Sitting of 12 April 1988

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

    Sickle Cell Anaemia
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has made any assessment of the cost effectiveness of screening at birth for sickle cell anaemia.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mrs. Edwina Currie): Studies in the USA and in this country suggest that while screening all babies for sickle cell anaemia would not be cost effective, it is valuable to screen babies from certain groups with high risk. That is now being done in a large number of health authorities, including Manchester.
    Mr. Lloyd: Will the Minister confirm that in the cases of hyperthyroidism and phenylketonuria, whose incidence is only one in 10,000 of the population, screening is automatic at birth, but that for sickle cell anaemia, which occurs as often as one in 400 among affected groups, no such provision exists? The Minister tells the House that screening exists in some places, but the service is patchy and inadequate and many black people take the view that if this disease were suffered by white people screening
    2
    would be automatic. I share their view that this is an example of colour blindness within the National Health Service.
    Mrs. Currie: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the report in the British Medical Journal of 15 March 1986, which, having examined the pattern of screening in, for example, the Camberwell health authority, clearly stated that it would not be worth while doing it for all babies, but that it would be for babies that might be at risk.
    Ms. Harman: Is the Minister not concerned that, while more babies are being born, maternity beds are being cut; that a low birth-weight baby has less chance of getting into a special-care baby cot today than five years ago; and that women's choice on where to have their babies is being restricted by the closure of smaller maternity units? Will she reconvene the maternity services advisory committee—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The. Front Bench must stick to the question.
    Ms. Harman: Will the Minister reconvene the maternity services advisory committee—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We must start this part of the Session in good order. The hon. Lady must bring her question to an end now.
    Mrs. Currie: As you rightly point out, Mr. Speaker. that question has little to do with screening for sickle cell anaemia. However, I refer the hon. Lady to the discussion that we had on the same issue in response to one of her hon. Friends, back in October, when I pointed out that, on average in this country, one baby is born per maternity bed per week, which does not suggest overcrowding or lack of resources.

    Disabled People (Assistance)
    Dr. Moonie: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services by what criteria applications for assistance from the special fund to help the severely disabled are to he judged; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister for Social Security and the Disabled (Mr. Nicholas Scott): I announced the eligibility criteria for the

    3
    independent living fund in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander) on 31 March. The fund will be primarily to make payments to very severely disabled people on low income who receive attendance allowance and need to employ domestic help to enable them to live independently in the community.
    Dr. Moonie: How does the Minister reconcile his treatment of severely disabled people with the treatment of slightly less severely disabled people under the new provisions?
    Mr. Scott: We have set out to ensure that this group, whose needs were drawn to our attention by a number of organisations and who need this extra help to sustain their independent lives in the community, should have the advantages of this flexible system administered by an independent trust.
    Mr. Burns: Will my hon. Friend confirm that existing disabled recipients of supplementary benefit will enjoy a transitional scheme that will ensure that their benefits are in no way cut to a value less than they now enjoy?
    Mr. Scott: Of course, they will enjoy cash transitional protection, but those who have domestic care assistance in excess of £10 a week will have protection in real terms; so they have been more generously treated than anyone else at the transitional point.
    Mr. Fearn: Will the Minister confirm that applications from severely disabled people will go through the normal DHSS channels, and that the budgets for DHSS offices, which are now quite meagre, will be able to cope with this extra burden; or is the new special fund over and above that? If DHSS offices run out of money, severely disabled people will probably suffer.
    Mr. Scott: I am glad to be able to confirm that this is entirely new money and that it will be administered by the new trust which has been established, details of which I announced on 31 March.
    Mr. Baldry: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the money received from this fund will be additional and will not simply be taken away from the other benefit entitlements of recipients?
    Mr. Scott: Indeed, any payments under this fund will be disregarded for the purpose of income-related benefits.
    Mr. Alfred Morris: Is it not a disgrace that a fund that is supposed to protect some of those who are among the worst hit by yesterday's social security changes has not yet been formally constituted? Who are the trustees? Why did the Minister refuse this House information on costs that his Department gave to the press that same afternoon? Will the extra heating costs and special diet needs of disabled people be met by the fund? Why should Conservative Members attack the Bishop of Durham for describing as wicked changes—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That is well outside the scope of this question.
    Mr. Morris:—in benefits, which will hit up to 500,000 disabled people?
    Mr. Scott: Far from being a disgrace, the facilities of this fund for severely disabled people are a very important step in recognising their particular needs. It will be for the trustees to make the decisions in independent cases. [Interruption] I do not think that there is a delay. We want to get the trust deed right and the trustees in place in
    4
    order to get the answer right rather than to meet some artificial deadline. Applications can already be made to the DHSS if people wish to apply, and speedy decisions will be possible as soon as the trust is established.

    Property Sales
    Mr. Rowe: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how much money was realised from the sale of properties surplus to National Health Service requirements in each year since 1979.
    The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. John Moore): In 1978–79 the National Health Service received £7·5 million from the sale of surplus property. By 1986–87 receipts had increased almost twentyfold to £146 million, and in the financial year just ended we expect them to be about £200 million. I will, with permission, circulate figures for each of the last 10 years in the Official Report.
    Mr. Rowe: My right hon. Friend is to be congratulated on that excellent result. Is he aware that the present rules governing the disposal of such property militate sharply against any attempt by district health authorities to improve the asset before disposing of it? In his new review of the Health Service, will he undertake to look into that matter?
    Mr. Moore: My hon. Friend fairly acknowledged that the record is such as to suggest that we are succeeding in this area. I shall look at the point that he makes, because we all want the resources of the Health Service to be used for the best patient care.
    Mr. David Martin: I hope that when disposing of property my right hon. Friend will take into account the importance of green space. In areas such as Portsmouth one hopes that the development that takes place will not be so dense that we lose all the traditional amount of green space that people have grown used to seeing in National Health Service properties.
    Mr. Moore: I remind my hon. Friend that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment issued guidelines last autumn which should enable appropriate development of disused hospital sites in the green belt without—I stress the point that my right hon. Friend made—prejudicing the Government's green belt policy.
    Following is the information:

    Proceeds of NHS land sales 1978/79 to 1987/88

    Year

    £ million

    1978–79

    7·5

    1979–80

    10·0

    1980–81

    15·4

    1981–82

    19·4

    1982–83

    18·2

    1983–84

    31·5

    1984–85

    48·9

    1985–86

    82·9

    1986–87

    146·0

    The figure for 1987–88 is not available but is expected to be of the order of £200 million.

    Disabled People (Assistance)
    Mr. Allen McKay: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects the special fund set up to help the severely disabled to be in operation; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Scott: Applications to the fund can be made now by writing to the Department. As an interim measure, my officials, guided by professional advice, will carry out assessments so that when the trust is formally established decisions can be taken swiftly. Moreover, we shall look sympathetically at individual cases and, where appropriate, make interim payments in advance of the fund itself coming into operation.
    Mr. McKay: The Minister's answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) and the answer that he has just given me are not very satisfactory. Can he give a definite date on which people will receive payment from the fund? What publicity is being undertaken so that people will know when to make applications to the fund, and what arrangements are being made for the fund to be built up, taking into consideration that money in the fund will be running short? Will it help the Godden family, and has today's report in the Daily Mirror been brought to the Minister's attention? Will the fund help that family, and when?
    Mr. Scott: Mrs. Godden has been contacted and advised to make an application to the fund. Obviously I cannot prejudge the outcome of any application that she might make, but it has been suggested to her that she can make an application. The hon. Gentleman asked about publicity. In due course we shall be running a campaign involving suitably placed posters and leaflets and so on. I am confident that the organisations concerned with the disabled, which publish regular magazines and news sheets, will carry details of the fund so that it may be widely known among those who might benefit from it. The hon. Gentleman should understand that existing beneficiaries will have transitional protection at the point of change. We are talking here about new people coming into the system. In those circumstances, I do not believe that a short delay should be unsettling or upsetting to those involved.
    Mr. Favell: Will my hon. Friend take the opportunity this afternoon to condemn those who have been scaremongering among the disabled about the arrangements that are being made under the new social security provisions? Will he remind the House that this Administration, in contrast to previous Administrations, has been first-class in helping the disabled to take their place in the community?
    Mr. Scott: I have considerable sympathy with my hon. Friend's point. It comes hard from Opposition Members to criticise us for the provision that we have made for the disabled, when we have increased provision for them by 80 per cent. in real terms during our period in government. Under these reforms, we are putting in another £60 million, and we have also established this fund. If anyone should criticise us, it should not be Opposition Members.
    Mr. Ashley: Is the Minister aware that six charities, which do not go in for scaremongering, have described this fund as an abdication of the Government's responsibility? That is not scaremongering. Will he tell the House what advice he will give to severely disabled people when the money runs out?
    Mr. Scott: We have allocated £5 million for the coming financial year and allocations for future years will be settled on the basis of our experience. As existing claimants will have transitional protection, I expect that the numbers will build up comparatively slowly in the coming year. I
    6
    believe that the £5 million will be adequate to meet the needs, so there will be no question of the money running out.
    I think that it is worth repeating to the right hon. Gentleman and to those who have criticised us that the overwhelming part of the provision for severely disabled people will continue to be through income support and the different premiums to which they are entitled. This is a small fund to meet the needs of a small group of people, for a comparatively short time, in a flexible and compassionate manner.

    1991 Census
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects to bring forward proposals for arrangements for the 1991 census.
    Mr. Bowis: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects to bring forward proposals for arrangements for the 1991 census.
    Mr. Moore: No decisions have yet been taken on the content of the 1991 census. Proposals will be published as a White Paper later this year.
    Mr. Bennett: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that there will be the widest possible consultation about the questionnaire that will be sent out with the census? Will he assure the House that, as in previous censuses. all the information given will be kept confidential?
    Mr. Moore: I can certainly confirm that there will be consultation, and I remind the House that it is an offence under the Census Act 1920 for information on individuals to be released for use other than for census purposes. That includes the community charge.
    Mr. Bowis: Will my right hon. Friend pay attention to the need for information on the elderly, particularly the very elderly, so that the opportunities presented by increasing longevity can be met by the old people themselves and by the local health authorities that will be seeking to plan for them?
    Mr. Moore: Yes. At the moment we are considering all requests relating to information to be put in the census. I do not want to make any particular comment at this time, but we shall be publishing the White Paper later this year.
    Mr. Beith: Will the Minister consider the suggestion that we made at the time of the 1981 census: that the legal requirement to answer questions should be restricted to a very small number of questions, rather than to pose people with the threat of criminal sanctions merely because they do not want to say where their father was born or provide an answer that is not essential for the Government's purposes?
    Mr. Moore: I shall certainly consider that point, as I have personal experience of that matter. I understand the hon. Gentleman's point.
    Ms. Richardson: In connection with the census, bearing in mind that more and more women are being forced into unpaid work, such as caring for elderly and dependent relatives, and as the voluntary sector is becoming increasingly important because of the failure to provide essential public and consumer services, will the Minister respond to the pressure from the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, following the forward-looking

    7
    strategies after the United Nations Decade of Women, and ensure that the 1991 census form includes provision for voluntary as well as paid work to be counted?
    Mr. Moore: I do not accept the first part of the hon. Lady's statement, but I will certainly look with great care at her latter points.
    Mr. Chapman: Will my right hon. Friend give some sign in the White Paper of the likely time when the evaluation of the census results will be made known to the public? Will he try to ensure in this computer age that the results will be available in weeks rather than the apparent years that it normally takes, during which time most of the information becomes out of date?
    Mr. Moore: I shall want to consider that when we discuss the White Paper later this year. The details are not yet settled, but I would expect preliminary reports on the size of the population, about which I know my hon. Friend is interested, to be published as soon as possible after census day. Key results will be available to local authorities by May 1992, and I hope that the first national reports will be published before the end of 1992.

