure. After all, there are the provisions not only for setting targets and grant-related expenditure allowances but also for rate capping which could come into play if there were any proposals to use local authority expenditure in favour of teachers at the expense of central government expenditure.
Lord Elton: My Lords, does the noble Lord propose rate capping as a method of controlling expenditure by a Labour Government?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as I have just said, I propose that as a last resort there ought to be a control on all government expenditure and it is that which is provided for in the amendment. It is the noble Lord who lacks faith in his own Government's legislation.
The third strand of the debate was the issue of the effect in the schools of an imposed settlement later this year. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, chose to

461
use repeatedly the word "disruption". It was not the word that I used. I said that an imposed settlement that required local authorities and schools to change in detail their management structure and the number of grades and people on them as a result of a decision in which they had not participated could cause chaos. That is not the same as disruption. It does not mean that there would be deliberate action on the part of teachers to frustrate any intention; it merely means that the Government are going much too far in proposing to lay down the detail of the way in which an award should be implemented. That is not at all the same thing.
The noble Lord referred to the right of taxation and the resentment that there may well be at central government taxation. I ask him to consider how much more resentment there would be if the Government not only said, "You shall be taxed such and such an amount" but also, "This is how you will raise the money in order to pay the tax". That is the equivalent of the Government's proposal.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, would the noble Lord explain, from the point of view of the ordinary child, the difference beween chaos in the school and disruption in the school?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the kind of chaos that I envisage—and I do not look forward to it with any pleasure—is that of posts for which there is provision not being filled and teachers not able to do the work that they are there to do because of the imposition in a great hurry (as it would have to be) of a completely new structure. That is the danger that I foresee.
However, the most fundamental point is also raised by a phrase used by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter which on any lips other than his I should have described as "sneering"; namely, "the sacred formula of preserving the negotiating rights of the teachers". He then used the words "so-called negotiating rights". If it is the view of the noble Lord that negotiating rights are not worthy of the protection of this House, and that is also the view of the Government, so be it. There is nothing we can do about that. However, it is a reversal of at least 150 years of development in industrial and social relations in this country.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord yet again, but as he has referred to me and quoted my words, he will no doubt be aware that I went out of my way to explain—I hope very fully—that under the Bill as it stands there is the perfect possibility of negotiation between the employers and the teachers' unions. To attribute to me any desire to abolish that is completely unwarrantable.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, there is a distinction between "negotiation"—anybody can negotiate—and "negotiating rights" which obviously has not become clear to the noble Lord. The distinction and the right that the teachers want to preserve is the right to have negotiations and therefore, inevitably, the right for their negotiations to have effect. That is being taken away by this Bill and it is
462
what these amendments seek to provide immediately, without any delay of three years. That is why I think it is necessary to seek the opinion of the House on this amendment.
5.25 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 101; Not-Contents, 155.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Amherst, E.

Listowel, E.

Ardwick, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Attlee, E.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Aylestone, L.

Lockwood, B.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Longford, E.

Banks, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Barnett, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Beswick, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Birk, B.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Blyton, L.

McNair, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Mais, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Meston, L.

Brockway, L.

Milford, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Monkswell, L.

Buckmaster, V.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Mulley, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Nathan, L.

Coggan, L,

Nicol, B.

David, B. [Teller.]

Ogmore, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Phillips, B.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Diamond, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Donoughue, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Rea, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Ezra, L.

Rochester, L.

Falkender, B.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Falkland, V.

Seear, B.

Fitt, L.

Serota, B.

Fletcher, L.

Shepherd, L.

Foot, L.

Silkin of Dulwich, L.

Gallacher, L.

Simon, V.

Galpern, L.

Stallard, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Stedman, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Grey, E.

Strabolgi, L.

Grimond, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hampton, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Hanworth, V.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Tedder, L.

Henniker, L.

Tordoff, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L,

Underhill, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Jacques, L.

Whaddon, L.

Jeger, B.

White, B.

Kennet, L.

Wigoder, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Allerton, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Ampthill, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Arran, E.

Brookes, L.

Auckland, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Bauer, L.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Butterworth, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Caccia, L.

Beloff, L.

Caithness, E.

Belstead, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Bessborough, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Blyth, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Boardman, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

463

Carnock, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Cathcart, E.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Cawley, L.

Merrivale, L.

Coleraine, L.

Mersey, V.

Colville of Culross, V.

Milverton, L.

Colyton, L.

Molson, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Morris, L.

Cox, B.

Mottistone, L.

Craigavon, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Munster, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Newall, L.

Deedes, L.

Norfolk, D.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Onslow, E.

Dundee, E.

Orkney, E.

Eden of Winton, L.

Pender, L.

Elibank, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Plummer of St Marylebone, L.

Elles, B.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Portland, D.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Quinton, L.

Elton, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Faithfull, B.

Reay, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Richardson, L.

Fortescue, E.

Rodney, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Romney, E.

Gainford, L.

St. Davids, V.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Salisbury, M.

Glanusk, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Glenarthur, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Gormanston, V.

Seebohm, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Selborne, E.

Greenway, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Gridley, L.

Shannon, E.

Grimthorpe, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Somers, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Strange, B.

Henley, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Hesketh, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Hives, L.

Holderness, L.

Strathspey, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Sudeley, L.

Hood, V.

Swinton, E.

Hooper, B.

Terrington, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Teviot, L.

Inchcape, E.

Teynham, L.

Ingrow, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Ironside, L.

Thurlow, L.

Kimball, L.

Torrington, V.

Kinnaird, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Kitchener, E.

Trenchard, V.

Lane-Fox, B.

Trumpington, B.

Lauderdale, E.

Vivian, L.

Layton, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Ward of Witley, V.

Loch, L.

Westbury, L.

Long, V.

Whitelaw, V.

Luke, L.

Windlesham, L.

Lurgan, L.

Wise, L.

Lyell, L.

Wolfson, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Margadale, L.

Young of Graffham, L.

Marley, L.

Ypres, E.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.33 p.m.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Nugent of Guildford): My Lords, Amendments Nos. 3 to 15 inclusive already having been debated, I do not propose to call them unless any noble Lord has an objection. I now call Amendment No. 16 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell.
[Amendments Nos. 3 to 15 not moved.]
Clause 3 [Power of Secretary of State to make provision by order]:
Lord Monkswell Lord Monkswell moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 3, line 2, at end insert ("but may not make provision for any remuneration, or part thereof, to be determined by the Head Teacher.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the object of this amendment is to protect the professional integrity and reputation of headmasters and to remove a possible source of industrial relations aggravation. One of the matters mentioned on Second Reading and late one night in Committee was merit payments for teachers. One of the difficulties with that is that we do not have on paper in front of us concrete proposals from the Government. We have some expressions by the Secretary of State in the media. Merit payments for teachers is one of the ideas that he has floated. It is the idea that we should reward good teachers better than we reward the not so good teachers.
I shall tell your Lordships an apocryphal tale that I was told fairly soon after I started in industry. A young apprentice, having just come out of his time, was approached by his boss with the story that the boss was going to give him a little money over and above what his peers were paid because he was considered to be better than them. That continued for several years until the young worker realised that instead of paying him more, the boss was paying him less than anybody else. That is one of the effects of a system of merit payments which is under the boss's control.
I do not intend to suggest that head teachers would indulge in that type of activity. However, if the Secretary of State were to include within the order a scheme whereby head teachers were able to determine a teacher's pay, or some part of it, it would be open to the criticism that they were not using independent criteria to assess whether the teacher should receive that remuneration. I am sure that the Government do not intend that.
If such a scheme were to be developed, the lowest level to which the decision should be devolved is the board of governors. I hope that the Government will accept the amendments on the basis on which it is put forward. I am not seeking to limit the Secretary of State's ability to promote a scheme for merit payments. The only thing that I am seeking to limit is the head teacher's ability to determine a teacher's pay. I go even further. I say that the amendment would not prevent a head teacher being involved in the determination of a teacher's pay; it would stop a head teacher determining on his own some part of a teacher's pay.
I hope that the Government will feel able to accept the amendment. I do not put it forward on the basis of making a party point or with the intention of changing the Bill's main thrust, but to safeguard the teaching profession, especially head teachers who have a trying task to perform. I beg to move.
Lord Somers: My Lords, I shall listen carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, says in reply to this amendment. I hope that it will be given serious consideration because with all the legislation that may be provided to do justice to the teaching profession no one knows better than the head master or head

465
mistress what the individual needs, abilities and conditions are in a school. They have an intimate knowledge of the school. No one outside education can replace that.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend Lord Monkswell. I share his hope that the Government will be able to give the reassurance that he seeks and that it is not intended to have a kitty of merit payments solely in the hands of the head teacher. Apart from any other consideration, I am convinced that such a proposal if carried out—it is difficult to see from the Secretary of State's previous statements whether that is the intention—would be bitterly resisted by the head teachers themselves. Nobody would be more reluctant to take sole responsibility for giving our merit payments than a head teacher. If the Government intend that there shall be a more formalised way of rewarding merit other than by promotion, we shall have to listen to that with our usual care. However, the fear that my noble friend has raised is one which deserves to be dispelled and I hope that the Government will be able to do so.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I should say straightaway to the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, on the actual drafting of his amendment that the Bill does not provide that remuneration shall be determined by the head teacher. The Bill provides that remuneration shall be determined and paid to teachers by local education authorities in accordance with the scales and other provisions set out or referred to in an order. I hope that this first point meets the drafting of the amendment of the noble Lord.
In so far as matters are not prescribed in detail in an order, there is a government amendment, to which we shall come later, which, if accepted, would provide that discretion may be conferred on a local education authority, or that matters may be left for agreement between teachers and local education authorities. The Government's intention is that these questions should be handled at local education authority level. It is highly questionable whether the powers in the Bill, even if so amended, would extend to giving discretion to head teachers.
However, the noble Lord made clear that there is rather more behind the amendment. I hope that I can give further assurances. From his speech it seemed that the noble Lord had in mind that head teachers are frequently given power to recommend teachers in their school for promotion. Of course there is nothing new in that. As the noble Lord, Lord Somers, has said, who can be better qualified than the head of a school to recommend whether a teacher is moving in the direction of promotion or not? Clearly, any promotion would have to be confirmed by the local education authority which will pay the teacher at a promoted rate. But the head teacher, who knows his staff well, is likely to play a substantial role in the promotion process.
May I finally make it clear in answer to the noble Lord and to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that the Government have no proposals to introduce merit pay for teachers. The Government think that the proper
466
way to reward teachers is through promotion. We believe that promotion posts should be available not only for those taking on extra responsibilities but also for the best classroom teachers. As a thesis it seems strange that there should be responsibility only if one goes out of the classroom. We would want to see this idea dispelled. We should like to see promotion for those who take on extra responsibilities, for those who make their way in the classroom, for those whose skills are in short supply, and for those who are working in difficult schools. I hope that that answers the points put to me on these amendments by the noble Lord.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, I agree absolutely with my noble friend. I know that it was not the intention of the noble Lord, but this would be a very unpleasant addition to the clause. There are many people who ought not to be allowed to give increased remuneration. Why pick out the head teachers, as did the noble Lord, Lord Somers? If anybody is in a position to have a view which ought to be taken into account, it is the head master who is responsible for the staff. To provide in the statute that the head master is the only person who is not to be given power would be rather unpleasant. My noble friend said that there would not be such powers unless supported by the committee generally. If a head master is told that he cannot play his part in providing leadership, his general standing is undermined. It is important to have the discipline and the leadership coming from the head master carried down through the whole of the staff.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, before the noble Lord replies to this amendment, can I make this appeal? Before we come to the end of this rather dreadful Bill, can we be told something about the criteria on which the good and the not-so-good teacher will be judged? Perhaps I may say to my noble friend and to the noble Lord opposite that to use the word "head master" is enough to get one into trouble with the Equal Opportunities Commission. These days we speak of head teachers. This is one area where women have some rights.
I appreciate that this matter has to be dealt with after the Bill is passed. But it is a subject of real concern. How will one work out the criteria to say that a teacher in a school with highly intelligent children, probably with parents from professional backgrounds, who will learn naturally and pass examinations, is a better teacher because he gets results than a teacher in a school where there are deprived children from bad housing conditions and so on? How will such criteria be decided? I wish the Government joy of it. If we can have some inkling of how they will provide for this measurement, it will be extremely valuable for those of us who are in touch with teachers.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, if the House will give me leave to reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, the noble Lord, Lord Somers suggested more effectively than I can that good head teachers, and, I would say, education authorities, recognise good teachers in all kinds of ways, as do pupils and parents also. However, I take the point that the noble Baroness is making. If one of the legs of promotion is to be for a teacher