    Family Income Supplement
    Mr. Wallace: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the take up rate for family income supplement in Orkney and Shetland.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Michael Portillo): Information about take-up rates is available only on a national basis.
    Mr. Wallace: I know the Minister is aware that farmers and crofters in my constituency, who have been claiming family income supplement and now wish to claim family credit, have been asked to fill in a form giving consent for the district valuer to value their crofts and smallholdings. What advice can the Minister offer to them if the value of those holdings is so great as to disqualify them from family credit when they need that land to earn their small and modest incomes?
    Mr. Portillo: I can offer the hon. Gentleman a pretty good reassurance on this. The value of a person's home is completely disregarded in the assessment of capital for family credit. The regulations are quite specific in saying that any croft land on which the dwelling is situated is also to be disregarded. Therefore, the value of any croft land should not be in question. If the hon. Gentleman finds in due course that there is a problem, perhaps he will get in touch with me about it.
    Mr. Thurnham: As a result of the Government's excellent reforms, will not more children in low-income families in Orkney and elsewhere receive cash for their school meals rather than free meals under the present family income supplement system?
    Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Taking account of family income supplement and local authority discretionary schemes, we estimate that 100,000 more children will receive the cash aid than presently qualify for free school meals.

    Social Security Rreform
    Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the efforts made by his Department to publicise the changes in the social security system in April.
    Mr. Moore: My Department has organised television and press advertising campaigns. Our leaflets have been redesigned and rewritten to make them more attractive and easier to understand. Our regional and local staff are taking the initiative on local publicity and information. Special fact sheets have been produced for organisations representing and advising claimants to help them understand and explain the reforms, and claimants themselves will receive information about the changes, with notifications about the new benefit.
    Mr. Hughes: Does the Secretary of State accept that, in spite of all that publicity, he has not managed to persuade the majority of people that his changes are acceptable? Does he accept that a system which allows a mother aged under 18 with a child to receive £14 a week less than a mother aged over 18, which allows an old person with a disability to receive over £20 a week less, or which means that people who have been encouraged to save and have saved £6,000 cannot receive any benefit is not the kind of system that the Government can convince the country is worth continuing? When will the results of the publicity, which has not persuaded 62 per cent. of the Minister's Back Benchers that it is acceptable, prove that the system needs to be changed before substantial disadvantage is caused to millions of people in Britain?
    Mr. Moore: The publicity was addressed to the claimants, and it will continue to be so, in an attempt to communicate and help them to ensure that they receive the benefits to which they are entitled. The purpose of the publicity is not to publicise the benefits of the nature of the structural reforms. The structural reforms will be welcomed and accepted by the vast majority of people.
    Mr. Alexander: Is it not also important to counter the pernicious propaganda of some Opposition Members, particularly on school meals? Would one ever learn from their pronouncements that a different system operates and that significantly more pupils will benefit?
    Mr. Moore: Absolutely. I remind the House that 800,000 children—[Interruption.] Facts are always much more difficult to accept, especially for some of those hon. Members who interrupt from a sedentary position. I repeat that 800,000 children will continue to receive school meals through local authorities and 100,000 more children will benefit from family credit than was the case under FIS and local authority discretionary schemes.
    Mr. Dobson: Guesswork.
    Mr. Moore: Not guesswork, Mr. Speaker. That is based on national data normally accepted by those who are serious about the matter as opposed to those, such as the shadow Leader of the House, who are concerned only with making sedentary interruptions.
    Ms. Mowlam: If the Minister is interested in helping families by the introduction of family credit, as he tells us he is, why was child benefit frozen? What he is giving with one hand, he is taking away with the other.
    Mr. Moore: As my right hon. and hon. Friends have explained at considerable length in a considerable number of debates, we have sought to give additional help to 3

    9
    million children, out of the 12 million children who are in receipt of child benefit, through an increase in income support and family credit which they would otherwise not receive. They will benefit particularly from the reforms.
    Mr. Ralph Howell: As child benefit is more valuable to better-off parents than to others, why have we not made child benefit means-tested in order to save £3 billion?
    Mr. Moore: With his extensive knowledge of this subject, my hon. Friend draws attention to the tax position of the more wealthy families in receipt of child benefit as opposed to those in receipt of income support and family credit.
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: In the light of what the Secretary of State has said about unpalatable facts, does he accept that many elderly and low-paid people are shocked at the reduction in their incomes as a result of the social security and housing benefit changes? Will he give a commitment that his Department will review the existing system when he has been inundated with facts from Back Benchers on the effect of the changes on their constituents?
    Mr. Moore: I am conscious of the fact that 87 per cent. of pensioners benefit from or are no worse off as a result of the changes. I am also conscious of the Government's outstanding record in improving the lot of the pensioner, especially in destroying that which most threatens the pensioner—the appalling rates of inflation that the Government inherited from the previous Labour Government.
    Mr. Marlow: Would it be helpful to the public during the debate to make plain the vast amount of resources involved—I think that the social security budget is about £800 for every man, woman and child in Britain, which is about £64 a week for every family of four—and that, however little or much anybody might be receiving through supplementary benefit, that money is coming from their neighbours?
    Mr. Moore: My hon. Friend is right. An extraordinary feature of the debate is that it is hard for those outside to realise that during the past eight and a half years expenditure on social security has increased—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. It is unseemly to shout from a sedentary position.
    Mr. Moore:—in real terms by 38 per cent. Most of that has little to do with the increased number of those unemployed and everything to do with the enormous increase in benefits for pensioners, the disabled and families with children.
    Mr. Robin Cook: Can the Secretary of State name a single organisation representing claimants which has been convinced by the Government's claim that 87 per cent. will be no worse off as a result of the changes? Is he aware that not one of my colleagues who met desperate claimants at their surgeries at the weekend can accept his complacent figures, that his own Social Security Advisory Committee put the losers as a majority, and that even Conservative-controlled Wandsworth council estimates that there will be twice as many losers as gainers in its borough? Has he forgotten—we have not—that last month his Government found £2,000 million for the top taxpayers? With all that cash to spare, is it not abundantly clear that they had the money to prevent there being any losers among the poor?
    Mr. Moore: The hon. Gentleman is aware—as is anyone who looks at the facts—of the invalidity of most of the data in studies such as that of Wandsworth, which assumed, for example, that all income supports claimants in this country were in receipt of single payments as of the middle of 1986. Two thirds of them were not. The hon. Gentleman also asks whether any group in the country actually supports the Government's proposals. The proposals were published and printed. They were passed by this House in 1986 and confirmed by the election in 1987.
    Mr. Wells: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, unfortunately, his efforts in publishing these changes have not been drawn to the attention of the Bishop of Durham? Does he agree that it is indeed wicked for the Bishop of Durham to comment when he has not read and does not understand what the Government are doing to support the poorest people in this land?
    Mr. Moore: I have the distinct feeling that you. Mr. Speaker, would not wish me to pursue that particular line of argument, other than to say that the reforms add to and do not diminish the overall expenditure by the taxpayer on social security help for the poorest people.

    Social Security Reform
    Dr. Godman: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many claimants he expects to be better off and how many to be worse off (a) in cash terms, and (b) in terms of their real disposable income, following the changes in social security in April.
    Mr. Ernie Ross: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many claimants he expects to be better off (a) in cash terms, and (b) in terms of their real disposable income, following on the changes in social security in April.
    Mr. Moore: Most social security benefits, including retirement pension paid to over 9 million pensioners, are uprated this week giving cash increases to recipients and protecting the real value of their benefit. So far as the income-related benefits are concerned, around 5·1 million recipients will gain and 2·2 million experience no change, compared with fewer than one million who lose in cash terms.
    Dr. Godman: Listening to the ministerial recitations of those figures, I am reminded of a well-known book about statistics that was published in 1973—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question."]
    May I ask the Minister, given the notorious inaccuracy of the statistics produced by his Department, and given that the arrangements for transitional protection are being made by local DHSS offices, to place in the Library a list containing the actual number of claimants who are: to receive transitional protection? Is it the case that they are not to receive benefit uprating this year, and, by that fact, they are already losers and will continue to be losers for many years to come?
    Mr. Moore: First, the data are from the family expenditure survey. As Opposition Members know, but seem to have discovered only recently, the data were printed in 1985 and again in October 1987 in absolute detail. All the data have been printed and published ,and were laid before the House when the uprating statement was issued in October 1987.
    Mr. Ross: The House will be shocked by the complacent attitude of the Secretary of State. He will know that his own Social Security Advisory Committee, the Citizens Advice Bureaux—hardly a militant Socialist organisation—and the Church have all said that there will be far more losers than winners. What is he really going to do to help those losers when the information is available?
    Mr. Moore: I thought that in his main question the hon. Gentleman was asking for facts and statistics as opposed to the opinions of other organisations. I am not suggesting for one moment that there are not people who criticise some aspects of the changes, though many of them tend to concentrate only on the negative aspects of the changes as opposed to the overall strategic thrust, which is beneficial.
    Sir Peter Emery: Every hon. Member wants to ensure that the worst-off sections of society receive benefit, but there are some who have been thrifty all their lives, who have retired with some savings and who are now in difficulty because, with the rise in the cost of living, their savings have been depleted. Housing benefit brought them between £300 and £400 a year. Therefore, they believe that some of these measures are a disincentive to thrift. These people need further consideration.
    Mr. Moore: My hon. Friend is quite right to draw attention to the problems that are faced by any society which tries to encourage thrift and which also has to make a judgment about the level at which one cuts off benefit. Quite clearly, nobody would wish to discourage thrift. My hon. Friend knows that for the first time those with very small savings—up to £3,000—will not suffer any disadvantage. The line is drawn only for those with savings above £6,000. My hon. Friend also knows that people save because they seek independence. They do not save to achieve dependency. My hon. Friend will also be conscious of the fact that there are many millions of people on very low incomes with no savings at all who find no good reason to pay part of the rent or rates of those with substantial savings.
    Mr. Sims: To put some of the Opposition's claims into perspective, will my right hon. Friend provide a little more detail about the extent of the increases? For example, how many of the so-called gainers are to enjoy £3 or more extra a week?
    Mr. Moore: My hon. Friend is right to remind the House of one of the points that is not often raised here. Of those who are to receive an increase, 40 per cent., or over 2 million, will be gaining an extra £3 or more a week.
    Mr. Rowlands: The Secretary of State has argued that these changes are vital to the economy. What is so vital to the economy that requires a cut in rate rebate for a miner's widow of £1·69? Is she supposed to join the enterprise culture?
    Mr. Moore: The overall changes increase public expenditure. My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary drew attention to the fact that, because of the successful management of the economy, we are able to increase to £48·5 billion our social security expenditure in 1988–89.
    Mr. Cormack: Can we, in 1988, really call £6,000 substantial savings?
    Mr. Moore: My hon. Friend asks a question that obviously many people will ask. I know he will understand that those who have to make such a decision have difficulty in drawing a line. He will also be very conscious of the
    12
    millions of people who have no savings and who therefore see no reason why they, on very low incomes, should help to support those who save, I assume, to achieve independence, not dependency.
    Mr. Robin Cook: I refer the Secretary of State to the case raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay), that of Mrs. Felicity Godden who, whatever the outcome of an application to the independent living fund, from Monday lost £48 in social security, free school meals for three daughters and most of her housing benefit. Is the Secretary of State aware that there are 15,000 other disabled claimants who are losing similar amounts under the same rule? Are they all supposed to apply to the independent living fund? Can it cope with them? Is there any word that can more adequately describe their treatment by this Government than wicked?
    Mr. Moore: It might be helpful, Mr. Speaker, to try to answer the question that has been raised, because I have been appalled by the attempt to make political capital out of what is clearly an exceptional and difficult case. It is for the independent adjudication authorities to determine how the regulations should apply, but I understand that Mrs. Godden continues to receive the wife's severe disablement benefit, attendance allowance, mobility allowance and child benefit—over £113 a week. Her husband's earnings, in addition, amount to £128 and she has free accommodation. In addition, I understand that she is being invited to put in a claim to the independent living fund, and that the local authority's social services department is investigating to see whether other assistance may be appropriate. Both the local authority and our social security officials have been trying to visit her. Unfortunately, they have not so far been able to see her because she has been away on holiday.

    Disabled People (Assistance)
    Mr. Harry Barnes: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether there will be any mechanism for the review of or appeal against a refusal of assistance from the special fund set up to help the severely disabled.
    Mr. Scott: It will be for the trustees of the independent living fund to determine how to deal with cases which have been turned down. I am sure that they will wish to give very careful consideration to any cases which give rise to dissatisfaction.
    Mr. Barnes: Should not an appeals procedure be established in connection with the fund? Hon. Members on both sides of the House realise the importance of appeal procedures relating to the DHSS, in appeals to bodies such as the Solicitors' Complaints Bureau. Many people, including my constituents, are in need of assistance, and we need the establishment of proper procedures. Assistance should be given to the Citizens' Advice Bureaux and bodies such as the Derbyshire Coalition for the Disabled in my constituency, and the Centre for Integrated Living at Ripley, to help those appealing for deeply needed payments.
    Mr. Scott: I do not believe that a formal appeals procedure would be appropriate for a flexible system such as ours, administered by an independent fund. I am sure that the trustees will want to establish procedures so that they can take a second look at cases that cause dissatisfaction. I hope very much that the press release that

    13
    accompanied my announcement on 31 March will lead to wide publicity being given to those who will be advising the severely disabled about their entitlement.
    Mr. Holt: Will my hon. Friend reconsider whether there should be an appeals commission? If there is to be such a body, will it meet more regularly and come to its conclusions much faster than the present appeals mechanisms in Blackpool, where it is admitted it takes an average on nine months for a decision to be reached, and often more than two years? When severely disabled people are involved, that is far too long.
    Mr. Scott: In the context of the independent living fund, I do not believe that the establishment of a formal appeals procedure would be appropriate. Obviously, we as a Department are anxious to reduce to the minimum the time taken to settle ordinary appeals.
    Mrs. Beckett: Surely the Minister must recall the dismay expressed at the decision to force the most severely disabled to approach a charity for help that used to come as of right from the state. Does he not recognise that that dismay will be exacerbated if, as seems to be the case from his answer today, there is no right of independent appeal against the decisions that that charity makes?
    Mr. Scott: As I said in response to an earlier question, the vast majority of the support provided for the severely disabled will continue to come through income support and the premiums associated with it. This is a small fund, set up probably for a relatively short period, to meet the needs of a very small group. In those circumstances, I am sure that the flexibility associated with an independent trust, and trustees who are able to review matters with sympathy and compassion, is appropriate.

    Hospitals (Nucleus System)
    Mr. Carrington: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the use being made of the nucleus system of hospital design.
    The Minister for Health (Mr. Tony Newton): So far, 43 nucleus schemes have been completed and a further 76 are at various stages of planning design and construction. The total value of the programme is nearly £1·6 billion and we estimate that at least £30 million has been saved in fees and construction costs as a result of this standardised approach to hospital building.
    Mr. Carrington: Would my right hon. Friend care to enlarge upon the cost benefits to the Health Service of the nucleus system and also to the contractors who service the Health Service?
    Mr. Newton: For the Health Service, in terms of restraining costs, and for the contractors in terms of the efficiency with which they can do their work, the nucleus system has proved remarkably successful. Of course, it is not appropriate to use it on all sites because one has to take account of particular circumstances. However, we are hoping that its use will grow.
    Mr. Dalyell: Do the Minister's professional architectural advisers have unambigious confidence in the system?
    Mr. Newton: As far as I am aware, the answer is yes. No system, especially one of this sort, will be without problems and we seek to learn from experience as the programme goes on. Basically, it has been an outstandingly successful system.

    NHS (Building Programme)
    Mr. David Shaw: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many capital schemes in the health service are under construction; and how many have been completed since 1979.
    Mr. Newton: Information held centrally on health building schemes, each costing over £1 million, shows that 140 schemes are presently under construction; an additional 300 schemes have been completed since April 1979.
    Mr. Shaw: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that in my district health authority, South East Kent, and also in the South East Thames region, there have been a number of good and useful capital projects during the past eight years under this Government and that, as a result, the general well-being and health of the people in the area have benefited considerably?
    Mr. Newton: Indeed I would. The South East Thames region has some good community care projects.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Dr. Reid: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 12 April.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. I was also present at Windsor for the arrival of His Majesty The King of Norway. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I will be attending a state banquet in honour of His Majesty The King of Norway.
    Dr. Reid: What advice does the Prime Minister have today for over 4 million of Britain's poorest people who stand to lose because of the social security changes? What does she have to say to Britain's oldest pensioners who stand to be robbed of £91 a year, or to Britain's youngest unemployed who lose £405 a year? Will she tell them that it is all an incentive to work harder, or will she finally admit that it is the biggest betrayal of Britain's poor since the welfare state was set up?
    The Prime Minister: The extra money, in particular the money provided in the coining financial year, against a background of fewer unemployed, is being targeted particularly to help the poorest among our people. Indeed, now that the new system is in operation, in cash terms, there will be 5 million gainers compared with fewer than 1 million losers.
    Mr. Churchill: In welcoming Secretary-General Gorbachev's announced withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan, may I ask my right hon. Friend to send a message of warm congratulations to the Afghan freedom fighters on their courageous and victorious struggle over eight long years against the most powerful army in the world? Will she never forget that to this day 120 million people of eastern Europe and the Baltic republics remain under the Soviet tank track and that they, too, are entitled to freedom and national self-determination?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I agree with my hon. Friend. It is because of the splendid resistance of the people of Afghanistan against the occupying power that

    15
    the Soviet troops have decided to pull out. That decision is a welcome one and we should recognise the tremendous role of the freedom fighters.
    Mr. Kinnock: The effects of housing benefit changes on pensioners across the country are now obvious to the country and to hon. Members on both sides of the House. Therefore, will the Prime Minister amend the regulations to ensure that no one with accessible capital of less than £10,000 will lose housing benefit or help with rates?
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir. As I have said to the right hon. Gentleman before, it was a matter of policy that we should target the benefits on those in greatest need. Even after the reforms, more will be spent in real terms and more people will be receiving housing benefit than was the case in 1979. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that there is nothing unusual or unknown about rent help being subjected to a capital limit. When rent help came under supplementary benefit, it came under the maximum capital disregard limit, which under the right hon. Gentleman's Government was £1,200.
    Mr. Kinnock: If the right hon. Lady will do nothing to help people with £6,000 in lifetime savings, may I give her the case of someone with just £1,600 in total savings? She is a single woman, 73 years of age, who is disabled, diabetic and virtually housebound, who does not smoke or drink. She has a weekly pension and occupational pension totalling just over £50 a week. That lady is now losing £6·80 a week because of reductions in housing benefit and help with her rates. Her already low income is being cut by 12 per cent. When she, and thousands like her, ask, "How can I economise?", can the Prime Minister tell her?
    The Prime Minister: I saw this morning in the Daily Mirror an account of a particular case—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister has a right to answer the question.
    The Prime Minister: The account that was given was substantially inaccurate—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I call upon the Prime Minister to answer.
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend, having had time to look up all the facts, gave the House the facts and they were totally different from those reported. If the right hon. Gentleman wants a particular case looked up, perhaps he will contact my right hon. Friend and give him the facts. In the meantime, the right hon. Gentleman will know that £46 billion is being spent on social security. He talks about thrift and savings. Let me remind him that inflation under the Labour Government robbed people of their savings, so we take no lectures from him. They robbed people of 5 to 6 per cent. of their savings every quarter.
    Mr. Kinnock: Perhaps the Prime Minister will now answer the question that I asked her. Will she tell a disabled diabetic, of 73 years of age, with £1,600 in capital and an income of just over £50 a week—[HON. MEMBERS: "What's her name?"]—Miss Lilian Williams of Manchester. There is no need for the Prime Minister to take the reference from me, as she has already had a letter from Miss Williams. Perhaps she will answer the question of how Mrs. Williams economises on that kind of sum, instead of relating her remarks to the Daily Mirror.
    As for that issue, that newspaper printed the full facts of Mrs. Godden's income. Her right hon. Friend the
    16
    Secretary of State for Social Services has just made it apparent that he does not think that women with multiple sclerosis should have holidays.
    The Prime Minister: No. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to take up the full details, he will do it in the proper way, through the Department for Social Security.
    For those who are living alone and are disabled, a great deal depends on the kind of domiciliary help that they receive. As in Bristol, the local authority should be in touch to see what domestic help is required. They can also apply to the independent living fund for extra help. That is precisely what the independent living fund is there for. Perhaps he will pass on that message.
    Mr. Kinnock rose—
    Hon. Members: "Oh".
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The Leader of the Opposition.
    Mr. Kinnock: How does Mrs. Williams, and thousands like her, economise when she has lost 12 per cent. of her income? Will the Prime Minister please answer the question?
    The Prime Minister: I have done. I have said that for people who are disabled—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I say again to the whole House that behaviour of this kind, and I am saying this to both sides of the House, gives this place a very bad reputation.
    The Prime Minister: If people are disabled, there is an extra £60 million—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."]—yes, I will answer the question if I am allowed to do so. An extra £60 million will go to the sick and disabled through the disability premium. There is also a severe disability premium which will channel an extra £8 million to an estimated extra 7,000 of the most severely disabled. It can mean that a person living alone will now get £24 a week in place of £6. In case neither of these apply. we have set up an independent living fund which is already—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. May I say to the whole House that it is no good shouting at the Prime Minister to answer the question when she is actually doing that.
    The Prime Minister: We have set up an independent living fund, to be run by independent trustees, to allow the most severely disabled to live independently in the community. There is an interim address for the fund, and people who think that they may be eligible for help should apply now. I repeat, £46 billion: had the right hon. Gentleman's Government paid anything like that, he would have shouted it from the housetops with acclaim.
    Mr. Nelson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, just as the scourge of terrorism is indiscriminate and knows no boundaries, so the fight against it should be international and co-operative?
    The Prime Minister: Yes. Of course we fight terrorism in every way we can. As regards the Kuwait hijacking, we are very glad that the United Kingdom passengers were released; but hostage-taking of this kind affects all countries, and we have strong sympathies for the Kuwaitis and the Cypriots in dealing with the problem and fully support the line that they are taking.
    Mr. Steel: Did the Prime Minister see the report published yesterday by the Church of Scotland, which showed that in 1985 31 per cent. of the population of

    17
    Scotland were living either in poverty or on its margins? Is she appalled by that figure, or is it, too, "substantially inaccurate"?
    The Prime Minister: I did not see that report, but I commend most warmly to the right hon. Gentleman an excellent speech just made in Scotland by the Chief Secretary, pointing out that earned income per head in Scotland is higher than anywhere else in the United Kingdom save the south-east. If people did not run Scotland down, but allowed it to live up to its enterprise, it might have a lot better chance than under the right hon. Gentleman's strictures.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: In view of the recent serious happenings in Northern Ireland, will the right hon. Lady tell the House when her Government will bring in proposals to deal with the Sinn Fein/IRA godfathers in the councils of Northern Ireland? Is she aware that as her Secretary of State at present holds conversations with the Social Democratic and Labour party, that party is holding conversations with the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Adams) and the Sinn Fein/IRA leadership? Is she aware that the purpose of these talks, as the SDLP has declared it, is to get Sinn Fein to the conference table? Will she take it from me and my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux), the leader of the Unionst party, that we will never sit down with Sinn Fein or with the IRA?
    The Prime Minister: I understand what the hon. Gentleman says. As he knows, we condemn not only the use of violence but those political parties which support
    18
    the use of violence. Ministers of this Government have no contact whatsoever with Sinn Fein and will not deal with inquiries from them. On this we are absolutely at one with the hon. Member, and I would have thought that most hon. Members hold the same view.
    Mr. Nellist: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 12 April.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Nellist: In between mouthfuls at tonight's banquet, and with her well-known sympathy for widows, could the Prime Minister advise my constituent in Binley, in Coventry, who yesterday received the 1·65 increase in her widowed mother's pension but lost the right to free school meals for her four children and therefore will have to pay £13·20 a week extra, just how she is expected to manage? When will this millionaire Prime Minister start attacking poverty and stop attacking the poor?
    The Prime Minister: The highest ever social security budget—[Interruption.] Yes, the highest ever social security budget in real terms has been targeted on the poorest, as a result of which, in cash terms, this week there are 5 million people who have more than they had before. There are 2 million who have no change and there are just under 1 million who have a decrease. Fortunately, opposite the right hon. Gentleman there are 5 million people who have benefited in cash terms this week from increased social security, the level of which could never have occurred but for the increased prosperity of this country.