467
making his or her way through classroom teaching and not progressing to some responsibilities outside the classroom, then the process of recognition needs to be made as effective and systematic as possible by the early development and dissemination of a best practice for teacher appraisal. A group representing teachers, their employers and the Government, has already been set up to oversee a pilot project covering six local education authorities and additional government money has already been provided to meet the costs. I hope very much that this combined operation—which I trust will now go forward in six local education authority areas—will help on the question that the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, has asked.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, in replying to this debate, I thank those who have contributed. The first matter to which I must reply is the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, that it would not be the intention of the Secretary of State when making an order to change very much the way that teachers' pay is arrived at. We are faced with the problem that this Bill gives the Secretary of State, subject to the approval of Parliament, absolute power. The Secretary of State could completely tear up the way that teachers' pay has been determined and developed over the last 80 years and could start completely from scratch. I do not suggest that that is the intention of the Government.
However, there is one area of merit payments—if we may call them that—which gives cause for concern. I take the point that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead made that other people besides head teachers would have some knowledge of whether a teacher was good or how proficient he was. The noble Lord mentioned the education officers, the parents and pupils. I cannot conceive a situation where the Government would involve pupils in the determination of merit payments—but that is by the by.
If I may just touch on a point that was made about head teachers providing leadership, I suggest that the best way the head teacher can provide leadership is through the professional level of integrity that he exhibits and not in a very professional area of public involvement by the doling out of extra money. That is the way to bring discredit into the profession.
The Government have come back with some comments which give me some cause for hope. I can put it no higher than that. I recognise that this particular amendment was not discussed in Committee, nor anything like it. It is unfortunate, but I think it is a fact of life, that the Front Benches will be predisposed to discuss the great big issues of the Bill and may not find the time to discuss individual little details, but I hope that the Government will take note of what has been said this evening and give us further assurance that they are proceeding with the development of teachers' pay and conditions. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 3, line 3, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
("(5) An order may, in particular, as regards remuneration—

(a) confer discretion on the local education authority with respect to any matter;

468

(b) make provision as to the aggregate amount of allowances payable to teachers in a school;

(c) set lower and upper limits on the number or proportion of teachers in a school to be paid on specified scales or who are at any specified time to be paid any specified allowance;

(d) provide for the designation of schools in relation to which special provisions apply;

(e) provide for the determination of any questions arising as to the interpretation or application of the provisions set out or referred to in the order;

(f) make retrospective provision, but not so as to require the reduction of a teacher's pay in respect of a past period;

(g) provide that the extent specified in the order matters may be settled by agreement between, or in a manner agreed between, teachers and local education authorities.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a technical amendment. Its purpose is to make it clear that the type of arrangements embodied in the Burnham document which were accepted by teachers and employers can be covered by orders made under the Act or in a document published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office and referred to in the order.
There are seven different paragraphs in this amendment. I hope your Lordships will not feel that I am treating the House with disrespect if I say that it might be better if, instead of giving a brief description of each paragraph, I finish and then try to reply to questions which may be put about any of the paragraphs. I add one thing. This is a technical amendment. It is brought forward simply to clarify the type of arrangements which can be covered by orders made under the Act. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I suppose that in the strictest sense one could argue that this is a technical amendment because the words are recognisable, because we have seen these words elsewhere and because we know, as the noble Lord says, that they have been accepted by teachers and employers alike as being proper matters for discussion, proper matters for negotiation, proper matters on which decisions have ultimately to be reached when considering teachers' pay and conditions. On that basis we are not disposed to oppose the amendments, but I am bound to say that the kind of agreement which is reached by teachers and their employers in the context of free collective bargaining is by no means the same kind of agreement as that which might be reached in the context of an imposed order, which is what the Government are proposing in this Bill.
I do not think it is necessary to detain the House any longer on this matter, except to point out that there is an element of sleight of hand on the part of the Government in using items which are perfectly proper in the context of negotiation without significant amendment when the negotiating rights have been taken away.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, this amendment reveals the extent of the failure of negotiations to reach satisfactory conclusions over a wide area. Lest we should lose cotact with some of the realities of this matter, would the noble Lord confirm that under paragraph (f) of his amendment there are very substantial arrears of pay already waiting as from 1st January this year, but which are not yet determined and are unlikely to be determined until the Secretary of State exercises the authority that this Bill will give him?

469
If the report which I saw in the press was anything to go by, he is unlikely to reach conclusions much before Easter, which means that there are hundreds of millions of pounds of pay already in the pipeline. Nobody knows for certain how much they will get, and to a very large extent the allowances which are more prominent in the Secretary of State's scheme than they were in the agreed Nottingham scheme will presumably not be awarded until later; so we already have a delay factor written into the situation.
The next stage begins on 1st October when the second instalment of the settlement has to come into operation. This Bill gives the Secretary of State freedom to come to his conclusions on the part payable from October without any help from the advisory committee. So really 1987 is already taken care of in the hands of the Secretary of State without the advisory committee, and to a large extent the money is already in arrears. That is not a very happy condition for teachers to be in, so Is hope that in the final stage of this Bill the noble Lord the Minister will be able to give us some comfort on the timing of all this.
There is an ominous silence over the teachers' union position at the present moment. We are getting many letters from individual teachers, which rather suggests that we are hearing many voices instead of one or two. I think we must pay some regard to the state of mind of the teachers. There is no doubt that we must make this speedy and we must make it good. Therefore I hope that this provision for retrospection contains expeditious attention to the matters which are already to be effective, as I understand it, from the first of last month.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, both noble Lords, the noble Lord McIntosh, and the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, talked about the arrears of pay, and the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, specifically asked for assurances. Arrears of pay will date from 1st January. The speed with which the money is paid will depend on Royal Assent for the Bill, consultation with local authorities and teachers' unions about draft orders, and the orders being laid. Those now on promoted posts will get half-way to the 1st October allowance in payments in respect of 1st January.
Perhaps I may just say that my right honourable friend's proposals guarantee incentive posts to teachers on scales 3 and 4 and the senior teacher scale. I hope that answers what the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, specifically put to me.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 18 to 25 not moved.]
6 p.m.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 3, line 22, after ("force") insert ("on or").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is a drafting amendment. The Government proposals have always included payments in two stages: on or as from 1st January and on 1st October 1987. Clause 3(7) as it stands refers to an order coming into force before 1st October. It was envisaged that this would allow such an order to provide for the bringing into effect of the
470
second instalment of a pay increase on 1st October. This technical amendment now clarifies the position to ensure that an order can be made to bring into effect the second stage of the 1987 pay increase on 1st October. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 27 not moved.]
Clause 6 [Duration of Act]:
Lord Henderson of Brompton Lord Henderson of Brompton moved Amendment No. 28.
Page 4, line 15, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
("(1) This Act shall cease to have effect at the end of three years beginning with the date on which it is passed.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 28, and at the same time I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 29 and 31. They all hang together.
The purpose of these three amendments is quite simple; namely, to bring this self-proclaimed temporary Act to an end by 1990, or three years after the passing of the Act. In Committee both the noble Lords, Lord Houghton of Sowerby and Lord Alexander of Potterhill, said that this was the single most important issue that was discussed at the Committee stage. I venture to say that it is possibly the single most important issue to be discussed at the Report stage. In Committee the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, said that these were important amendments which ought to be looked at with very careful consideration—those were his very words. I hope that he will look at these amendments with very careful consideration. They are put forward by one who has supported the Bill from the outset.
I believe that the main purpose of these amendments is to help to restore the confidence of teachers, local authorities and the country at large. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, said earlier today that these proposals must be seen to be interim. He said "1990 and not a day longer". That is what these amendments seek to provide.
Many noble Lords have today referred to, if not boasted of, their postbag. My postbag has been quite slim. While in the House I have discussed these amendments with Peers of all parties and of none. There has been general consensus that these are the amendments which could unite the House regardless of party affiliation and I move them in that spirit.
It is not merely to gain the confidence of the teaching profession and the local authorities that I move these amendments. I do so for a technical purpose as I believe that it is a technical matter of considerable importance. I think that it is within the knowledge of us all that an Act should be either indeterminate or determinate. I have a list running to something like six pages of all the Acts since 1900 which contain temporary provisions. It may not be an exhaustive list but not one of the Acts contains such a provision as this, which claims to be temporary and is indeterminate. It purports to be determinate in some of the words that are used. The word "temporary" appears in the Long Title. The word "interim" has been introduced into the Bill, with reference to the advisory committee, by the noble Lord, Lord

471
Belstead. There is no question that the declared aim of the Bill is that it should be temporary or of an interim nature.
I should say that that declared intention—those words which I have quoted—is defeated by Clause 6, which is concerned with duration. In my submission one should not say in the Long Title and in the body of the Bill that these are temporary or interim proposals, and then go on to provide in Clause 6 for an indeterminate duration. These provisions do not match. There is an inherent internal contradiction. I should say that this is not just a technical point, though of course it is a technical point of some importance. I shall use a word which I would not otherwise use—it is a word which was used by the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, in Committee about amendments moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. The noble Lord said that they were futile. I say to the Minister, using his own word, that the word "temporary" in the Long Title and the word "interim" in the body of the Bill are futile in the light of the provisions in Clause 6 which provide for an indeterminate length of time for the Act's duration.
I believe that this matter is crucial to the confidence factor which I mentioned in opening. The Bill has my support. I believe that it was not only the duty of the Secretary of State to bring it forward but also a wise thing to do because the negotiations had ground into the dust. In my view people are so puzzled simply because of the integral contradiction in the Bill. They cannot understand how a Bill can be expressed to be temporary in its Long Title and in some of the words in the body of the Bill, and then have a duration which is indeterminate like any ordinary Bill. I believe that in a way the Government are trying to have it both ways; that is, if they have understood what they are doing. They are claiming credit for the Bill being only temporary and yet they are making provision for it to carry on indefinitely.
What is the precedent for this? Does the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, have a precedent for an Act which is expressed in the Long Title to be temporary but which has a duration clause which expresses it to have indefinite duration? I have looked and I cannot find a precedent, though I admit that my list may not be complete. The only thing to which I can compare this is the notorious Expiring Laws Continuance Act. That lasted for 25 years after the war and I believe that that unlamented piece of legislation was finally buried in 1970.
This Bill is an expiring laws continuance Bill. Clause 6 contains a provision for the law in the Bill to be continued annually for an indefinite period. The only Act to which I can compare it in that respect is the Expiring Laws Continuance Act.
On reflection, I am glad that I did not press to a Division my amendment to insert the words "temporary provisions" in the Short Title, because whatever the Bill may say to the contrary it is not a temporary provisions Bill. To say that would be a misrepresentation or a misdescription. However, if my amendments are accepted it would be a correct description and it should be a consequential amendment.
I believe that these amendments have merit in another sense. A determinate Act instead of an
472
indeterminate Act would concentrate the discussion. This is a fact of human nature which can be illustrated merely by reference to the annual sessions of Parliament. What a lot of trouble we would be in if the business of the Session did not terminate annually! The present provisions provide the worst possible conditions for achieving conclusions; namely, they are literally open-ended forever. There is no time limit whatsoever. This situation cannot be right, either in parliamentary terms or in human terms.
Secondly, I should say in favour of my amendment that it calls a spade a spade. The words "temporary" and "interim" become respectable if my amendments are successful. Thirdly, as I said at the outset, there is the confidence factor. The acceptance of these amendments would do more to bring a peaceful conclusion to this long drawn out dispute than any other amendment which has been moved either in Committee or on Report. I beg to move.
Lord Alexander of Potterhill: My Lords, I very much wish to support the amendment. It is a major step to avoid the difficulties which might otherwise arise. A week ago I met a head teacher who was an Old colleague. He asked me: "Is this Bill really temporary?" I so much wanted to say, "Yes" but I could not do so. I explained to him the provision which enabled the Bill to be extended from year to year. His comment was: "Well, if both Houses of Parliament have approved the Bill, the chances are quite high that they will agree to its extension. Therefore it is not temporary".
If this amendment is accepted, it will be a clear indication that it requires the promotion of a new Bill at the end of three years. This would give a reassurance to the teachers and the local authorities that this was a period in which they and the Secretary of State would be under a very great obligation to find a long term solution which was acceptable. I very much hope that the Government may find it possible to accept the amendment.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, I trust that the House will not accept this amendment at this Report stage. It is not a practical amendment. I accept the theory as stated by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, that "temporary" should mean "temporary", if that is what it is intended to be. But to be as specific as this would put the Government in three years' time in an absolute straitjacket. The amendment is explicit:
"This Act shall cease to have effect at the end of three years beginning with the date on which it is passed".
One has to be practical in these matters. We do not know what is going to happen during the three year period. We do not know how this Act is going to turn out and how it will be worked. The Act automatically loses its effect on a date which may well be inconvenient and wrong. In the words of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, it would cause "greater chaos" by having to get some alternative quickly in its place. Such a situation would not be good.
I have a great affection for the noble Lord, Lord Henderson. He knows that. In guidance on matters concerning the working of an amendment his great experience is very worthwhile. However, on occasions he does not seem to be prepared to be practical in his approach. I think this is one such an occasion.