Social Security System (Changes)
3.31 pm
Mr. Robin Cook: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House—
Mr. Martin Flannery: The Prime Minister has answered no questions at all.
Mr. Cook: I beg to ask leave—
Mr. Dave Nellist: Go on; get off to your banquet.
Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) does not resume his seat, I shall have to take serious action.
Mr. Cook: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am listening to an application under Standing Order No. 20.
Mr. Cook: 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 impact of the changes in the social security system."
I shall submit three brief reasons, all relevant to the considerations set out in Standing Orders, why I ask leave to move the Adjournment.
First, it is now abundantly clear that the Government's estimate that only 12 per cent. of claimants will be worse off is difficult to reconcile with reality. The Government's own social security advisory committee last week put the losers at 43 per cent. The House must have an early opportunity to debate ministerial statements that would appear to be misleading and are not supported by their own advisers.
Secondly, this is the first occasion on which the House has met since the changes were implemented and since individual claimants learnt of their predicament—individual claimants such as the constituent I saw at the weekend, on invalidity benefit of £72 a week, who lost £12 a week in housing benefit. Every Labour Member has met
20
such constituents during the recess. Indeed, I read that a survey of 100 Conservative Members revealed that two-thirds are seriously concerned by the changes. It is only right that the House should give those Members an early opportunity to express their concern in Parliament.
Thirdly, the matter is urgent; it is desperately urgent for the victims of the changes. A week's delay in debating their plight is another week in which they have to shift and to survive on sharply reduced benefits.
This is an important matter. The changes affect the living standards of 7 million claimants and their families. The increasingly harsh policy has troubled the conscience not just of bishops but of the nation. This House would be failing in its duty if it did not secure an early opportunity to challenge Ministers to say why they are making the poor poorer when they have the money to make the rich richer.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purposes of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the impact of the changes in the social security system".
I am satisfied that the matter raised by the hon. Member is proper to be discussed under Standing Order No. 20. Has the hon. Gentleman the leave of the House?
The leave of the House having been given, the motion stood over, under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) until the commencement of public business tomorrow.
Mr. Hal Miller: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Not, I hope, to challenge what I have just said.
Mr. Miller: I am not in the habit of challenging the rulings of the Chair. I have never done so. I seek guidance as to whether I can similarly jog backwards two years to legislation which has subsequently been debated in detail on a number of occasions. May I hope to have a similarly favourable reply?
Mr. Speaker: Every application is considered on its merits.

Points of Order
Mr. Ernie Ross: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I accept that in politics we have to take the rough and tumble, but when I was asking a question of the Secretary of State for Social Services all my hon. Friends heard the hon. Member for Berkshire, East (Mr. MacKay) accuse me of being a friend of the hijackers. As you know, Mr. Speaker, I am the chair of the Labour Back Bench foreign affairs committee, but I have never in any way supported hijackers. I ask you to ask the hon. Member to withdraw what he said.
Mr. Andrew MacKay: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is common knowledge in the House that the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) is a close friend of fundamentalist—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."]
Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot have a debate on the matter. If the hon. Member for Berkshire, East (Mr. MacKay) made that comment, which I would consider unworthy of him and unlikely, he should withdraw it. We are all honourable Members of the House.
Mr. MacKay: It is common knowledge that the hon. Member for Dundee, West is a close friend of fundamentalist Shi'ite groups in the middle east. To that extent, I said that he was a friend of the hijackers, who also fall into that category. If it helps you, Mr. Speaker, I am more than happy to make it clear that I would not imagine for one moment that the hon. Member for Dundee, West would wish to associate with the actions of the terrorists who are at the moment holding a plane at Larnaca—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that we are starting a new part of the Session. I hope that we will proceed in good order and set a good example in the House. This is a place where freedom of speech is absolutely supreme, but we must give each other a fair hearing and not cast aspersions upon each other's characters.
Mr. Frank Dobson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. What the hon. Member for Berkshire, East (Mr. MacKay) said was in no way a withdrawal of his accusation against my extremely hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross). In fairness, I think that you should ask him to withdraw in the way which you usually demand of Opposition Members. When Opposition Members have sought partially to justify what they have said, you have not accepted that as a withdrawal. We think that is only right and proper that the hon. Member for Berkshire, East should withdraw what he said, because it was a vile accusation against my hon. Friend.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Berkshire, East (Mr. MacKay) referred to helping me. It is a question not of helping me but of doing the right thing by the House. Will he get up and make it plain that he withdraws his comment?
Mr. MacKay: As I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, to help the House, to help you and to help the hon. Member for Dundee, West, I will make it clear—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."]
Mr. Speaker: Order. It does not help the House at all. The hon. Gentleman should do the right thing by the House and clearly withdraw the comment.
Mr. MacKay: I withdraw the comment that the hon. Member for Dundee, West associates with the actions of the hijackers at Larnaca.
Mr. Martin Flannery: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. When questions are framed to the Prime Minister which are of a specific nature and mention detail, has not the questioner a right to receive a proper answer from her? Did not the Prime Minister evade question after question? The answers that the general public and the Opposition have a right to hear were never given by the Prime Minister. What defence have we against that?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows that it has never been possible for the occupant of the Chair to demand the answers that any hon. Member may wish to have. Every Minister and Prime Minister answers questions in his or her own way.
Mr. Ernie Ross: Further to the point of order concerning the hon. Member for Berkshire, East (Mr. MacKay) and myself, I wish to place on record the fact that I am not friends with any fundamentalist Shi'ite group anywhere in the world.
Mr. Speaker: I am sure the whole House will accept that.
Mr. David Winnick: As one who takes a different view on middle east questions from that of my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross), I do not for one moment question his honesty and total opposition to all forms of hijacking.
Returning to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery), you, Mr. Speaker, have complained at various times about noise from the Opposition side of the House, but when the Prime Minister absolutely refuses to answer questions there will obviously be noise and frustration from Opposition Members. On many occasions during today's Question Time my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) gave details of constituents who had been penalised as a result of the social security legislation. Surely—
Mr. Speaker: Order. What is reprehensible—the House and the country would think it reprehensible also—is if we do not give each other a fair hearing in this place. It is not in order to shout each other down.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask you to confirm that it was most discourteous of the Prime Minister to march out of the Chamber—she was clearly angry—just before my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) rose to make an application for an emergency debate on the social fund and the damage being imposed on millions of our constituents?
Mr. Speaker: That is plainly not a matter for the Chair. I have no knowledge why the Prime Minister or indeed arty other right hon. or hon. Member leaves the Chamber; it cannot be a matter for me.

Points of Order

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
  Ordered,
  That European Community Documents Nos. 8251/86 and 10383/87 on the export and import of certain dangerous chemicals be referred to a Standing Committee on European Community Documents.—[Mr. David Hunt.]

Blacklists (Access to Information)
3.43 pm
Mrs. Maria Fyfe: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to give persons a right of access to any information held by any organisation for the purpose of blacklisting.
The Bill would give people rights that they are denied at present because of a loophole in the Data Protection Act 1984. At present, anyone can seek information held about himself by any organisation, but that right extends only to information held on computer. Paper and card indexes are not covered by the Act. Therefore, it is not so much a loophole; it is more a yawning chasm through which any organisation which spies on innocent people going about their perfectly legitimate business can operate at will and with no possibility of redress for those whom it injures, provided that it keeps its information on cards and not on computer tape.
This is nonsensical. It is a blatant defiance of Parliament's intentions to give people access to information held about themselves, and it is an attack on the civil liberties of British citizens. It is astounding to think that such activities are perfectly legal, so their victims cannot take action. One organisation in particular, the Economic League, which was founded in 1919 and contributes to the Conservative party, recently had its activities exposed to the public gaze. It has long been suspected and known by inference that that organisation keeps information about individuals which it supplies to employers. Now we have seen proof on our television screens. One of my constituents was astonished to learn that she was on the list because of her active participation in Anti-Apartheid. Until a television programme producer showed her the Economic League's blacklist she had no idea she had ever come to the League's attention.
Other people have written to me since learning of my Bill, and one in particular, Mr. John Geleit, who was assistant secretary of the London region National Graphical Association, has been trying unsuccessfully since October 1987 to make the Economic League correct statements made about him that are wrong. He is described in the Economic League's "News Review" of June 1987 as a Communist, but he is a member of the Labour party and writes that he has never been a member of any party that can be construed as being Communist. We seem to be living in McCarthyite days when people feel forced to declare the famous words from that evil cold war era that was a blot on American history:
"I am not nor have I ever been".
We have come to a sad state of affairs when people feel forced to make such declarations.
The last piece of correspondence from the Economic League to him is dated 19 January 1988 and confirms:
"There is no entry in our computer records"—
the House will note that it says "computer records"—
"in respect of yourself."—
The Economic League has not apologised to my constituent nor explained why it has been secretly blacklisting her—and it does not stop at Anti-Apartheid. Its own publication, "Companies Under Attack", lists in addition to Anti-Apartheid as suspect organisations: Oxfam, Christian Aid, CND, the Child Poverty Action Group, the Low Pay Unit, and many more. Most of us would regard such organisations as entirely blameless and, indeed, praiseworthy. We would think that anyone who