473
If in three years' time it is necessary for the Act to be confirmed exactly as the amendment would make it, then one is presuming that the government of the day would be deliberately wanting to prolong it for some reason or other which could not be acceptable by reasonable people. I see no other reason to expect that.
However, if the government want to extend the statute beyond the period where it ought to be accepted, then Parliament have very many powers available to deal with it. In moving this amendment, the noble Lord suggests that if we fail to pass this proposal nothing can be done. The government of the day would be absolutely free to carry on irrespective of what the Parliament of the day thought. But Parliament has so many powers and opportunities if the circumstances at the time justify bringing this to an end, as the amendment would say, and the government of the day are not facing up to it properly. It is not good parliamentary practice to put a future government in a straitjacket unnecessarily.
It could well be that it would be right exactly three years from the date the Act becomes effective to say: "That is an end of it and there must be something in its place." It may well be that that would be right. But, the way situations change and develop, it is just as likely that it would not be right to do it as specifically, and deliberately and immediately as that. It may be that we have to have enough confidence in the future to allow this to be ended properly and successfully, and not to write now an instruction which may not be appropriate in three years' time. I repeat that this would put the then government (whoever the government are then) in a straitjacket which is unnecessary. As a result of that, it may well be that we have disruption and chaos which is quite unnecessary.
I have enough confidence in the powers of Parliament and in whoever are likely to be the government of the day so far as it is possible to judge at this moment, that they would face up to the obligations under this temporary Act. But to tie Parliament down as specifically and explicitly as this amendment does would not be a good statute. I hope that we shall resist it.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, those who have the determination to take power rarely have the determination to give it up. This is the story of history, not only as between nations but also in institutional and political life. There are always excuses of a practical nature put forward in the way of releasing the power that was assumed for purely temporary emergency purposes.
Why is this Bill before your Lordships' House? It is because at a crucial moment the normal machinery that has lasted so long has failed to produce the requisite agreement for the Secretary of State to implement the changes which everybody recognises are already overdue.
We know that some blame can be assigned here and there for this failure. But whatever the blame, the fact is we are in this situation. The Secretary of State and the Government say that there is only one way to resolve this deadlock and that is to take the power to reach our own conclusions after taking suitable advice—this is in order to overcome the 1987
474
situation—brooking no delay unless the tortuous course of negotiations are to be continued with a possibility of deadlock at the end and the disruption, discontent and misery all around continuing all the time.
We are supporting the Government in taking the power. We now want them to support us by fixing a date for giving it up. Nothing is impractical in Parliament. When there are emergencies, legislation can be passed through all its stages in one day. Certainly for a renewal—if no more—the Government can come to Parliament and say: "We are in this position. We are heading towards an agreement. The position is hopeful. Give us a renewal of this provision", and they can explain to Parliament. There may be here and there some relaxation of the power in the hands of the Secretary of State, taking everybody with the Secretary of State and getting legislation through if necessary. But if there is no hope at the time, then I think Parliament has to face a difficult decision of an alternative. The noble Lord wishes to intervene.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, only because the noble Lord has just cited a situation where he said that if the Government of the day came to Parliament to continue because of reasons they could prove, Parliament would let them. Under this amendment they could not. Under this amendment it would cease to exist on a date that is named in the amendment, and so the circumstances that I tried to describe, which have now been described more graphically by the noble Lord, cannot happen if these amendments are passed.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: So the noble Lord thinks we should have a mini expiring laws continuation Act, does he, my Lords? We have been through all this before and over the years the behaviour has really been quite shameful in another place and in this House. We have discussed the renewal of expiring laws, dates were fixed, promises were made, the nation was buoyed up to fight the war and then all these suppressions and bureaucratic controls would go. It would mean the end of hostilities. Yes, the end of hostilities. How long did they go on after that?
If we fix the date, then it will concentrate the minds of all concerned very much indeed. I think that that is going to be the salutary message that we send to both the Secretary of State and the unions: "You must get back into a normal position of negotiation machinery at the end of three years, and if you don't you must come back to Parliament to explain why and come to us needing fresh authority to continue". I do not see anything impractical about this. It is a matter of determination. We are told that the Government have it, and if they want it they can do it.
In the meantime I am bound to add only this: there are some astonishing and disturbing stories going the rounds at the present time as to what is to be contained in the Conservative Party manifesto for the election on the subject of education. All sorts of suggestions have been made: a national education service, the Government are going to take the opportunity of having the power in their hands to take the teachers away from local authorities; to remove from local

475
authorities their responsibilities in the field of education and transfer them to central government. All sorts of things which are not really so outlandish as all that are being suggested and there is an argument in favour of all these things in present circumstances. But I think the message should be "Here we are. We'll do our best to deal with the immediate situation. At the end of three years we will tell you that the situation cannot go on as it is; we shall have to go back to Parliament; you may not get your negotiating machinery in the end if you cannot agree. We'll have to have a review body, but we are not going to go on as we are". That surely is the message to convey.
I do hope the Government are going to do this, and, if they do not feel disposed to do it, I do hope that the noble Lords on all sides of the House will regard it as the linchpin of the present Bill. It seems to me that it ends much argument about methods; it ends argument about ways and means by which the Secretary of State will do the job. It will not last long. Then I think we shall be able to assure the teachers that they can apply their minds quickly now to the new regime, for the authoritarian regime's days are already numbered from the very beginning. That, I believe, is what we ought to be telling the teachers, so I hope that following all the discussions we have had, we shall now take the crucial decision that the arrangement shall end in three years without further legislation. We already have the promise that it will be done without further authority from the affirmative resolutions of both Houses, but I think we want to be more specific than that. The resolutions of the two Houses are not amendable; they are usually taken late at night; the Whips go on and all that kind of thing, and I think Parliament really needs to have the opportunity of looking through the process of legislation at what may be intended at the end of three years. I do beseech the Government to reach this decision. If not, all I can say is that the Secretary of State is not the man I thought he was.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, sought very properly to establish his doctrinal impartiality on this matter by pointing out that he had supported the Bill at earlier stages. But of course, as he did not mention, the same is not quite true of the bearer of the second name on his amendment, whose unaccustomed silence has perhaps almost a sinister ring to it.
The position is really not quite so simple as the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, sought to make out. In the first place, if there is a definite, final termination to the provisions of this Bill, that might well offer a temptation to one of the parties involved in what, as we have seen in the debates of this Bill, has been a highly contentious issue, to delay. There might be an unwillingness to come forward and come to an agreement, because anyone taking that line would be able to say, "We have only to dig in and then in three years' time the Bill will come to an end".
If the Bill comes to an end without there having been further legislation, I am not at all clear what the position will be. Does the Burnham Committee rise from its ashes like a ghost, or is there no system at all? There would be a state of, at any rate, very considerable uncertainty. It is not impossible, having
476
seen the attitude of certain sections of our society on this particular issue, that there would be a temptation—I put it no higher than that—to delay matters to the end of the three years hoping for good fishing in the troubled waters which would then result.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, if the noble Lord will give way, I think that what he is saying is a trifle fanciful, and clearly the important thing is that the Government have the whiphand. They can make it quite clear that if negotiations are not determined by the end of three years, then they will promote fresh legislation, so the noble Lord's rather fanciful scenario will not arise.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, suggested that I was fanciful. This matter has been under discussion for between two and three years already. The powers of delay of some of the parties concerned are very considerable. It is perfectly true that the Government of the day could legislate before the three years elapsed, but, having observed, as the noble Lord no doubt has, the time which this legislation has taken, it is clear that, if it were apparent that agreement was not going to be reached inside the three years, the legislation would have to be promoted very substantially before the end of the three years in order to make sure there was some legal structure in force when the Bill lapsed as it would under the noble Lord's amendment. One is therefore not going to have three years; one is going to have at the outside two and a half years.
Many things may happen in those two and a half years. One thing that I suppose is absolutely certain is that we shall have a general election. I personally have very little doubt as to how that will result, but I am not sure that my views are necessarily wholly shared by, for example, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, although he is such a sensible man that he may perhaps in fact share them; I do not know. But it is at least possible that there might be as the result of that general election a hung Parliament. If there is a hung Parliament, all experience shows that there would certainly be a second general election within the same two and half year period. If we are going to have possibly different governments, possibly different Secretaries of State for Education, it may well be that, even without deliberate playing for time by any of the parties to the educational problem, it will be quite difficult to have firm and final proposals ready to be presented to Parliament after two and a half years.
If we are predicting a hung Parliament, who knows what will happen to the Bill? It might well be defeated in another place. Then, when the three years are up, the position will lapse. Therefore, as none of us can foresee the future, we are really tying our hands quite unnecessarily if we accept that this three-year rigid limitation should be applied and that whatever happens in the political or governmental situation and whatever happens in the negotiations in respect of education, the chopper will come down after three years. As I have pointed out to your Lordships, and as the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, was so kind to remind me, in effect that means that it has to be within two and a half years in order to make sure that the succeeding legislation is in place. I believe that we