25
devotes voluntary effort to such causes deserves a lot of credit. All these organisations are completely open to public inspection and have no secrets from anyone. Their committee members' names and political affiliations, if any, are openly stated.
The Economic League, on the contrary, has kept its existence so quiet that many members of the general public will never have heard of it until recent months, but many of their employers have. It is known with certainty that more than 300 companies subscribe to this organisation and it has been surmised that there could be as many as 2,000. In 1986 alone, over 200,000 names were checked by member companies. However, it is difficult to prevent those who wish to engage in the contemptible activity of spying on their fellow citizens from doing so. By their very nature, such activities are hard to detect because people generally are trustful and open and do not suspect colleagues of sinister activities.
Therefore, I have drafted my Bill not to prevent the unpreventable but to require the following.
First, before any employer seeks information on a prospective employee from any organisation that holds information for the purpose of blacklisting, he or she shall obtain the permission of the job applicant.
Secondly, the job applicant shall be given a copy of all information held about her or him by the organisation or organisations to which the prospective employer has applied, whether the information is held on computer tape or indexes or any other method of holding information.
Thirdly, any organisation holding information on individuals' political views, memberships and activities shall send, on request and within 40 days, a copy of all such information held about her or him, no matter the form in which such information is held, so that a check can be made on the accuracy of this information, action can be taken to correct or erase factually inaccurate data and, as with the Data Protection Act, a person may seek compensation for factual mistakes in the data which cause financial loss or physical injury or distress.
The Bill, if successful, would deal with an organisation that is
"unaccountable, unofficial, funded by business management to pry into legitimate political activity … which is becoming a police force … and is highly dangerous and quite improper."
These words are not mine; they are the words of John Alderson, a former chief constable.
I hope that the Bill will have wide support, and I urge every hon. Member to protect the civil liberties of her or his constituents by calling for time to be made available to debate the Bill at a later date.
In conclusion, I thank all those who wrote to me to express their concern or to give accounts of their own dealings with the Economic League.
3.49 pm
Mr. Graham Riddick: I wish to oppose the Bill because it is clearly vindictive and selective. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) knows that there is no chance of it becoming law, so she has used the opportunity to attack a specific organisation, the Economic League.
The attack in the Bill is part of a campaign of attack against the Economic League which was started a year ago by Left-wing journalists on the "World in Action" programme. Indeed, "World in Action" has made no
26
fewer than three programmes on that organisation in the past 12 months. The biased Left-wing record of Granada's "World in Action" programme is well documented. The Media Monitoring Unit report for 1986 shows that 54·2 per cent. of Granada's political programmes were biased to the Left. We should remember that by law programmes are supposed to be politically balanced. In 1987, the Media Monitoring Unit reported that bias in "World in Action" programmes has risen to 68·7 per cent. No doubt the broadcasting by Granada of programmes which are so consistently politically biased will be considered when the ITV contracts come up for renewal—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but again I say to the House that we must give each other a fair hearing. It is quite wrong to barrack from a sedentary position.
Mr. Riddick: I am most grateful to you, Mr. Speaker.
The "World in Action" programmes relating to the Economic League were a mixture of truth, half-truth, lies and fiction. As I had read in the press that the hon. Member for Maryhill was intending to use the Bill to attack the Economic League, I did a little research into the organisation because I did not know a great deal about it. I had seen one of the "World in Action" programmes, but, apart from that, I knew very little about it. It is a shame that the hon. Member for Maryhill did not take the opportunity to find out a little more about the organisation, as I believe that such an opportunity was offered to her by the director general of the Economic League.
The Economic League was set up in 1919 to promote democracy, free enterprise and freedom. It promotes a better understanding of the economic facts of life, for example, by producing such publications as a recent document on British manufacturing. Part of that work involves monitoring the activities of political extremists of both the far Left and the far Right, as well as those of anarchists. Consequently, it can give companies factual information about political extremists who might try to gain employment solely to cause strikes and disruption from political motives.
We know only too well that such people exist. Everyone has heard of "Red Robbo" and the mole, Alan Thornett. Last year, the Evening Standard was able to unveil the plot to take over a British Telecom branch in the City of London. Only recently British Rail had to sack a Socialist Worker party activist who was deliberately causing industrial havoc at King's Cross. One can imagine how much trouble British Rail and its customers would have been saved if the company had been aware of what that individual was likely to get up to.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Riddick: I have no intention of giving way. This is a ten-minute Bill.
The Economic League monitors all far Left and far Right organisations. It must be a pretty frightful job because these are just some of the Left-wing organisations' newspapers. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Maryhill is worried about the league. Perhaps one reason why some Opposition Members are making such a noise

27
from sedentary positions is that they are worried that the Economic League may have something on them if they are Left-wing extremists—[Interruption.]
Mr. William McKelvey: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that I can anticipate the hon. Gentleman's point of order. I hope that the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) is not suggesting that the Economic League might, in the hon. Gentleman's words, have anything "on" anyone in this House.
Mr. Riddick: I was going to be very helpful to any hon. Members who might be afraid about that and inform them that the Economic League would be very happy to tell them what information it is holding on them, if indeed it holds any such information. Hon. Members simply have to ring the Economic League and ask for the information.
Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It would seem that the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) is making an admission on behalf of the Economic League that it carries out systematic surveillance of Members of this House. I hope that you, Mr. Speaker, will ask the hon. Gentleman to make clear whether that is the case because clearly it would raise serious implications if it were true.
Mr. Speaker: I agree. Will the hon. Member for Colne Valley make it absolutely clear that he is not seeking to cast aspersions on any hon. Member, on either side of the House?
Mr. Riddick: I do not think that I was casting any aspersions. In fact—
Mr. Speaker: Order. It would help the House if the hon. Gentleman made that absolutely clear. He made a veiled allegation that that was the case.
Mr. Riddick: I have no intention of casting aspersions; I do not want to do that. If any Opposition Members, or other hon. Members, fear that their names might be on a list held by the Economic League, they simply have to ring the league and ask whether that is the case. That is all they have to do. [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will collect his papers and then we can continue.
Mr. Riddick: The hon. Member for Maryhill is not in the least interested in the facts and the truth about the organisation. She is trying to discredit an organisation which does an effective and efficient job in exposing militant industrial saboteurs. That is clearly a function which many Opposition Members do not like, and they have a vested interest in trying to prevent that work from being performed properly and efficiently. Do Opposition Members believe that it is sensible that a responsible employer with a large ethnic minority work force should be aware that someone whom that employer is considering appointing as personnel manager has a track record of activism in the National Front? Do Opposition Members believe that a company should be aware of that important point?
The Bill is selective, vindictive and ill thought out. It is fraught with implications which have not been properly
28
thought through. I hope that the House will join me in opposing the Bill, which would add nothing to the legislation of this House.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at Commencement of Public Business ):—
The House divided: Ayes 138, Noes 49.

Division No. 248]

[3.59 pm

AYES

Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Allen, Graham

Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

Armstrong, Hilary

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

Kilfedder, James

Ashton, Joe

Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Leighton, Ron

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Litherland, Robert

Barron, Kevin

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Beith, A. J.

McCartney, Ian

Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Boyes, Roland

McKelvey, William

Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

McLeish, Henry

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

McWilliam, John

Buchan, Norman

Madden, Max

Buckley, George J.

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Caborn, Richard

Marek, Dr John

Callaghan, Jim

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Meacher, Michael

Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

Michael, Alun

Cartwright, John

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Milian, Rt Hon Bruce

Clay, Bob

Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Cox, Tom

Morgan, Rhodri

Crowther, Stan

Morley, Elliott

Cryer, Bob

Mowlam, Marjorie

Cummings, John

Mullin, Chris

Dalyell, Tam

Nellist, Dave

Darling, Alistair

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

O'Brien, William

Dewar, Donald

O'Neill, Martin

Dixon, Don

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Dobson, Frank

Paisley, Rev Ian

Douglas, Dick

Patchett, Terry

Duffy, A. E. P.

Pendry, Tom

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Pike, Peter L.

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Eadie, Alexander

Prescott, John

Eastham, Ken

Redmond, Martin

Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

Reid, Dr John

Fatchett, Derek

Robertson, George

Fearn, Ronald

Rogers, Allan

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Fisher, Mark

Ruddock, Joan

Flannery, Martin

Salmond, Alex

Flynn, Paul

Sedgemore, Brian

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Sheerman, Barry

Foster, Derek

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Fyfe, Maria

Short, Clare

Galbraith, Sam

Skinner, Dennis

Garrett, John (Norwich South)

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Smith, C. (lsl'ton & F'bury)

Golding, Mrs Llin

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

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Snape, Peter

Grocott, Bruce

Spearing, Nigel

Hardy, Peter

Steel, Rt Hon David

Haynes, Frank

Strang, Gavin

Heller, Eric S.

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Henderson, Doug

Turner, Dennis

Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

Vaz, Keith

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Wall, Pat

Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

Wallace, James

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Walley, Joan

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Wareing, Robert N.

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Wilson, Brian

29

Winnick, David

Tellers for the Ayes:

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Mr. John McAllion and

Mr. Tony Worthington.

NOES

Alexander, Richard

Janman, Tim

Beggs, Roy

Jessel, Toby

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Biggs-Davison, Sir John

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Lawrence, Ivan

Boswell, Tim

Moate, Roger

Bowls, John

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Brazier, Julian

Monro, Sir Hector

Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

Morris, M (N'hampton S)

Buck, Sir Antony

Moss, Malcolm

Budgen, Nicholas

Nelson, Anthony

Burns, Simon

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Cash, William

Riddick, Graham

Chapman, Sydney

Shaw, David (Dover)

Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Fookes, Miss Janet

Sims, Roger

Forth, Eric

Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

Fox, Sir Marcus

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Goodhart, Sir Philip

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Thornton, Malcolm

Gow, Ian

Walker, Bill (T'side North)

Gower, Sir Raymond

Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

Tellers for the Noes:

Gregory, Conal

Mr. Jacques Arnold and

Grylls, Michael

Mr. Hugo Summerson.

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Question accordingly agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mrs. Maria Fyfe, Mr. Harry Cohen, Mr. Ken Eastham, Mr. Max Madden, Mrs. Alice Mahon, Mr. Ian McCartney, Mr. William McKelvey, Mr. Bob McTaggart, Dr. Lewis Moonie, Mr. Ernie Ross, Mr. Dennis Skinner, and Mr. Keith Vaz.

Blacklists (Access to Information)

  BLACKLISTS (ACCESS TO INFORMATION)
  Mrs. Maria Fyfe accordingly presented a Bill to give persons a right of access to any information held by any organisation for the purpose of blacklisting: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon 29 April and to be printed. [Bill 129.]
  Mrs. Mahon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If the hon. Member opposing the Bill was a consultant or paid adviser to the Economic League, would he have to declare an interest?
  Mr. Speaker: I should think that the answer to that is yes, but the hon. Lady will have to look in the Register of Members' Interests for matters of that kind.
  Mr. Riddick: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Any hon. Member is allowed to make a speech in opposition to a ten-minute Bill. That is what I was doing. There is no question whatever that I am in the pay of the Economic League. If I were, that information would be in the Register of Members' Interests. I suggest that the hon. Lady looks there for any details.
  Mr. Speaker: I must say to the hon. Member that I was making no allegations. That is exactly what I said.

Orders of the Day

  School Boards (Scotland) Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
  4.13 pm
  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Government, in formulating the proposals within the Bill and their broad education policy, were motivated by three major considerations.
  The first was the necessity of ensuring that the Scottish educational tradition, which still has a continuing relevance and significance to youngsters in Scotland, is fully taken into account in any developments in our policy and in any changes that are proposed.
  Secondly, I believe that the view is widely held throughout education in Scotland that it is no longer tolerable that parents in Scotland—indeed, Scotland is alone in western Europe in this respect—should play an almost insignificant part in the education process that affects their children. Almost everyone in education has expressed the view that the existing arrangements in Scotland are inadequate, that the existing school councils have not lived up to the expectations of those who introduced them and that greater parental involvement is necessary. That is the second premise on which our proposals were based.
  Thirdly, and equally important, the extent to which parents in any community with regard to any school should assume executive or advisory responsibilities over that school should be determined by the parents themselves and not by the Government or by the local authority. If we believe in the principle of parental involvement, clearly it is inappropriate for the Government or for local authorities to determine the extent to which parents should be able, permitted or empowered to take into account the responsibilities that they wish to enjoy.
  Mr. Dick Douglas: I apologise for intervening so early in the Secretary of State's speech, but he is a lawyer and a man gifted in words. He referred to executive responsibility intervention by parents. Will he define exactly what he means by "executive responsibility"?
  Mr. Rifkind: Parents on school boards and councils should not be restricted to a purely advisory role. They should not say simply what they would like to happen. In certain areas of activity involving the school, parents or the school board should have the right to take decisions. They should be involved in the decisions rather than merely in advising others as to what those decisions should be. That is what I mean by executive responsibility as opposed to a purely advisory role.
  When examining our proposals, it is obviously appropriate to start by considering the school councils set up in recent years, and the extent to which they can be said to meet the legitimate aspirations of parents and the requirements that are appropriate in the modern world.