477
would make a great mistake if we accepted this amendment. We are much more likely to reach a sensible agreement within the three-year period if that is not a rigid, final terminal date.
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, rather suggested that if the Bill were to continue, this matter would be outside the control of Parliament. That really is not so. My noble friend very sensibly accepted an amendment, to which I gave some verbal support, to turn the original provision of the Bill, that extension of the Act should be by negative instrument, into the affirmative resolution procedure. I believe that he was absolutely right to do so. It means that the Act, as it will then be, will be unable to be continued without parliamentary assent in both Houses. It is all very well for the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, to say that it will be taken late at night. Will it? Would any opposition worth their salt allow a government to push this through late at night? Would any government which had worries about it be so foolish as to try to do that? What would be necessary is a procedure which allowed for full debate in both Houses. In that way the Government would have to justify the continuance of the Act, as it would then be.
I speak from some experience. No government will deliberately build up the number of affirmative resolutions that they have to carry through Parliament in order to carry on their business. Your Lordships will recall innumerable debates on amendments to transform negative procedures into affirmative procedures. All governments, whatever their political colour, are resistant to that, because they know that it will involve not only a certain expenditure of parliamentary time but possibly political and parliamentary risks.
Therefore, I think that we would be wise to leave the Bill as it stands. There should be the incentive for everyone to get on with negotiations and reach final agreement rather than have a situation created in which it is more than possible that at the end of two and a half years we shall have further legislation on this subject—possibly controversial, contested legislation—that stirs up all the feelings about which we have heard. I forget whether it is chaos or disruption which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, favours. If we leave the Bill as it is, I have very little reason to doubt that all parties will have the sense to see that it is wise within this three-year period to reach an agreement and, following that, to have final and permanent legislation which will make sense and which perhaps will bring peace at last to this very troubled profession. I suggest that we leave the Bill as it is.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: My Lords, I should like to say a few words on behalf of the teachers, as I do quite often in your Lordships' House. I, too, have received countless letters from teachers and from schools throughout the country. The letters that have impressed me most have not been those from the teachers' associations or from local education authorities—one expected those—but those from individual teachers. In particular, I have received letters from the entire teaching staff of two schools, signed by every member of the staff and by head teachers and deputy heads, who stand to gain
478
financially if the provisions put forward by the Secretary of State are carried out. That is a measure of the opposition to this Bill and the anxiety about it. In the circumstances I believe that the best and the most we can do in this House is to say that the effects of the Bill will cease definitely and without question at the end of three years. That will be the only reassurance that we can give to the teachers.
The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, spoke rather as though the teachers were the enemy. Of course, they have done many wrongs and their associations have done wrongs on their behalf. However, they are not the only ones; mistakes have been made on all sides. This unhappy situation would never have arisen had it not been for the under-funding of the education service over the years by successive governments. In the circumstances we must make the best of a bad job. I think that we all accept that.
However, there is one important point that I want to make in connection with the teachers. I hope that they are not threatening further disruption, at least not the best of them. But there is a danger that they will be under a sore temptation to do just what is required of them under the conditions laid down by the Secretary of State, and no more. Your Lordships know as well as I do that teaching is not one of those jobs which begins at nine o'clock in the morning and ends at five o'clock in the evening, and that is it. Infinite additional effort and enthusiasm can be injected into a job, and that is needed in the job of teaching. The children depend on it; the richness and variety of their education depends upon it. I fear that the way in which we are going at present will remove that vital extra input of the teachers. What would restore their confidence and give some hope for the future would be a promise of a restoration of negotiating rights as soon as possible. For those reasons, I strongly support this amendment.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, has said that the teachers want us to accept the amendment because they do not want this unpleasant condition to continue for more than three years. I fear that experience suggests that the one way of ensuring that this unpleasant condition continues for at least three years is to insert the amendment in the Bill. We are looking at inter-union strife—the politics of one union vying for position against another. Even during November last year we saw unions group themselves together and fall apart from groups. That will continue for as long as they see any advantage for themselves and their particular groups of members in continuing the dispute. And not all of them will be satisfied whatever is determined; they will continue ad infinitum, unless they can see that there is no purpose in so doing. If they were given a cut-off date at which the referee blows the whistle and then presumably calls for extra time, they would have a reason to play until the referee blows the whistle.
However, there are only two solutions to the major problem of how to set up the machinery. Either there is a system that is agreed between all the participants or there is a system which is imposed by the Secretary of State. If we say that there must be a solution in 1990, I much regret that that solution will have to be provided by the Secretary of State, and that is something which everyone on the other side of the House has said we wish to avoid. Therefore, from our

479
point of view, I hope that we shall look at the real interest of the teachers and not merely accept, because they say "Please accept this amendment", that that acceptance will have the result which they, without Parliament's experience, expect it to have.
Perhaps I may add a very short postscript to that. I do not want to make a major point of it. I see that to accept the group of amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, means throwing out of the Bill Clause 6(4) which was put in on Question by your Lordships' Committee, and the noble Lord did not then object to it. He has much more experience of precedent and procedure than I have. I merely suggest that it is an odd thing to do in your Lordships' traditions, and not one that I hope we should make a regular practice of, to reverse on Report a decision that we advisedly took on Committee. What really matters is that if we do this we should not be serving but obstructing the interests of the teachers.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I supported the affirmative resolution procedure at all stages of this Bill. I respectfully suggest that that, having been accepted in its most important aspect, renders unnecessary the amendment proposed. I say with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton (because, as he says, we usually hunt together) that on this occasion, without any notice to him, I have gone off on my own, and I cannot go with him. Apart from it not being necessary to have the amendment, having listened to the speech of my noble friend Lord Elton and to the analysis of my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter perhaps I may say that surely this would be rather unwise.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, we have been at this Bill for quite a long time now, at Second Reading, Committee stage and now quite a lengthy session on Report. There is one point that I know is familiar to your Lordships; that is, that the negotiating system for teachers' pay sadly has not been working. There have been constant disagreements in the Burnham Committee leading to disruptions in the schools, and at the end of the day it has been the children's education which has suffered.
So it has been that my right honourable friend has brought forward this Bill which would set up an advisory committee on teachers' pay and conditions, but for an interim period. What is needed now is a breathing space, and we need experience of the interim arrangements before we can realistically hope to come to conclusions on the long-term machinery that we have to have. I say that we have to have that because—let us make no mistake—this Bill is a temporary measure. The Long Title says that it is to make temporary provision for pay and conditions of employment of teachers.
But in Committee the Government also accepted two amendments to underwrite the temporary nature of the Bill. First, we agreed that the word "interim" ought to be included in the title of the advisory committee in Clause 1, so emphasising on the face of the Bill its temporary nature. Secondly, we accepted an amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, to Clause 6(4) that any order proposing a one-year
480
extension of the provisions of the Act will have to be laid in draft, and the draft must be approved by both Houses of Parliament.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway for saying that he feels that, in this difficult situation, this is the right way to proceed, because it is a procedure which has to be approved by both Houses of Parliament, putting the matter of whether or not the Act can be extended at all firmly into the hands of Parliament. If the group of amendments that we are discussing, Amendments 28, 29 and 31, were to be agreed as the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, would wish then we should find that the affirmative resolution procedure which we agreed at the last stage of the Bill would have to be crossed out of the Bill.
In addition, on behalf of my right honourable friend I gave your Lordships at the previous stage of the Bill an assurance which I think, in the light of the brief exchange between my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter and the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, was an important assurance. It was that if in a new and more settled climate an agreement could be reached between the Government, the local education authorities and the teachers' associations by early 1989 on the form of future permanent machinery for deciding teachers' pay, then it would be possible to legislate for new arrangements to start up in time to deal with the April 1990 settlement.
I added that the Government are entirely sympathetic to that prospect and would not unreasonably delay legislation to achieve that. Therefore the Government have done their best to respond in these three clear ways to the concerns expressed on this issue. But these amendments go much further than that. They say that whether or not new pay arrangements have been agreed the interim arrangements in this Bill would have to end early in 1990.
Quite apart from the fact that it is going to be a major task to get agreement on an issue on which there has been no agreement for the past six years and more, to put an absolute date on the Bill would have a particular consequence that none of us would wish to see. Characteristically my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter put his finger on it. In essence my noble friend pointed out that if the Act had an absolute cut-off date early in 1990 there would be nothing to stop anyone who was not prepared to make a serious effort to agree future pay machinery from just waiting for the Act to expire, so creating all over again the free-for-all situation that would be so disruptive to our schools and so damaging to children's education.
On the other hand, the possibility of extension could concentrate minds wonderfully on trying to reach agreement about new pay arrangements, which we all want to see. Of course much is going to depend on the willingness of the local education authorities and the teacher unions to think carefully and indeed radically about the pay determination process, because one thing is absolutely certain—we cannot return again to the Burnham system.
The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, in moving these amendments spoke of precedents. Surely the first thought in our mind should be the practical one of leaving no stone unturned to get agreement on new arrangements for deciding teachers' pay. The

481
Government believe that this can best be done by the Bill as drafted. I say that because it has been made clear on the face of the Bill that this is an interim measure which can only be extended by affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament.
I have emphasised to your Lordships the Government's hope that new permanent arrangements can be in place for the April 1990 pay settlement. But the likelihood of that is greater if the possibility of extension is not completely closed off. It is for that practical reason, and for that practical reason only, that I ask your Lordships not to agree to these amendments.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, found my unaccustomed silence had a sinister ring. Let me assure him that I only delayed intervening in the debate, despite the fact that my name was on the amendment, because I believed—and I still believe—that it is in the Government's best interests to accept these amendments, and until the last minute I still had hoped that they were going to do so.
I say that as one who, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, and my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby, believes that it is wrong for the Government to be taking the power to determine teachers' pay and conditions. I respect their point of view; I respect their concern for the temporary nature of the legislation, with which I agree; but our fundamental thrust on the Opposition side has been that the very taking of power is wrong and unnecessary.
Having accepted that a number of alternatives to taking power have not found favour with your Lordships, we must consider what is then necessary. I suggest that the Government would still, even at this late stage, have been wise to accept the amendments put forward, because these amendments would have gone some way to convincing the teachers that at the end of the day, by 31st March 1990, they would have given back to them those negotiating rights which are patently so important to them. I am not talking about the teachers' unions or entering into any of the debates that have taken place about the rivalries between teachers' unions or indeed the possibilities of political changes on the employers' side. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, made the case against the Bill more clearly than anybody else could have done when he pointed out the problems that there would be in reaching a conclusion to the talks and to finding a suitable conclusion for the permanent arrangements for teachers' pay and conditions with changes in government or with a hung Parliament.
What the Government are doing in this legislation precisely is taking teachers' pay and conditions into the political arena and submitting them to the risks of change with changes in the complexion of government and even worse changes if there were to be negotiations in the context of a hung Parliament. There could not be a clearer indication that the fundamental premise of this Bill is wrong than the admission that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, has made, that changes in power at Westminster would affect the way in which teachers' pay and conditions would be negotiated.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, would not this same argument apply to the situation in which, in order to preserve some stability, some government would have to introduce an affirmative resolution to continue the Bill? Does not exactly the same argument apply?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, if the power to continue the Bill by affirmative resolution is taken away, then all of the thrust must be for government not to run up against the final deadline. All of the thrust must be for the Government, the employers and the teachers to reach an early conclusion and to take this matter away from the political arena. That is the fundamental truth behind the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, and it is shared by those of us who are opposed to the Bill, while we recognise his support for the general precepts of the Bill.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I believe I have a right of reply which I should like to exercise—briefly, I assure the House. I was disappointed by the reply of the noble Lord, Lord Belstead. I had hoped that when he was coming to the points I made he would answer them. The noble Lord said that he would come to my point about precedents, then he shied away from it. I asked him specifically whether there is any precedent for an Act which expressly declared itself to be temporary, to have an indeterminate duration to it. I still ask him that. I know of no precedent. I consider it to be an undesirable precedent—indeed, a dangerous one. I can just imagine how the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, would stand below the Gangway on the other side of the House if such a Bill were introduced by an extreme Left-wing Government. He would say how constitutionally dangerous and damaging it was. However, here is a Minister coming to Parliament saying that he is only taking these powers temporarily, but at the same time extending that power indefinitely. I am sure the noble Lord would use his great powers of advocacy to good effect in that situation.
I am worried that I have asked this question directly of the Minister—whether there was any precedent for what he is doing—and he has failed to reply. The House should not be satisfied; indeed, the nation as a whole should be aware that what is being done is unprecedented. I am pausing in case the Minister is finding a precedent meanwhile.
The procedural point I made is that the Bill is inherently contradictory. I do not think it is respectable for a Bill which is inherently contradictory to be enacted, certainly not to pass this House. I see that the Leader of the House is here. I ask the Minister to give an undertaking that between now and Third Reading he might consider whether it would make this Bill, which is expressed to be temporary, respectable if the duration clause were finite and not infinite as it is now. I have put forward one means of achieving that limit which is three years from the date of the passing of the Act. If that is unacceptable perhaps it might be acceptable for the Government to say three years and perhaps one additional year after that by affirmative resolution, or even two years. It would then be finite; but at present it is infinite and the original words in the Bill—the Long Title states that it is "temporary"—cannot be reconciled with the words of the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, that the committee is interim.

483
This is an important constitutional issue as well as for every other reason which has been expressed on two, three or even all sides of this House. Reluctantly, in the absence of any olive branch from the Front Bench I shall have to ask the House to divide.
6.55 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 28) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 93; Not-Contents, 137.

DIVISION NO. 3

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Alexander of Potterhill, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Alport, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Amherst, E.

Kissin, L.

Ampthill, L.

Lawrence, L.

Ardwick, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Attlee, E.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Aylestone, L.

Lockwood, B.

Bancroft, L.

Longford, E.

Barnett, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Beswick, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Birk, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Blyton, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Briginshaw, L.

McNair, L.

Brockway, L.

Monkswell, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Monson, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Mountevans, L.

Craigavon, L.

Mulley, L.

David, B.

Munster, E.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Nicol, B.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Ogmore, L.

Diamond, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Falkender, B.

Raglan, L.

Falkland, V.

Rea, L.

Fitt, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Gallacher, L.

Rochester, L.

Galpern, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Russell of Liverpool, L.

Grey, E.

Seear, B.

Grimond, L.

Serota, B.

Hanworth, V.

Shackleton, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Shepherd, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Simon, V.

Henderson of Brompton, L. [Teller.]

Stedman, B.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Henniker, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Thurlow, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Tordoff, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Jacques, L.

Underhill, L.

Jeger, B.

White, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Wigoder, L.

Kennet, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Kilbracken, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Brookes, L.

Allerton, L.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Arran, E.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Auckland, L.

Butterworth, L.

Bauer, L.

Caccia, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Caithness, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Beloff, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Belstead, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Bessborough, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Boardman, L.

Carnock, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Cathcart, E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Coggan, L.

484

Coleraine, L.

Merrivale, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Mersey, V.

Colwyn, L.

Molson, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Morris, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Mottistone, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Deedes, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Newall, L.

Derwent, L.

Norfolk, D.

Dundee, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Onslow, E.

Elibank, L.

Orkney, E.

Ellenborough, L.

Pender, L.

Elles, B.

Penrhyn, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Plummer of St Marylebone, L.

Elton, L.

Faithfull, B.

Quinton, L.

Ferrier, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Fortescue, E.

Renwick, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Richardson, L.

Gainford, L.

Rodney, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Romney, E.

Glanusk, L.

St. Davids, V.

Glenarthur, L.

Salisbury, M.

Gray of Contin, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Gridley, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Sandford, L.

Selborne, E.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Shannon, E.

Henley, L.

Sherfield, L.

Hesketh, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hives, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Holderness, L.

Strange, B.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Hood, V.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Hooper, B.

Inchcape, E.

Sudeley, L.

Ingrow, L.

Swinfen, L.

Killearn, L.

Swinton, E.

Kimball, L.

Teviot, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Kitchener, E.

Trefgarne, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Trenchard, V.

Layton, L.

Trumpington, B.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Vinson, L.

Loch, L.

Vivian, L.

Long, V.

Waldegrave, E.

Lurgan, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Lyell, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Wise, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Wolfson, L.

Margadale, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Marley, L.

Young of Graffham, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
7.4 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 29, 30 and 31 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 32:
After Clause 6, insert the following new clause:
("International Labour Office Conventions.
. Nothing in this Act shall empower the Secretary of State to act other than in conformity with the provisions of the International Labour Office Conventions 98 and 151.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we have had assurances from the Government that it is their view that nothing in this Bill contravenes the provisions of the International Labour Office Conventions Nos. 98 and 151. Those assurances were given at Committee

485
stage in another place and also on Second Reading in your Lordships' Chamber. I am delighted to accept the sincerity of those assurances, but if indeed they are completely fully founded and there is no doubt whatsoever there can be no difficulty over the Government's accepting this simple amendment. It does nothing to restrict the Secretary of State or the Government in any way. It simply recognises our international obligations. I beg to move.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, we have been talking about precedent. I wonder whether there is a precedent for putting into a domestic Act a precise reference to international obligations. I should have thought it is a pre-supposition of any Bill which is presented to Parliament that the Government who present the Bill have made certain that it is not in violation of international agreements. We do not find references to a Bill being in accord with, for example, the Charter of the United Nations or the European Convention on Human Rights. Therefore to put such a reference into this Bill, even given the assurances—perhaps particularly given the assurances—that the Government have given would seem a very odd procedure.
It could only be justified by an intention to at least cast doubt on the validity of these assurances, because it is such an unusual thing to do. If it were a commonplace in legislation, one could say, "Last week we inserted a reference to some provision of our legislation being in accordance with our international obligations: this will now become common form." But it is clearly not common form and, as I pointed out in reference to this particular matter at an earlier stage, it is wildly improbable that this could ever be regarded as a breach of these conventions because a consultative machinery has been accepted as the equivalent by a report of the ILO in 1968.
A number of very important countries, particularly partners of ours in the European Community, use consultation with the final responsibility resting with the Minister. These facts are known to the noble Lord opposite, as they are known to Her Majesty's Government. I therefore feel that there is something extremely peculiar in putting forward this amendment.
What the noble Lord is asking us to say is that a body—presumably the governing body of the International Labour Organisation—will suddenly come along and say that we could not do this thing. Countries on that governing body such as Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Mongolia, Iraq—countries which have an unparalleled record of devotion to the principle of free collective bargaining—would suddenly awake to this outrageous Bill which has been through the British Parliament. We have spent a long time debating this Bill. It has been interesting. Let us regard this as a sort of comic postlude to it and let us hope that the noble Lord withdraws the amendment.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, it is true that the Government have made it clear that they do not consider that if this Bill is enacted the United Kingdom will be in breach of its obligations under the conventions to which the noble Lord referred in putting forward his amendment. If the United Kingdom should act in breach of its international
486
obligations, that is a matter on which it must answer in the appropriate international forum—in this case the International Labour Organisation in Geneva.
This Bill will operate as part of the domestic law of England. If this clause is added to the Bill, it will make it possible to raise in our courts the issue of whether some action of the Secretary of State under the Bill is, or is not, in conformity with the provisions of these conventions. But our courts are not the proper place for such an issue to be determined. The Government therefore stand ready to defend their actions in relation to these conventions, but they will do so in the proper place, and that is in Geneva. I cannot therefore advise the House to accept this amendment.
Perhaps I may add one further point which amplifies a little what the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, has said. In listening to some of the arguments that were advanced on Second Reading, one might be forgiven for thinking that the arrangements proposed in the Bill by this Government have no parallel elsewhere. In fact they are comparable to those which exist in several other European states which are, like the United Kingdom, members of the European Communities. For example, in France teachers' pay and conditions are fixed by the government after advice from an advisory council and consultation with teachers; in West Germany the scales are fixed by Parliament after representations from the teachers' unions; and in the Netherlands the final decision rests with the Minister of Education after consulting teachers' unions, local employers and an advisory body. Far from departing from international practice, the interim arrangements appear to be firmly in line with that of our major European partners.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that response, although I note that it does not go as far in confidence that we are not in breach of the conventions than earlier government statements, in that she recognised that there could be a possibility of appeal to the International Labour Office in Geneva. I am grateful also to the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, for the comic relief. I think he was ascribing the comedy to me; but I am sure he is much more skilled than I am in these matters.
The Government will be aware that the National Union of Teachers was written to the International Labour Office and asked for a ruling on whether or not the provisions of the Bill are in conflict with these conventions and no reply is expected until later this month. It seemed desirable to have the continuing concern of the Opposition on this matter on the record and that is why the amendment was put forward. But in view of the replies given, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 33 to 43 not moved.]
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 7, line 13, after ("the") insert ("Interim").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment is consequential to that accepted by the Government in Committee, which changed the title of the advisory committee by adding the word "Interim". The full title is now the "Interim Advisory

487
Committee on School Teachers' Pay and Conditions". A previous amendment inserted the word "Interim" in the interpretation clause. This amendment inserts the word "Interim" in the full title of the advisory committee to be included in the new provision of the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 under this paragraph. No other consequential changes are necessary. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 45 and 46 mot moved.]

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to inform your Lordships that at the end of business today—within, it looks like, about 25 minutes—my noble friend Lord Belstead will repeat a Statement on agriculture that is being made in another place.

Trafford Park Development Corporation (Area and Constitution) Order 1986
7.15 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Skelmersdale)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Skelmersdale) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 15th December be approved. [7th Report from the Joint Committee.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this order is made under provisions in the Local Government Planning and Land Act 1980. Section 134 of the Act enables the Secretary of State to designate an urban development area and Section 135 empowers him to establish a corporation for the purposes of regenerating that area. It designates land in and around Trafford Park as an urban development area and will set up the Trafford Park Development Corporation to tackle the regeneration of the area. Although the order was judged to be hybrid, I am glad that no petitions against it were received and it was approved in another place by the House generally, including those of different political persuasions with knowledge of the area.
Almost exactly a week ago, I was standing here telling your Lordships about our inner city policy in fairly abstract terms. Today, I am in the happy position of participating in a practical demonstration of that policy and the Government's commitment to it. If the House is content, the Trafford Park Development Corporation will come into formal existence tomorrow—just four months and two days after the policy was first announced in this House.
Trafford Park itself is an industrial estate of around 2,000 acres close to the city centres of Manchester and Salford. Much of the land on the estate is empty or under-used, and many of the buildings and much of the infrastructure is obsolete. It now provides less than half the jobs it provided in the 1950s. But it is very well situated, close to the motorway network and close to major centres of population. A study of the area was commissioned at the end of 1985, jointly sponsored by Government, the local authority and the major manufacturers on the park. The report recommended the creation of an urban development corporation. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the
488
Environment responded quickly. He announced his intentions of creating such a corporation and reviewing the potential of surrounding areas. My honourable friend the Minister for Housing, Urban Affairs and Construction met councillors representing all parties in the area to discuss the proposed boundaries. The effectiveness and appropriateness of the resulting proposals enshrined in this order are, I think, demonstrated by the lack of petitions and the general welcome the order has received.
Very briefly, I should now like to run through a series of points relating specifically to the Government's intention for this corporation. The area now proposed covers something over 3,000 acres, consisting of the park and three other areas of land: a strip of land in Salford on the north bank of the Manchester Ship canal, opposite the park; land at the eastern entrance to the park; and the site of the former steelworks near Irlam. The last of these is a separate piece of land, the inclusion of which has, I am pleased to say, met with considerable support; not least from the local representatives who pressed for its inclusion.
The 1980 Act gives a develpment corporation various powers, including powers to acquire, manage and dispose of land and to support local and community groups. The Secretary of State may confer various other functions on a corporation by statutory instrument. My right honourable friend intends with this corporation to follow the pattern of the two existing urban development corporations and give the corporation development control functions. He will make orders to that effect and he may in due course vest certain public sector land in the corporation. He does not at this stage see a need to give the corporation housing, building control or public health functions.
My right honourable friend announced some time ago that he intends to appoint Mr. Peter Hadfield, a local man, as chairman of the corporation. This announcement met with universal acclaim. It was described in the debate in another place as an "inspired" appointment. Mr. Hadfield, with characteristic vigour, has already conducted a series of meetings with local interests. The other board members will be chosen to include people with relevant local experience. In particular, there will be members from the local authorities directly affected. The staff of the corporation will be kept to a minumum. There is no intention of this corporation becoming either a large or a permanent bureaucracy. Once it has done its job it will go. And while it is around, it will buy in as much expertise as it can. I expect it to make use of local firms and, where appropriate, to consider using local authorities as agents.
Each of the new UDCs in England is expected to spend between £100 million and £160 million over six or seven years. The Government do not intend that this should be found from programmes currently committed to the surrounding areas. Indeed, urban programme allocations to some of the nearby local authorities in the coming year have, I am glad to say, been increased. I expect the work of the corporation to strengthen the regional economy, and to assist the development of other initiatives such as Phoenix. I was pleased to see that in the debate in another place Members for constituencies throughout the