  31
  Few hon. Members would dispute that the school councils have become relatively meaningless. Individual school councils in certain parts of Scotland are excellent, and I pay tribute to them. Sadly, they are relatively few and insignificant in the overall education structure in Scotland.
  Many secondary and primary schools in Scotland do not have a school council. In many cases, such as in the Strathclyde region, a single school council exists for a grouping of schools comprising several secondary schools and a selection of feeder primary schools. That has not proved a satisfactory situation. School councils, where they exist, for the most part have insignificant powers and a purely advisory role. It is perhaps not surprising that relatively few parents of real ability have been drawn to serving on many of those school councils, because people of ability wish to play a useful role and not to be seen simply as an ornamental appendage to the function of the education authority.
  There are those who argue that at present there is insufficient demand by parents to be involved in school councils. If I am allowed, I should like to refer the House to the splendid remark made in a comparable situation by the late Lord Palmerston. He said, "If I am told that people are unfit for constitutional government, then 1 say the best way to make them fit is to give it to them." Unless we give parents the opportunity meaningfully to be involved in the administration of the schools which their children attend, it is hardly surprising that they express little interest in the present school council arrangements.
  Therefore, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the Educational Institute of Scotland, the Scottish Parent-Teacher Council and pretty well the whole representative body of educational opinion accepts that the status quo is not satisfactory and it is necessary to replace it with something more meaningful that gives parents a real involvement in the schools which their children attend. I do not think that that general principle would divide the House any more than it would divide those who are interested in Scottish education.
  Against that background, the Government introduced proposals for the establishment of school boards. As the House will be aware, there has been a major consultation exercise and the Government received a large number of responses as a result of which we made a number of very important changes to our original proposals. Those changes were made in a number of areas and especially in three major categories.
  First, we accepted the logic that, if it is our view that parents should determine the overall responsibilities of an individual school council, it was inappropriate to allow the Secretary of State a power by general order to increase the minimum powers which all the school boards would have—that it should be for parents to decide rather than that there should be an increase throughout Scotland, irrespective of parents' wishes in any individual community.
  Secondly, we accepted the basic argument of many parents that if we allowed any increase in the powers of school boards to be determined purely by the parents on those boards, an unrepresentative group pf parents might facilitate a major increase in the responsibilities of school boards without the support of the parental community as a whole. Consequently, we have introduced a major
  32
  change into the Bill. It ensures that if a school board wishes to increase its functions and responsibilities but does not have the support of the education authority, it cannot appeal to the Secretary of State unless it holds a ballot of the parents and is then able to demonstrate that it enjoys the support of the parents in the local community for the increase in the powers that is sought.
  Mr. Michael J. Martin: I have written to the right hon. and learned Member regarding the schools that are earmarked for closure in my constituency. Will it be too late for the schools to which I referred him to take advantage of this legislation?
  Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman is concerned about the proposed closure of certain schools in his constituency. He appreciates that the Secretary of State's powers to prevent closure will be based on the regulations that have been tabled. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent an education authority from seeking to close an individual school. If the hon. Gentleman were to table amendments to the Bill, he might find that he has some allies. We look forward to hearing his views. I have no doubt that they will carry weight with his colleagues and with the House as a whole.
  I was referring to the changes that we have made as a result of the consultation exercise. The third major change is clarification of the role of school boards. We have never intended to interfere with the professional judgment of teachers. Parents have an important and a significant role to play on school boards, but they should not supplant teachers in the exercise of their professional judgment. Much that goes on within schools can properly be determined only by those in the teaching profession. However, there are many administrative and ancillary educational matters in which parents should be involved. All those who have the best interests of education at heart should be willing to acknowledge that fact.
  It would be appropriate for me to anticipate the question that I suspect may be put to me about opting out and its implications. I confirm that opting out by Scottish schools is not provided for in the Bill. The Government have made it clear that they do not intend to introduce amendments to the Bill to provide for such a power. If the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) were to persuade us otherwise, we might have to reconsider the matter, but in the absence of such an initiative that is our view and we intend to keep to it.
  The Government's position was spelt out by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), in the Scottish Grand Committee. He said:
  "We have always made it clear that if there is evidence of real and substantial demand for opting out, we would not stand in the way."
  That remains our view. In the weeks and months to come we shall have to assess the interest of Scottish parents in the possible right of opting out.
  Dr. John Reid: I thank the Secretary of State both for giving way and for having written the script for us. He has anticipated our questions and has also provided us with ammunition by referring to the meeting of the Scottish Grand Committee in Edinburgh. Does he recall that the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) referred to the fact that in the private sector that is so much admired by the Government

  33
  parents exercise their preference by the cheque book? What safeguards are the Government willing to write into the legislation to ensure that those who are being educated in the public sector and whose parents are in a favoured position because they have bank accounts and cheque books do not exercise a similar influence as the parents of children who are being educated privately? What safeguards will there be to ensure that gifts cannot be given and that contributions rather than fees are not made? What safeguards will there be to guarantee that the cheque book choice cannot be applied in the public sector?
  Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman appreciates that the power of parents in the private sector is their ability at any time to withdraw their children from a school if they are dissatisfied with it and send them to another school. Parents in the private sector have a power that is not available to parents in the public sector. They can choose which school their children attend. If the Opposition believe that parents in the private sector are privileged, their objective should be to extend that privilege, so far as possible, to the public sector. We want the vast majority of parents to have the kind of choice that parents in the private sector take for granted.
  The Bill makes it quite clear that it would not be open to a school board to decide whether fees should be paid in a local authority school. That power is not available to a school board. It cannot change the character of the school. The school will remain a local authority school, with the major considerations that determine the character of that school continuing to be determined by the education authority.
  We responded significantly and substantially to the various comments that were made during the consultation process. There was a favourable response to it. There is a wide degree of consensus that the Government's proposals are worthy of support and deserve to be endorsed by the House.
  Mr. Alistair Darling: The Secretary of State referred to opting out. What evidence is there in Scotland of a demand by people for the power to opt out? The Glasgow Herald reported last month that the Secretary of State would introduce the Bill, that the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) would table an amendment and that the Secretary of State had been told by the Prime Minister that he must accept it as it allows for opting out. It is most important that the Secretary of State should clear up that point now.
  Mr. Rifkind: If the hon. Member is so concerned about that issue, he might at least have read what the Government said a couple of weeks ago. We made it abundantly clear that the Bill in its present form or during its passage through the House will not be altered by the Government's acceptance of amendments that would introduce the right to opt out. We have also made it clear that we do not rule out such a power in the future. I repeat the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling:
  "We have always made it clear that if there is evidence of real and substantial demand for opting out, we would not stand in the way."—[Official Report, Scottish Grand Committee, 21 March 1988; c. 37.]
  Mr. Sam Galbraith: What would the Secretary of State accept as real and substantial evidence of support for opting out? That will clearly be important in the future.
  Mr. Rifkind: I shall respond to that question in general terms, but not in specific terms. As I have made clear, the Government have no proposals for opting out in this Bill, and would not be inclined to accept any amendment put forward for that purpose. There is therefore no need for me to respond as the hon. Gentleman has suggested. Let me, however, reply to the more general aspect of his question.
  As I have said, along with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, we shall naturally be interested to see the extent of demand for the right to opt out. The hon. Member for Springburn asked me a few moments ago for a reassurance that his constituents may exercise such a right if the Bill is given a Third Reading. If such a question is put to me by a Labour Member, it is not unreasonable to assume that others in Scotland—perhaps a significant number—may have a similar interest. Already many parents have expressed such an interest, and we have received letters at the Scottish Office asking for that power. But it is early days for us to assess the extent of the interest.
  Mr. Henry McLeish: Is the Secretary of State aware of the Prime Minister's interest in the matter? Following his change of heart, has he consulted her recently, and, if so, is she happy about it?
  Mr. Rifkind: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I have not changed my mind. My views are those expressed by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary on 21 March, and I was happy that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, when in Scotland, expressed exactly the same views. The hon. Gentleman may recall that, when asked by the BBC whether she could confirm that opting out of local authority control would now go ahead in Scotland, ray right hon. Friend responded:
  "No, I cannot confirm that it will definitely go ahead."
  She went on to say:
  "the first thing we had to do was to see that every school has a school board. Then we have to take further soundings to see if sufficient people would like to have opting out as an option. No one is compelling anyone to do anything."
  My right hon. Friend's view is exactly the same as that expressed by my hon. Friend on 21 March—and by me—and, indeed, on successive occasions in recent months.
  I am not certain whether the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) would have preferred me to give a different answer, but that happens to be the position.
  Mr. Tony Worthington: Would not the Secretary of State express some regret to the electorate in Scotland? During the general election campaign, he gave a firm assurance that the proposals for opting out were no part of the proposals for Scotland, and during this Parliament—until the next election—applied only to England and Wales. Does he not feel that he misled the people of Scotland during the campaign?
  Mr. Rifkind: No. I was very careful in what I said during the election period, and indeed since then. I am very conscious of the need to ensure that the position is properly defined. Throughout the debate on these matters, I have said that the Bill will not contain proposals for opting out, which it does not; that we do not intend to table amendments to the Bill which would provide for such a power, which we do not; arid that we leave open whether opting out may be introduced in future. I have always made clear, in the election period and since, that given that we do not have a history of school boards or governors in

  35
  Scotland of the kind that we are now creating, the first stage must be their creation. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and others have said, we must then gauge whether there is a demand for a further power.
  I emphasise that the mere introduction of such a power does not in itself mean that that power will be implemented. As Opposition Members will be the first to acknowledge, if they are convinced that no parents in Scotland will be interested in the right of opting out, it must be asked what they are worried about. Who do they believe would exercise such a power? If they believe that no one would do so, why are they getting into such a tizzy about whether the provision should be introduced?
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Rifkind: I shall happily give way in a moment, but it would be interesting if whoever I give way to at least tried to explain why the Opposition are concerned about a power that they believe no one will wish to use.
  Mr. Norman Buchan: To explain why we are worried, may I give the instance of a particular school where the majority of parents come from outside the catchment area and, indeed, the town itself'? They may choose to opt out while keeping the school in another area which is not even the catchment area. That is why we are worried.
  Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman seems to be expressing concern that a school that finds that its views are totally rejected by the education authority may decide that the interests of the local community could be better served by a different form of administration. He is saying, therefore, that he believes that there would be a demand for such a power.
  I repeat that either hon. Members believe that there is no interest in such a power, or they believe that there is and wish that there was not. Whichever is the case, I hope that we need not be detained much longer on the matter, because it is not in the Bill, and will not be. If it is in a future Bill, hon. Members will have an enormous amount of time to consider it.
  It appears that Opposition Members can find nothing of which to disapprove in the current Bill, and therefore wish to spend as much time as possible seeking the Government's views on what might be in future legislation but is not now before the House, was not announced in the Queen's Speech and will not be subject to an amendment.
  Mr. Michael Fallon: Is it not rather extraordinary, therefore, that Labour Members have tabled an amendment accusing my right hon. and learned Friend of paying only lip service to the need for genuine involvement? If they really wanted even more genuine involvement, would he not expect them to table an amendment in Standing Committee for opting out?
  Mr. Rifkind: It appears that the hon. Member for Springburn may do so—unless he is drafted into the chairmanship of the Committee. My hon. Friend is quite right: I shall come to that point later.
  I am equally intrigued about why we are accused of paying only lip service to parental involvement, and we all wait with eager anticipation for the various powers that the Opposition want to be introduced into the Bill—which
  36
  the Government, in their timidity, have forgotten to put forward. If we are patient for a few minutes, that information may be vouchsafed to us.
  Mr. Darling: Can the Secretary of State confirm, for the avoidance of doubt, that no opting-out provisions will be accepted by the Government during the passage of the Bill, and that if opting out is to come in the future it will be through fresh legislation being introduced to that effect?
  If that is correct, can the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that the exchange of memoranda between his private staff and those of the Prime Minister will be set aside and will be of no effect, as will the amendment to be tabled by his tame friend on the Back Benches?
  Mr. Rifkind: I must say to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) that, if this afternoon's debate has achieved nothing else, it has at least made the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) a much better informed Member of the House. Although the first 15 times that we said what he asked us to say did not make an impact on his consciousness, it appears that on the 16th occasion I am able to confirm what he has put to me in a way that he has been able to understand. We can now move on to other matters.
  I said that the Government had made a number of important changes to the original proposals. Consequently, the matters currently before us have been seen to be widely acceptable. For example, the Scottish Parent-Teacher Council has said:
  "These proposals should no longer be regarded as an attack on teachers' professionalism, but an opportunity for parents to provide a much-needed formal input to their children's schools".
  The general secretary of the Educational Institute of Scotland said that the Government deserved
  "credit for responding to public opinion".
  The Times Educational Supplement said that the Government were "Truly a listening Government". That is of great significance.
  It is against that background that we must express some puzzlement about the Opposition amendment. In their amendment they say that they decline to give a Second Reading to a Bill that
  "pays only lip service to the genuine need to encourage parental involvement in Scotland's schools".
  We understand that the Opposition are entirely in favour of the principle of parental involvement but are against the practice of it as represented by the Bill. I see that the hon. Member for Fife, Central is nodding vigorously in agreement. I have to warn the Opposition that they are in great danger of becoming Liberals if they are against the practice but in favour of the principle.
  Mr. Worthington: That is a slur.
  Mr. Rifkind: I know that. However, I claim the privileges of the House in making such an accusation. I realise the full seriousness of it and I am sure that the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg) will wish to use his opportunity in replying to the debate to issue a scathing renunciation of any such suggestion.
  In all seriousness, we are entitled to question the curious paradox whereby the Opposition maintain that there is little real interest in parental executive responsibility while, at the same time, they believe that the introduction and implementation of a Bill such as this would have a devastating effect on Scottish education.