489
Manchester conurbation believed that the development corporation would benefit the area as a whole, not just Trafford and Salford.
The Government have been delighted with the reception given to the proposal to set up a Trafford Park Development Corporation. I believe this reception and the degree of co-operation already demonstrated between central government, the two local authorities concerned and the local private sector must give the corporation a flying start. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 15th December be approved. [7th Report from the Joint Committee.]—(Lord Skelmersdale.)
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, we on this side of the House accept the order but I should like the Minister to clear up one or two points. I was going to ask whether the local authority will be represented on the corporation. I think he has indicated that that will be so. I understand that the body will consist of a chairman and 11 members. The local authority is to be given places—and that is sensible—and, obviously, people from commerce and industry will be appointed. Would it not be proper to consider the appointment of a recognised local trade unionist, bearing in mind that this is still a heavily industrialised area and will continue to be so if the urban development corporation succeeds? Would it not be better to carry the trade unions with us and to let them know from the commencement what is going on?
I was interested to hear that the chairman had already been appointed. I do not know Mr. Hadfield. I know of him only as the chairman of the Greater Manchester Council residuary body. I do not know how much time a week the chairman of a residuary body is expected to put in, as against the chairman of an urban development corporation. Will it be the case that the person concerned will carry on indeterminately in those two jobs? I would find that hard to justify.
I worked in Trafford Park when the 50,000 people mentioned in the debate in another place worked there. I worked in the factory which employed 25,000 people, and so I am aware of what has happened in the area and what needs doing. Is it right that one person should be doing two jobs when his total attention needs to be given to renovating the Trafford Park area? It is one of the most important appointments that the Government will make, and I am a little worried about the dual responsibility.
In moving the order, the Minister said that his right honourable friend has additional powers which at this time he does not intend to invoke. I am a little concerned about the wide nature of the powers that could be invoked by the Secretary of State. The Minister said that his right honourable friend could also give the UDC greater powers as a building control authority, a housing authority or a public health authority but that the Government had no such proposals at present. In the interests of democracy I hope that they have no proposals at all because if one reaches that position one might as well completely dismantle local government in the area. The only responsibilities that could be left in the hands of local government if one went down that road would be
490
education and the health service outside the public health authority. I should like some reassurance that that means what it says.
Finally, the most important step that the Government could take as an act of faith in the area is to bring forward the ordering of power stations, as I and other Members of your Lordships' House and Members in another place have been asking for months. This is the main lifeblood of the one large factory remaining in the area. Since I left that factory, the number of employees has fallen to fewer than 8,000. While the order is welcome, in the immediate future what would be more welcome is the Government's assent to the phased ordering of power stations which would benefit the area immeasurably. Having made those points, I should like to say that we accept the order.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, from these Benches I should like to thank the Minister for bringing the order before us. We welcome it in principle. In the days when the Guardian was a proper newspaper and called itself the Manchester Guardian it once said in a leading article:
"There are those of us who have wondered at the continued existence of Liverpool since the building of the Manchester Ship Canal."
Those were the great days of Trafford Park when it was a great inland port and when tremendous activity was taking place there in the heavy electrical engineering industry, the chemical industry and many other industries, and particularly in the docks. It has been desperately sad to see the way in which that once thriving part of Manchester has fallen into the condition that it is in today.
I also welcome the inclusion of the old Irlam steelworks area which I know quite well because it was on the other side of the ship canal from the place where I used to work myself. I know how large is the number of jobs that has been lost in the past few years at the factory where I used to work in the chemical industry, and I am quite sure that there is in the Irlam area a pool of labour and probably a high intensity of unemployment.
I shall not follow the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, on some of the points of detail but I agree that it is a good thing that the local authorities are to be brought into the corporation. Perhaps I may correct him by saying that there are 11 members plus a chairman and a deputy chairman—
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord.
Lord Tordoff: —so that there are 13 in all. It becomes a little like the Last Supper occasionally.
Baroness Seear: There are 12.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, my noble friend the Leader of my party attempts to correct me, but I think there was one other in addition to the 12.
I should like to make a point in relation to transport within the new development corporation area. When your Lordships' Select Committee was looking at research and development into surface transport this year (a report which has yet to be published, though

491
some of the evidence has been published so I do not think I am saying anything that is not on the record) I questioned the Secretary of State for Transport on whether Trafford Park would not make a useful demonstration area for some of the new forms of transport that are now available.
It was an opportunity for the Government to put some money into a demonstration project which would be useful not only in terms of assisting in new forms of transport and developing new markets in this country but also in helping to rejuvenate this badly rundown area. I wonder whether I may once again put that question forward. On that occasion I received a rather dusty answer. The Secretary of State for Transport may have had time to reconsider the question and perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, will draw it to the attention of the appropriate authority.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I must declare an interest in this debate in that currently I work in Trafford Park and have done for the past 14 years. I and my colleagues in the Labour movement have been appalled by what has happened to Trafford Park over the years. In my experience of working there for a number of years I have seen terrible developments. I have seen a reduction in the number of men and women employed in Trafford Park. In my own factory there has been a 50 per cent. reduction in the labour force over the past eight years.
The other factor which has appalled me almost as much as the loss of employment is the way that farmland—yes, my Lords, farmland—within the area designated by the order has been taken for industrial development. It may seem strange to your Lordships but within the boundaries of the order, as drawn on the map, there is a section of farmland. In fact, the map is not strictly accurate. A section of that farmland no longer exists because over the past few years it has been used for a warehouse development. Unfortunately, that did not provide many jobs, so I hope that the activities of the Urban Development Corporation will not result in that sort of development, though I suspect it will.
Yet again we see an erosion of local authority control. However, we must be thankful for the fact that money is to be ploughed into Trafford Park and the other area mentioned by the previous speaker—the old Irlam Steelworks. We are in a cleft stick. On the one hand, we are damned if we accept the Urban Development Corporation, in the sense that we lose the local authority control; and, on the other hand, if we reject what is on offer we lose the money. We are damned either way. Therefore, I hope that the future of Trafford Park will be a lot brighter than we can foresee at the moment. There will have to be a much more positive input from local authorities and from the workforce in the area into the development of Trafford Park than is envisaged under the setting up of this Urban Development Corporation.
I wish the Urban Development Corporation well but I feel that until those two elements of its activities are strengthened it will not be able to develop Trafford Park as it should be developed, not only for the people
492
of Manchester, the people of the North-West, but the people of this country as a whole.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am grateful to all three noble Lords who have taken part in this short discussion. The noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, referred to an act of faith. The Government's first act of faith is of course in the area and in what can be done through the area and to the area through this organ for regeneration.
If I remember rightly, the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, was actively involved with the first orders for the London Dockland Development Corporation. The noble Lord shakes his head—he was not. Nevertheless, he will know as well as I do, and as the House generally will know, how the situation has changed from those early ultra-suspicious days. However, the situation in Trafford Park, as the noble Lords, Lord Dean and Lord Monkswell, know far better than I, is totally different from either the Merseyside Development Corporation area or, indeed, from what were the conditions pertaining in Docklands, where there were five not very productive local authorities.
The order provides—the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, was right except that he seemed to correct himself halfway through what he was saying—for a board of 13 in total. That is the answer to the noble Lord, Lord Dean. It is our intention to appoint a full complement in due course. In the shorter term a smaller number may be appointed to start the ball rolling. Initially, this board will be chaired by Mr. Peter Hadfield who, as the noble Lord, Lord Dean, pointed out fairly and correctly, is currently the chairman of the Greater Manchester Residuary Body. I can tell the House that he devotes on average two days a week to his post as chairman. That time commitment, due to his undoubted success in that position, will reduce over the next 18 months as the residuary body completes its task. In fact, that is rather faster than anyone could realistically have anticipated at the time of the abolition Bill. This is due principally to Mr. Hadfield's great efforts in this respect.
Mr. Hadfield will also devote two or three days a week to the job of chairman of the Trafford Park Development Corporation. Not only do I see no conflict of interests—which was not quite the noble Lord's point—but I think it is right and proper when one has an undoubtedly good and efficient man in a particular area, and who has been recognised as such, that the Government should make as full use of him as is possible. Of course, Mr. Hadfield has retired from his post as chairman and managing director of Bus North West.
I confirm that initially—assuming your Lordships' pass this order, which from comments by noble Lords I suspect is likely—his team will include three local authority members. I am not sure, although I will consider it for future members, that it would be right in this particular interest to have a specific trade union appointee on the board because I cannot see what relevance he would have to this sort of organisation; though as I said, I am perfectly prepared to consider the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dean.
The subject of planning powers was mentioned. As I said, the Government intend to make Trafford Park Development Corporation the local planning

493
authority for its area. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State intends to make an order conferring development control functions on the corporation in the near future. It is germane to the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Dean, that Section 148 of the 1980 Act provides a reserve power by which an urban development corporation may submit proposals to the Secretary of State. Such proposals, if approved, may receive planning permission. These are equivalent to the provisions available to new town development corporations. Therefore, they are well precedented.
As I said in my opening speech, there are other non-planning powers which my right honourable friend does not, on the whole, intend to vest in the development corporation without a vesting order. I think that the noble Lord had a particular point about health, did he not? The noble Lord also asked for reassurance on building control and housing powers. I repeat that at present we have no proposals to give the corporation these powers, though naturally we shall need to consider that in the light of circumstances at the time. However, I can assure the House that your Lordships will be fully informed.
Not surprisingly, the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, made a suggestion about transport and suggested that this might be a useful demonstration area for new forms of transport. Indeed it may well be. I know that he has made that suggestion before and I shall certainly take it up with the chairman and my right honourable friend.
Both the noble Lords, Lord Tordoff and Lord Monkswell, talked about this rundown industrial area and I know that the noble Lord, Lord Dean, will confirm that description. It is of course perfectly true. I once spent a very depressing day in the rain just outside the Irlam steelworks with my nursery van that had broken down, so I can certainly testify to an outside observer's view, as it were, of that particular area.
The noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, said that he was in a cleft stick: supporting either the local authorities or the urban development corporation, he would be wrong. Every now and again there is a perceived need to take away such development powers from local authorities. It is not a modern need. It occurred with the institution of the new towns movement and, as I mentioned earlier, it has been seen in the London Docklands and the Merseyside Development Corporation. Quite honestly it is something which I regret, but which must happen when there is a pressing need and local authorities have not proved themselves capable of getting on with the job at speed. I do not accept that it is necessarily because of a lack of government money since much of the money that is involved in this particular corporation will come through existing schemes, though new money will be part of the financing of the corporation.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I do not think that the noble Lord will want to give the impression that he is attacking these particular local authorities. I think it is fair to say that in the case of Trafford Park a very successful scheme was stimulated by local authorities with the support of industry and the Government to carry out a survey into the area, and it was completed
494
last year. I just feel that the noble Lord would not wish to give the impression that he may have given.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord. I did not intend to castigate those particular local authorities in any way. I was suggesting that this particular corporation may give a little bit of much needed zip to the regeneration of that whole area.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Weights and Measures (Carriage of Solid Fuel by Rail) Order 1987
7.45 p.m.
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th January be approved. [7th Report from the Joint Committee.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft order laid before the House on 12th January be approved. The general principle governing the carriage of coal by rail is that consignments should always be accompanied by a document giving sufficient detail to identify the wagon, its contents, the identities of the consignor and consignee and the destination of the load.
As originally constituted in 1963, the legislation required a label showing this information to be attached to each wagon. This requirement was relaxed in 1966 to allow the information relating to each wagon to be given in one document: the train bill. In 1979 the legislation was amended again to reflect further developments in weighing technology and the introduction of constantly coupled trains which could be weighed in motion as one unit. This later amendment allowed details of individual wagons to be dispensed with and the train to be documented as a whole.
British Coal and the Central Electricity Generating Board have developed a computer-based system which allows the whole operation of weighing, loading and dispatching of a train to be carried out automatically. All the information that is currently required to be given on a document accompanying the train can be collected and transmitted automatically with considerable savings in time and manpower and with less chance of an error occurring. The system has proved itself in parallel trials with existing procedures and British Coal has asked for the legislation to be amended to allow it to dispense with written transfer documentation. Initially a fully automated system of this kind would only replace written documentation for the whole train traffic with major customers such as the CEGB and perhaps British Steel.
However, in order to achieve maximum economy the new system is capable of being adapted to deal with wagonload traffic to British Coal's smaller customers. If approved, the draft order would allow individual wagon labels or train bills to be dispensed with wherever buyer and seller agree that the information should be transferred electronically. However, it would require that the computer system used must be capable of generating a permanent written record so that, in the event of any dispute or discrepancy, enforcement officers can obtain documentary