  37
  Labour Members are really concerned that, as on many previous occasions, when the Government introduce new opportunities, they create an interest which many people do not expect to see. For example, when we introduced the parents' charter many Labour Members asked us why we did so and what demand there had been for it from parents in Scotland. We were told that that demand was a figment of the Government's imagination and that everyone was perfectly content with the current arrangements used by education authorities. However, we have found that, since the introduction of the charter, more than 117,000 parents in Scotland have effectively exercised their right under it. When we introduced regulations involving certain schools deemed to be closed, we were asked what interest there was and we were told that it was a figment of the Government's imagination. Since then we have received 3,000 letters in the Scottish Office congratulating the Government on introducing the regulations.
  When we introduced the tenants' rights legislation we were asked what interest there was among tenants for buying their own homes. We were told that it was a figment of the Government's imagination. However, in Scotland, well over 100,000 tenants have purchased their own homes. Throughout the United Kingdom we have introduced privatisation and we have found that 8 million new shareholders have been created as a result of public interest. That is what the Opposition are really afraid of. The real question is not the level of demand now but whether by creating new opportunities the Government will receive a response from parents that will break up the cosy relationship among so many administrators who wish to exclude parents from any real involvement in the schools that their children attend. The view held by too many in the educational Socialist establishment is that schools are too important to be left to parents.
  Mr. John McAllion: Did the right hon. and learned Gentleman see the report a couple of weeks ago in The Independent, which looked at the practice of the parents' charter rather than the principle of it? It looked at the way that it operates in Dundee and at the Harris academy in Dundee where the school population has been swollen to almost 2,000 while other schools in the city have only 500 or 600 pupils. The effect of that is that the teachers at Harris academy recommend that parents in Dundee do not send their children to that school because they will not receive a decent education because there are too many pupils. That is the practice of the charter. The principle is acceptable, but there are problems in the way in which it operates in cities such as Dundee. It is harming educational opportunities for children, not increasing them, and the Secretary of State should be aware of that.
  Mr. Rifkind: On the contrary, I am aware that certain schools appear to be thought of by parents as more able to provide the education that they want for their children. The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) and his education authority should be asking why that is the case and what they can do to improve the other schools so as to make them as popular with parents.
  Mr. Bill Walker: My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware that in Dundee there has, historically, been a number of schools, Harris academy being one of them, that parents desperately want their children to attend. There is nothing new about that. If the
  38
  hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) is suggesting that that is a recent phenomenon, he must be new to Dundee.
  Mr. Rifkind: There is perhaps a genuine difference of attitude in these matters. The Conservative party takes he view, as do most parents, that if there are good schools and schools that are considered to be not so good—
  Mr. Worthington: One makes them all good.
  Mr. Rifkind: Yes. That is exactly what one does. The best way of identifying the schools that are responding to what parents wish is to allow the parents to have a considerable influence on the school that their child attends.
  Mr. Galbraith: Does the Secretary of State agree that the parents' charter certainly has problems? He has received representations from parents of children at Lenzie academy, in my constituency, which is a so-called magnet school. Those parents have been to seen him about the problems that the charter has produced for that school causing it to bulge at the seams and suffer a deterioration in the education offered to its pupils. Does the Secretary of State agree with that?
  Mr. Rifkind: If the charter is bringing about a deterioration in the education provided by the school, presumably parents in future will be less interested in sending their children there. Parents are interested in the quality of education. As the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) knows, the way in which the parents' charter operates is that all the children who live within the catchment area have the first claim on attending the school. If places are available when local children have been accommodated, children from other localities may be considered. That is the obligation under which the charter operates.
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Did my right hon. and learned Friend hear the intervention from the spokesman for the Social and Liberal Democrats, the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce)? When talking about parental involvement and parental choice, the hon. Gentleman said that snob value was involved. Is it not an interesting outline of his party's policy if it believes that parental choice in education is made on snob value?
  Mr. Rifkind: It is indicative not just of the view of the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) but of the basic prejudice of Opposition Members. They believe that if parents choose to send their children to a school that is not the local catchment area school, they can be motivated only by snobbish considerations—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) made that very accusation about Paisley grammar school. [Interruption.] He said it, not today but on a previous occasion. That is what I recollect him saying.
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce rose—
  Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman has been referred to, so I will gladly give way.
  Mr. Bruce: Does the Secretary of State accept that in the case of schools such as Harris academy and Aberdeen grammar parents are not making a choice on the academic record of the school? I am not saying that they are bad schools, but they are often not the best schools in the

  39
  locality. The consequence of the choice is that even when the schools are overcrowded or, in the case of Aberdeen grammar, when a quarter of it has been burnt down, parents still want their children to attend, whereas other schools can accommodate them and give them a better education. We should address ourselves to the problem of ensuring that all schools provide the same standard of education.
  Mr. Rifkind: I ask the hon. Gentleman what criteria he would use in regard to his own family when deciding what school they should attend. Would he not try to reach a judgment as to which school would be best for the education that he wishes for his children? If he expects to have that right for himself, why is he so anxious to withdraw it from other parents who might exercise slightly different criteria?
  Mr. Galbraith rose—
  Mr. Rifkind: I have given way many times. This is a debate rather than a question and answer session. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for sitting down. He obviously believes that my answers meet his requirements.
  I should now refer to the provisions of the Bill. That is a customary thing to do on occasions such as this. The provisions of the Bill are clearly expressed and the Bill deals with the single subject of school boards. Our intention is to produce a free-standing Act as far as possible so that those who have to work with the Act, particularly parents and community members of boards, will not find unnecessary legal complications.
  It may be helpful if I cover the main points of the Bill now. The first six clauses set up the new system of school boards, provide for the procedures for election and co-option and establish the fundamental procedural rules for board business. There will be a board for almost every primary, secondary and special school in Scotland. For small schools that could not support a board there is an exemption procedure. In such cases, parents and pupils at the school will have the right to information and to make representations to the school and to the education authority as if they were members of a board.
  All boards will have parents, staff and co-opted members who will be drawn from the local community. There will be a majority of parent members on each board. That is fundamental to our purpose. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) commented on that in a debate in the Scottish Grand Committee. He questioned what he called the
  "assumption that the school is somehow a mix of conflicting interests to be regarded as a power struggle."—[Official Report, Scottish Grand Committee, 21 March 1988; c. 13.]
  Of course, there are diverse interests and those of parents have been too muted in the past. The school board as we propose it will be the only place in the system where parents have a guaranteed voice. Boards exist for parents. So basic is that to our conception that we have provided in the Bill that if enough parents cannot be found to form a board that school will not have one.
  The Bill also gives the Secretary of State power to set the precise number of members for boards in schools of different sizes or types. We intend to make regulations providing for different sizes of boards for schools, depending on the number of pupils at the school. In most
  40
  cases, the range will be from seven board members, four of whom will be parents, to 13 board members, seven of whom will be parents. We shall provide details of our intentions for the Standing Committee and we shall discuss our proposals for regulations with education authorities and other interested parties before they are made.
  The fundamental requirements for the election of board members are set out in schedule 1, which also requires education authorities to prepare detailed schemes for election procedures locally for approval by the Secretary of State. Once again, we will discuss these measures with education authorities and others, and issue guidance that will help authorities to produce sensible schemes while leaving room for appropriate local variations.
  We have given particular attention to the concerns expressed during the consultative process about election proceedures. The Bill requires a secret ballot with provision for postal voting for parent members. There will be an opportunity for parental candidates to circulate information about themselves. Half of the parent members will leave office every two years. These provisions, coupled with the requirement that the board should report to and be answerable to parents at open meetings, will ensure that the boards are accountable and representative.
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Will the Secretary of State advise the House what assessment has been made of the costing of such elections?
  Mr. Rifkind: I cannot give a figure for the elections, but the overall provisions of the Bill will represent a tiny fraction—probably less than 0·5 per cent.—of local authority education expenditure. We have indicated that if education authorities wish to argue for account to be taken of that we will listen carefully to their representations about it. I remind the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) that some savings will be derived from the ending of school councils. A few education authorities already have similar introductory schemes.
  Dr. Lewis Moonie: The Secretary of State's figure of 0·5 per cent. is interesting. It suggests that an authority such as that in Fife where I come from will be spending £500,000 a year to service this amount.
  Mr. Rifkind: The estimated figure of £5 million for the whole of Scotland is not just for elections, but for all the functions of school boards, and the costs associated with them. I am aware that COSLA has made a higher estimate, but it does not appear to have taken account of savings on the ending of school councils. There are presumably administration and travel expenses in connection with the operation of school councils in various parts of Scotland. Because of those factors, there will be savings to the authorities.
  Mr. Darling: I served on three school councils over six years, as well as being a member of the education committee in Lothian region. Administrative savings will be minimal. In the case of Lothian, it withdrew all the backing under the Conservative regime. These school boards will cost money. If the scheme is going to work properly, along the lines of the Bill, and if the boards are to be serviced properly and given information, that will cost substantially more than the right hon. and learned Gentleman thinks.
  Mr. Rifkind: I accept that it will cost. We have said that it will cost approximately £5 million.
  Mr. Douglas: This is not a partisan point, but we have all received a letter from Dumfries and Galloway regional council which says that, from the estimates produced for that region, in September 1987, a more realistic estimate for the whole of Scotland would be nearer £20 million. How does the right hon. and learned Gentleman reply to that?
  Mr. Rifkind: We shall need to examine the exact basis on which the figures were produced. We believe that they are unnecessarily excessive, and will not be the appropriate ones.
  Clauses 8 to 14 give the boards their basic functions, responsibilities and powers. Principally these provisions give boards rights to information and to make representations about the running of their schools. This is a cardinal feature of the Bill. One point on which there seems to have been no dispute is that parents need much more information about the educational process in schools. This is in the interests of the process itself. It makes for better education.
  Parents have a right and a need to be thoroughly informed about all aspects of the running of the school. They have an obvious interest in teaching methods and the curriculum. There is ample evidence from correspondence that I receive, as no doubt do other hon. Members, of a keen interest in the details of financial provisions for schools.
  The boards are also given rights to involvement in the appointment of senior staff at their schools. These provisions give a coherent national structure to such appointments for the first time. The detail of the provisions is given in schedule 2, which attempts to extend and develop existing best practice in different regions across Scotland.
  We also believe it is right that boards should have the scope to take on more responsibility for their schools. As they become familiar with what is involved in running a school, some boards will very likely want to take a greater hand in it themselves. We see no reason why they should not do so within reasonable limits. Equally we do not see any need to force the pace. We expect that there will be a natural evolution. Accordingly, clauses 15 and 16 and schedule 3 deal with the delegation of additional functions to boards. Broadly speaking, additional functions may be delegated either by agreement between the board and its authority, or by the board seeking the approval of the Secretary of State, if its authority does not agree to delegation. However, before appealing to the Secretary of State, the board must have the support of the majority of parents in a ballot on the principle of proposed delegation.
  The House may be interested in the sort of functions that a board might obtain if it had the approval of parents as a whole. I can give examples, which are not meant to be an exhaustive list. It could seek powers over the responsibility for selecting staff below the level of assistant head teacher. It could seek responsibility for charging for the use of school premises out of hours, or for maintenance of school premises. It could seek responsibility for discipline and school rules, and for associated matters, and for determining the format of reports to parents. Most importantly, a board could seek the responsibility, if it so wished, for all matters covered by the running cost budget
  42
  for a school. Clearly that power would give a board the kind of overall responsibility for finance that is permissible under the Bill. In each of those cases, it would arise only where the school board wished to exercise such powers. If the education authority disagreed the board would need the direct endorsement of the parents as a whole
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: What thought has been given by the Scottish Office to a situation where a member of the senior staff may feel that his career has been injured and therefore gets involved in legal proceedings? Will the make-up of school boards not change in their very nature? As the Secretary of State knows very well, legal proceedings can continue for a long time. What thought has been given to this sort of endless legal wrangling that may happen from time to time? Has the Scottish Office considered that point?
  Mr. Rifkind: That matter does not arise because, as the Bill makes clear, questions of employment or dismissal of a member of the teaching staff remain the responsibility of the education authority rather than the school board. Such a problem is resolved in that way.
  Mr. Dalyell: Can the Minister clarify precisely what the relations are between the senior staff and the school boards to which he has referred?
  Mr. Rifkind: If the hon. Gentleman reads the Bill, he will find that the role of school boards will be to share in the appointment of the head teacher, the deputy or assistant head teacher, and to have a potential veto on the contents of the short leet. Appointment would not be the responsibility of the school board, but provided for in the manner set out in the Bill.
  Mr. Buchan rose—
  Mr. Rifkind: There will be many opportunities for hon. Gentlemen to make their views known this evening a nd during the Committee stage.
  It is significant that during my remarks hon. Members opposite have been primarily concerned not with the principle of the Bill but with a series of details. Hon. Gentlemen have been perfectly proper in raising many of these details, yet one is bound to ask, in the light of that approach, why they are seeking to decline to give a Second Reading to the Bill.
  As we are now well aware, the Bill has been endorsed by the Scottish Parent-Teacher Council. Indeed, on 8 April it wrote to hon. Members saying that the council welcomed the broad content and aims of the proposals. They reiterate that they are broadly in agreement with the provisions of the Bill.
  We know that the Educational Institute of Scotland and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities expressed considerable agreement with the proposals that have emerged from the consultative process. I recollect that the presentation by the hon. Gentleman's own party said as follows. I quote from the response of the Scottish council of the Labour party to the consultation document. In the light of what I am about to read, it is extraordinary that hon. Gentlemen appear to intend to divide the House at 10 o'clock this evening. It says:
  "The Labour Party strongly supports the increasing involvement of parents in the education of their children." It then goes on, later in the document, to explain,