495
evidence of the transaction. Thus the proposed amendments would enable British Coal and the Central Electricity Generating Board to achieve useful administrative savings by making use of developments in information technology.
However, the new provisions would ensure that the existing safeguards remain for British Coal's customers.
We have had no adverse comments from any of the 30 organisations that we have consulted as being representative of coal producers, transporters, industrial consumers and enforcement authorities. Finally, I am sure that your Lordships will wish to know that this order was considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments but that the committee did not draw it to the special attention of your Lordships' House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th January be approved. [7th Report from the Joint Committee.]—(Lord Beaverbrook).
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I should love to make a long speech but I do not know how. The only point I can make is that it is about time too.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Agricultural Policy Changes
7.50 p.m.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, with the permission of the House I should like to repeat a Statement that is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The Statement is as follows:
"The Government have been considering very carefully the consequences for agriculture and for the rural economy of changes in the common agricultural policy.
"We have concluded that given the scale of agricultural surpluses now facing us, a new balance of policies is needed. This will entail less support for expanding production; more attention to the demands of the market; more encouragement for alternative uses of land; more response to the claims of the environment; and more diversity on farms and in the rural economy.
"To assist the process of change I am announcing a number of new policy initiatives. Details are set out in a Written Answer today, but I shall briefly describe what is planned.
"First, a new scheme will be introduced to encourage the development of farm woodlands which will take some land out of agricultural production. The detailed arrangements will be the subject of consultation with interested parties prior to the introduction of appropriate legislation, but the scheme will incorporate provisions for the protection and enhancement of the environment.
"Secondly, the Government propose an expansion of the forestry programme, with particular emphasis on the private sector and with due regard to environmental considerations. The planting of a higher proportion of trees on low ground of better quality will also be encouraged.
496
"Thirdly, the Government will be designating further environmentally sensitive areas under Section 18 of the Agriculture Act 1986. We have already designated nine areas and our intention is to extend the coverage of this scheme and to double the funding from early in 1988.
"Fourthly, diversification of enterprise on farms will be encouraged by the introduction of a scheme under Section 22 of the same Act, providing for the grant aiding of ancillary businesses on or adjacent to farms. There will also be extra help for marketing of the products of diversified businesses.
"Fifthly, within my budget for research, development and advice I shall be placing more emphasis on the possibilities for novel crops and livestock and on the socio-economic and environmental implications of the changing farming scheme.
"Sixthly, my right honourable friends the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Wales have today put out for consultation a draft circular containing guidance on the future planning regime for agricultural land. It will include more encouragement to local authorities to take a positive attitude to diversification and to the conversion of redundant farm buildings.
"In addition, my right honourable friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and I plan to publish next month a document describing how the Government's policies towards farming are being adjusted to reflect the changing scheme and potential in the rural economy as a whole. I shall of course make this available to the House. It will make clear that the Government's overall objective is to facilitate the conditions which encourage a healthy rural economy based on enterprise, adaptability and fair competition."
My Lords, that is my right honourable friend's Statement.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, first, I should like to thank the Minister for repeating in this House a Statement made in the other place. The Statement is a fairly quiet document and yet this side of the House has the feeling that certain matters contained in the Statement herald further changes in agriculture which could be of considerable significance. I want to ask the Minister one or two questions about those aspects of the Statement.
First, on the subject of afforestation and the encouragement of afforestation on a small scale on farms, on the one hand, and a further encouragement of the development of afforestation on a larger scale by the private sector on the other hand, will the Minister tell us what role is envisaged for the Forestry Commission in both those areas? We are aware that the farmers may need considerable assistance even for small-scale afforestation on farms. The Forestry Commission has a part to play in large-scale afforestation particularly as regards the financial assistance and grant schemes which apply to such large-scale developments.
We welcome the third proposal contained in the Statement about extending environmentally sensitive

497
areas. I should like the Minister to tell us whether in that proposed extension areas which were unsuccessful (not selected under the present scheme) will be automatically reconsidered or whether they will have to apply for reconsideration. What further areas are contemplated? In particular, is it intended that environmentally sensitive areas will apply to parts of the country at some distance from existing environmentally sensitive areas so that there is a fairly wide spread of that highly desirable development which takes place under the Agricultural Act 1986?
The Statement mentions two documents, one relating to the Department of the Environment and the other to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The Statement clearly said that the document from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will be a consultation document, and we welcome that. The consultation relating to the conversion of redundant farm buildings is well-known to us but we wonder what is contemplated with regard to the increased encouragement to local authorities to take a positive attitude to diversification. Will local authorities be enjoined to be considerably more forthcoming about changes of land use? Is that what is envisaged? How extensive does the Department of the Environment propose to see those changes of land use, particularly where land is being taken permanently out of farming for housing and kindred development?
The document that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is to circulate is fairly important because from its description in the Statement it does not appear that it is in the nature of a consultation proposal but rather that it will indicate previously decided government policies. If that is correct, will the Minister tell us whether the document, when we see it in a month's time, will be in the nature of a White Paper, a Green Paper or a White Paper with green edges or a Green Paper with white edges? I ask that because I believe that I am correct in assuming that there will be no consultation on the document.
We welcome the assurances in the Statement that all those changes will have environmental considerations much in mind. The country would expect that assurance. I hope that when he replies the Minister will be able to confirm that the emphasis on environmental protection in the document is well founded and that both ministries will have that point much in mind.
The last and most important question concerns money. To what extent are the contemplated changes to be met by United Kingdom taxpayers, and to what extent by the European Community for funding from FEOGA? The scheme's objective is to ease the burden of surpluses arising under the common agricultural policy. I should therefore welcome from the Minister an assurance that the burden on the taxpayer will be minimal and that the Community, which is responsible for the surpluses because of its past excessive generosity from FEOGA, will undertake the major part of the burden that is likely to arise from the policies announced.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I too should like to thank the Minister for repeating the Statement which has been made at a timely moment just before the annual general meeting of the National Farmers' Union. I dare say that had nothing to do with the
498
reasons for making it. We have been waiting for a policy statement for some time and at least the Statement contains some good intentions.
I should like the Minister to explain the phrase:
"This will entail less support for expanding production".
I did not realise that the Minister wanted to expand production in this country. I thought that the problem was that we had expanded production too much.
The Minister said:
"to enourage the development of farm woodlands."
Figures have been bandied about. I have not seen the Written Answer. The figure of 30,000 acres a year has been mentioned. That is peanuts in the face of the need to take out of production between 2.5 million and 3 million acres. At least it will be a start. He needs to give us some indication of the thinking, because as the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, said, a training scheme and an overseeing scheme will be needed. A great deal of money will have to be paid out because with the present state of farming profits no farmer will take a grant to plant trees on a significant portion of his land unless he is guaranteed some income for the 30 years that he will wait before he receives any income from them.
The Minister needs to have some idea that the CAP will provide the money. Every acre taken out of barley, if it grows two tonnes, costs the Government £130 a tonne. They are paying restitution of £100 a tonne—and goodness knows what for storage! The Minister should tell us whether the CAP will supply some of that money. It is a good proposal. We must carry it out; but I doubt whether the Government have thought it out. I should be pleased to be proved wrong.
I shall say nothing about ESAs except that they are welcomed by my party. My noble friend Lady Stedman may say something about them. I hope that agricultural considerations will continue to be taken strongly into account when deciding whether to desginate an ESA.
The business of enterprise on farms is extremely important. At the present time local authorities are not seized of the importance of so doing. Everyone can speak of cases where the authorities have turned down permission for individual craftsmen to use surplus farm buildings for workshops. The direction and guidance there will be very welcome to the local authorities.
Perhaps the noble Lord will comment on the figures that have been bandied about—I understand that some Government spokesmen have said that they are absolute rubbish—to the effect that 85 per cent. of farmland would be available on which the developers and friends of the Government can wreak havoc in areas of up to 100 acres. Surely if we wish to encourage people to live in the countryside care and planning is absolutely vital. Perhaps the noble Lord will be good enough to comment on that.
The Government will again need to reverse money which they have been taking off research right, left and centre. I welcome the reference in the Statement which says:
"Within my budget for research, development and advice I shall be placing more emphasis on the possibilities".
I hope that statement will be backed by money. I am

499
sorry to nark about this excellent little start, but it will need to be backed by a great deal more. We shall look forward to the White, Green or Pink Paper in a month's time. It will need to be a lot more definite than the Statement that we have already had.
Will the noble Lord also explain the words:
"A healthy rural economy based on enterprise, adaptability and fair competition"?
Who is the fair competition to be with? What kind of competition are we talking about? I welcome the Statement and apologise for being a little doubtful about the Government's intentions.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their reaction to this Statement. The noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, has in many ways been generous in what he has said and has welcomed aspects of the Statement. However, in his closing words the noble Lord referred to the Statement as being a small start. We have a situation which has worried this House very much, certainly in the time that I have been working in the Ministry. What is to be done about the ever-increasing surpluses, and is it possible to take some kind of action to grow alternative crops and take other measures to reduce the surplus at the same time?
Here is a Statement which announces for the first time government support for an increase in farm woodlands; government encouragement for an extension downhill in a sensitive way of forestry; a doubling of the environmentally sensitive area programme; splendid government encouragement for the part which we put in the Bill in this House into last year's agriculture Act on diversification grants for farmers; some reduction in the constraints of planning but done in a very careful way; and some more emphasis in my right honourable friend's R&D programmes for research on alternative crops. It is really quite a package.
The noble Lords, Lord Gallacher and Lord Mackie of Benshie, asked me about forestry and farm woodlands. The noble Lord asked me about the locus of the Forestry Commission. The Forestry Commission will provide the planting grants for the new farm woodlands scheme. Of course those grants are good. What is new in the announcement is that there will be annual grants for the growing of trees up to a maximum of £125 per hectare. This will all be in a consultation document. How long those grants will last over the years will also be a matter for consultation. However, for the first time we are providing annual grants for maintenance purposes to get farmers over that period while the trees are growing.
On environmentally sensitive areas, the noble Lord opposite asked whether it will be necessary for everybody to apply again. We hope to build on the existing list which we had from the Countryside Commission and the Nature Conservancy Council. Will there be a good spread? I hope so. We tried to do our best on this with the first five in England, and also in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Here is a splendid opportunity to add very considerably, I hope, to that spread. This is a matter on which there will be a great deal of consultation with the conservation agencies, the unions and the CLA.
500
The noble Lord asked me about the Department of the Environment's position in this matter with regard to new planning. Perhaps I may make it quite clear that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has put out a circular on this matter today. There will be a two-month consultation period. The best land will continue to have protection. At this stage I think that I ought to say no more and that it would be best if we all looked at the circular.
The noble Lords, Lord Gallacher and Lord Mackie of Benshie, also asked me about the policy document. They asked whether it would be white, green, or green with white edges. The words in the Statement are as clear as I could possibly be:
"I plan to publish next month a document describing how the Government's policies towards farming are being adjusted to reflect the changing scene and potential in the rural economy as a whole".
What is so enormously important is what is being done not only through the agricultural departments but also through the Department of the Environment and of course the very important agencies, not least the Development Commission.
The noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, asked me about money. The total cost of this package will work up to being £25 million. Community plans are being worked out at the present time on socio-structural measures. At present it is not possible to say what we shall eventually get for these plans from the European Community. The noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, said that he hardly understood the words at the beginning of the Statement about concluding that a new balance of policies is needed. May I make this simple point. The noble Lord knows this better than I do. What we have aimed for in these proposals is this. If one can bring trees sensitively planted on to the better land we trust that that will mean less of crops which are in surplus. If one doubles, as we are doing, the environmentally sensitive areas, that will begin to have a real effect on volumes of production.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, also asked about the amount of land which people keep on saying will not be needed. A huge range of figures has been quoted by different commentators. However, it is clear that several thousand hectares—perhaps several hundred thousand; possibly more than a million—may be looking for an alternative use over the next 10 years. I trust that this Statement of my right honourable friend is a positive step to doing something about that in the future.
Lord Sandford: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on at last having begun a process which it was obvious we should have started at least six years ago when we were dealing with the Wildlife and Countryside Bill.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I thank my noble friend, who has been characteristically generous in what he said. He can be stern sometimes, and there was an element of sternness in what he said. May I simply add this. It was my noble friend, and my noble friend Lord Peel, who persuaded the Government to put Section 22 of last year's agriculture Act into that legislation. I am absolutely delighted that we are now able to take action on that.
Baroness Stedman: My Lords, I also welcome the Statement from the Minister as a very progressive start to some new policies. We all support the small-scale enterprises and the diversification in the use of buildings and such matters.
Can the Minister assure us that the present rural planning and the guidance that will be given will be adequate to protect the environmental side of that expansion in our villages? Can the Minister also give us some encouragement that he may be bringing pressure to bear on the Forestry Commission, in respect of these farm woodlands, to consider our broadleaved hardwood trees, with not so much emphasis on the evergreen policy that the Forestry Commission has been carrying out up to now?
I welcome the further designation of the ESAs. Can the Minister tell us how many ESAs will be designated by 1988 when this extra money is being made available? Does that deal with all the sites that have been submitted for designation up to now, or will there still be some left over after 1988?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for what she has said. The noble Baroness has considerable experience of planning. There is no question of opening up the countryside to uncontrolled development as a result of this Statement. As the Statement says, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is providing for what we think is a more realistic look or approach to the giving of approval for the use of redundant buildings and things of that kind in the countryside.
In order to help the splendid work being done by the development commission, by CoSIRA and by ADAS, perhaps I should simply say that the environmental aspect of planning really is not affected by this particular Statement. Perhaps we should all look at the circular of my right honourable friend which is out today and draw our own conclusions.
Yes, there will be more broadleaves. This will happen as sure as night follows day if you bring the planting on to better land or down the hills as some people say. The grants are higher for small patches of land which are planted, and, of course, much higher under the Forestry Commission grant schemes for broadleaves. The proportion of broadleaves is going to be a very important element in the consultations we shall undertake on farm woodlands.
Finally, on environmentally sensitive areas, I regret that I cannot say how many there will be by 1988 for one very good reason. They do cost different amounts of money. For instance, the cost of the ESA which has been designated in Cornwall is of a very different order to the cost probably of most other ESAs so far designated. But I hope the fact that we are doubling the amount of money means that there will be a considerable addition to the nine environmentally sensitive areas designated so far in the United Kingdom as a whole.
Lord Stodart of Leaston: My Lords, may I say what encouragement my noble friend's Statement gives, not only because of its content but also because it has been delivered at a remarkably late hour prior to the opening of the National Farmers' Union meeting,
502
which reassures me as a farmer that the power of the agricultural lobby still exists.
As regards the Statement, may I put a question to my noble friend. A fortnight to three weeks ago, we had a two-and-a-half-hour debate on the alternative uses of land. We had confirmation from my noble friend of what I thought a useful figure. It was that if 10 per cent. of what might be called the marginal land, the 30 to 35 hundredweight an acre cereal land, were taken out of production, this would totally solve the problem. To what extent is it intended that the encouragement of the development of farm woodlands and the planting of a higher proportion of trees on low ground of better quality should meet the amount of land taken out?
Secondly, in talking about low ground of better quality, may I ask what my right honourable friend has in mind? Is he considering grade 3, grade 2, or even grade 1 land? It would be interesting to know.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, with regard to the take-up of land which is not needed for cereal production—as my noble friend quite rightly said, we discussed this in the debate the other day—there is undoubtedly going to be an effect on that problem so far as the proposals announced this evening on farm woodland and forestry are concerned. My noble friend has asked me to specify. We are going to spend up to a maximum of £125 a year per hectare. These are the recurrent grants. There are the planting grants on top of that. There will be a number of payment bands. Three are currently envisaged, because the income foregone from planting trees on agricultural land will vary with land quality and area. The basis for differentiation will be under consideration. All this will be in the policy document and subject to consultation.
We want to see how we go, so that after a short period there will be consideration of how well the programme has progressed. But all this will be firmly in the policy document and there will be plenty of consultation. Therefore, I cannot give a figure as to the amount of land which the woodlands scheme will take up. So far as the forestry is concerned, we envisage that plantings will go up from about 30,000 to 33,000 hectares a year by bringing forestry on to rather better land. My noble friend asked how much better land. That is a matter I should like to come back to on another occasion, when I will try to give an answer to my noble friend.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, first of all I should like to say how much we welcome the Statement. I should also like to reassure the farming lobby that there are some conservationists who welcome the measures to improve the health of the rural economy, which is absolutely essential.
May I ask the Minister whether he has any information about farm land which is to be released for housing? Some of us are a little worried that this may be excessive, especially in view of the possible scrapping of structure plans, which I understand is about to happen. Can he give us any reassurance on that?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, if the noble Baroness will forgive me, I think both the noble Baroness and I

503
should look at the Department of the Environment circular. I have not had the opportunity to see it myself. It is dated tomorrow, I understand, and it was issued only a few hours ago. If the noble Baroness will forgive me, I feel I cannot answer that question, and I think both she and I should look at that circular, which is now out for a two-month period of consultation.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I should very much like to welcome what my noble friend has said, but it seems that £25 million a year extra for this is but a drop in the ocean compared with the whole problem of agricultural surpluses. Are these sort of plans going to apply Europe-wide? Surely we should ask the European Community, as the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, said. Hopefully, on export subsidies to wheat they are going to save something in the region of £86 a ton on feed wheat, which is the last export subsidy figure that I saw. Reducing production in Europe should release considerable funds which FEOGA are using at the moment and which should go to increase that £25 million a year. Unfortunately it is very little.
I warmly congratulate my noble friend on the trend. The idea is absolutely right. I know that it sounds mean and unkind to be like Oliver Twist and say it is not enough and ask for more, but I think that is the only way we shall make any serious dent in the surplus problem.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, we may find the money will come from European Community schemes as associated structures measures unfold. There is just one thing I should say about reducing surpluses, with which I know my noble friend is considerably preoccupied. As I am sure my noble friend knows, there is a remit from the Commission that they will come forward with proposals for taking sectors out of surpluses. The British Government have put forward a proposal to the Council of Ministers for trying to take land for cereals out of surpluses. My noble friend Lord Stodart referred to that. My understanding is that the Council of Ministers' meeting in Brussels this week expects to have before it proposals from the Commission about taking sectors out of surpluses. Therefore, this is an area about which we hope to hear more in the near and foreseeable future.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, perhaps I may congratulate the Minister on anticipating the report of the European Communities Committee which will be debated in this House on Tuesday. It may be that some of the comments we have for tonight can be held until we have the full-scale debate on the report of that committee, which is being chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, because the committee does in fact argue the case for taking more agricultural land into forestry.
I should like to ask the Minister one or two questions. First, I welcome his commitment to an expansion of forestry. However, is it not somewhat inconsistent with that commitment to continue to sell off the Forestry Commission estate when in the past it has been the partnership in forestry between private and state sectors which has been the greatest stimulus to forestry development in this country? Indeed, it has been a very happy partnership.
504
Secondly, will the Minister tell us a little more about the grant structure as regards the encouragement of hardwoods, keeping in mind that softwoods have almost a 30-year rotation and hardwoods a 100-year rotation? What kind of financial incentives will be provided, keeping in mind that investment in forestry only yields a 3 per cent. per annum return according to the internal audit report? What kind of structure and what kind of incentives will back the new commitment to the expansion of forestry?
Although the Minister has said in the Statement that there will be future planning requirements for agricultural land, will he give an assurance that he will resist hysterical pressures regarding forestry development? It would be an impediment to the expansion of forestry for which he has argued today if it were to become involved in local planning procedures when it has a perfectly adequate system at the moment.
Finally, the BBC said tonight that the Minister for Employment had not been too happy about the Statement because it lacked substantial employment implications. Will the Minister comment on that statement in the news?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, has almost unrivalled experience in the field on which he has chosen to ask me questions. I shall do my best to answer.
The first question the noble Lord asked was why, when we have a forward-looking Statement about forestry, we are involved in sales of Forestry Commission land? This is a rationalisation. The noble Lord will know that very often the commission has taken the opportunity to sell off parcels of land which have been on the peripheries of its planting. This evening I shall simply content myself by saying that it is a rationalisation, although a substantial one.
The noble Lord asked whether the planting grants will be so attractive that people will go for broadleaves. If one is planting 10 hectares or over, the planting grants are approximately doubled if one plants broadleaves as compared with conifers. If one is talking about farm woodlands there are to be these first ever grants of up to £125 per annum for an ongoing period. This will all be considered in the consultation document.
Lastly, the noble Lord said that we should keep planning out of forestry. As regard the uplands, that is exactly what we set out to do when we responded to the uplands report about a year and a half ago.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, when the Minister spoke of £125 per year, did he mean £125 per hectare per year?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, yes.

British Railways (Stansted) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and referred to the Examiners.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past eight o'clock.

  SEALS: DAFS-FUNDED RESEARCH
  SEALS: DAFS-FUNDED RESEARCH
  SALMON BEHAVIOUR: RESEARCH FUNDING
  SALMON BEHAVIOUR: RESEARCH FUNDING
  WEAPON DEPLOYMENT IN UK: POLICY
  WEAPON DEPLOYMENT IN UK: POLICY
  NUCLEAR WEAPONS COMPARISON TABLES: PUBLICATION BY USSR
  NUCLEAR WEAPONS COMPARISON TABLES: PUBLICATION BY USSR
  MoD VACANT HOUSING: USE BY HOMELESS
  MoD VACANT HOUSING: USE BY HOMELESS
  PRISONERS: HIV POSITIVE REGIME
  PRISONERS: HIV POSITIVE REGIME
  PRISONERS IN EXCEPTIONAL RISK CATEGORIES: INSTRUCTIONS TO POLICE
  PRISONERS IN EXCEPTIONAL RISK CATEGORIES: INSTRUCTIONS TO POLICE
  BUS CREWS
  BUS CREWS
  CYPRUS: HUMAN RIGHTS
  CYPRUS: HUMAN RIGHTS