  43
  "because we are committed to develop the full education potential of all children in Scotland, and the school councils provide an excellent mechanism for involving parents in the democratic control of their children's education."
  It goes on:
  "However, although the establishment of school councils has been a major step in the right direction, much more needs to be done"—
  these are the views of the Labour party—
  "in order that they might reach their full potential. We must ensure, for instance, that parent participation is genuine rather than token".
  It then says:
  "While teachers"—
  this is the best part in the light of hon. Members' opposition to this Bill—
  "and other professionals have a valuable role to play in councils, they should not have the controlling interests."
  In other words, the parents should have real executive powers when it comes to matters of this kind.
  But perhaps I have discovered the real reason why Opposition Members will divide the House this evening. It is quite clear, even before the hon. Member for Garscadden has said a word, because he has already given the public his view on the Bill now before the House. He claimed in the Glasgow Herald of 19 January that the consultative process has been so complete that
  "Labour might have to propose changes to the Bill to ensure a greater role for parents."
  Now we know the real explanation. It is the Government's timidity that has upset and infuriated the Labour party. Labour Members will divide the House because we have not gone far enough. Nor was this just the view of the hon. Member for Springburn; it turns out that he was speaking on behalf of his colleagues as a whole. He believes that this Bill is timid and inadequate, a small step for mankind but a very weak step when it comes to the need of parents.
  So I am willing to listen with every intention of responding constructively to all the amendments that we will get from the hon. Member for Garscadden to extend the role of parents under this Bill, to the many increased powers for school boards that Opposition Members doubtless wish to put before the House and the Committee. If that is the basis on which the hon. Member wishes to divide the House, perhaps he does speak for Scottish parents. If not, he certainly does not.
  5.1 pm
  Mr. Donald Dewar: I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "this House declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill which pays only lip service to the genuine need to encourage parental involvement in Scotland's schools, will divide parents and teachers, has been rejected by educational opinion and has now been revealed as a paving measure for alien and irrelevant plans to allow schools to opt out of the public sector, which can only damage the proud and distinctive educational tradition in Scotland."
  As the Secretary of State has pointed out, we had a debate on Scottish education on 21 March in the Scottish Grand Committee. The Secretary of State did not speak on that occasion. He has done so this evening, not, I think, with very great profit for the debate. But I concede that he has clearly enjoyed himself, and I am never one to disapprove of enjoyment. I am not enough of a Presbyterian for that.
  44
  Three weeks ago the debate centred largely on the Bill that we are discussing tonight, but, of course, a great deal has happened since then. Perhaps I can start by clearing that out of the way. The publication of certain correspondence between the private office of the Prime Minister and the private office of the Secretary of State was important because it made it clear that this Bill no longer stands alone: it is apparently envisaged as a staging post to some strange brand of fundamentalism, some educational theory, which I at least thought extinct. What became clear from that correspondence—and the Secretary of State has danced around the point—is that further legislation is contemplated which is likely to contain provision for schools to opt out of the local authority system. It revealed a squalid little plot which was spelt out in some detail, although one would not have thought so from the speech that the Secretary of State has just made. The opting out was presented not as some sort of possibility but as a decision that had been taken.
  We were told—I quote from the Glasgow Herald of 30 March—
  "The Prime Minister agrees, too, that the Government's future policy should be spelled out in response to the Amendment which Allan Stewart is expected to put down to this session's School Boards (Scotland) Bill. Your Secretary of State will no doubt wish to ensure that Mr. Stewart does indeed table a suitable amendment which could prompt the Secretary of State's statement about future policy."
  "Your Secretary of State will no doubt ensure"
  is an invitation apparently not to be gainsaid. It sounds like Queen Victoria addressing a recalcitrant lady-in-waiting: any backsliding would leave the lady anything but amused. It is a case of "the Prime Minister expects and the Secretary of State accepts." It is a case, I am afraid, of the right and learned Gentleman swallowing his pride and the Prime Minister's theories.
  It would be a tragedy—and I say this to the Secretary of State in considered terms—if Scottish education were put at risk because the Prime Minister insisted in involving herself in areas of policy about which she has neither knowledge nor sympathy. At one level it is very easy to see the Prime Minister's correspondence as the actions of a busybody, but the danger is that she has the power to damage and to destroy. If these plans were to go ahead in the way advertised in that correspondence, I believe that there would be damage to and destruction of our educational traditions.
  Since the news broke, the public relations machine has been in full cry, and we have seen evidence of it in the speech written for the Secretary of State for this debate. The facts have been re-presented and re-interpreted to blur and distort what is happening. We really want some answers. We have had a partial answer, but I want to make sure that we know exactly what the Secretary of State's mind is. We would also like to know whether, on this occasion, he jumped or was pushed. What is the Government's final position?
  The Secretary of State's first line of defence, as I understand it, is to ask why we are all getting excited about the Prime Minister's letters because there is no change of policy, and this has always been his position from the very beginning. I quote again, since it seems to be a respectable authority—the Minister used it himself—from the Glasgow Herald of 1 April:
  "Scottish Secretary Mr. Malcolm Rifkind summoned journalists to his headquarters in London"—
  an interesting turn of phrase—

  45
  "to tell them there was 'total harmony' between himself, the Prime Minister and the Scottish Education Minister".
  It is indeed a pretty picture. I am perfectly prepared to believe that there is harmony between the Scottish Education Minister and the Prime Minister. I must confess that I had thought better of the Secretary of State—but I am constantly reviewing my opinion of him as time goes on. In any event, there is alleged to be total harmony. I do not believe it. I believe that there is an element of deception in the suggestion that at no time have the Government argued a different case. I quote from the opting-out statement that the Secretary of State produced through the Scottish information office on 31 March 1988. We are told:
  "The Government has also made clear, all along, that we do not rule out provision for opting-out in the future."
  I must confess that I had not appreciated that. If they made it clear all along, they did not make it clear to me, to my colleagues, to the Scottish press or to Scottish public opinion—and that is quite clear from the reaction to the publication of the Prime Minister's correspondence. From the very first press conference in August 1987 to launch the discussion document, both the Scottish papers which report it in detail, the Glasgow Herald and The Scotsman, made the specific point that the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), made it clear that opting out was not on the agenda. While it may almost have stuck in the hon. Member's gullet, given his views, we took it as an honest statement of the Government's policy; so it is rather discreditable that we now discover a very different situation.
  The exchanges at Question Time and in the Scottish Grand Committee on 21 March did nothing to remove our misapprehension. Of course, the hon. Member for Stirling said that opting out would go back on the agenda only if there was "real and substantial" evidence of support, and, if there was, they would not stand in its way. There is an example of leadership—they would not stand in its way. But it is a position that is totally incompatible with the conspiracy with the Prime Minister, where a decision had been taken and where there were even quite complicated arrangements to unveil it when the time seemed appropriate. It is dishonest to suggest that the public position could be equated with what was being said in private until those documents were leaked, and I do not think that it reflects any credit on the Secretary of State that he should try and maintain an untenable position in this way. He should have some respect for his reputation.
  I want to find out from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary—I accept that on this occasion it will be the second fiddle who will reply, but no doubt he can speak for the Government—exactly what the position is. Again, I take the Secretary of State's statement of 31 March, when he said:
  "The current position is that the Scottish Education Department, at my request, is considering what would be required if such a provision was to be considered appropriate in a future Bill. Whether such a provision will be made will be determined in the light of such evidence as may be forthcoming of an interest in a right of opting-out amongst Scottish parents and others with an interest in education."
  That might seem to be a satisfactory state of affairs, except that it makes it perfectly clear that, rather than waiting for a demand, which I believe would never have come, and then not standing in its way, the Scottish Office, on the Secretary of State's instructions, is now looking at how this proposition can be formulated and put in
  46
  statutory form. It is not, it seems to me, a situation that we can allow to rest, and it is certainly one which requires some further elucidation.
  I emphasise the fact that, even if that is the present situation, it is totally incompatible with what the Prime Minister said in her letter to the Secretary of State's office in March, which, I remind the House, was as follows:
  "The Prime Minister is glad that your Secretary of State is now going to develop, for inclusion in next session's Scottish Education Bill, a scheme whereby schools in Scotland can opt out of local authority control."
  There is no question there of the possible legislative form in case at some future date it might possibly happen. It is quite clear in that letter that the Prime Minister is accepting and agreeing and congratulating the Secretary of State on his, no doubt, cave-in on this issue. It appears on the face of that correspondence that the decision has been taken.
  The Prime Minister then went on to talk about the amendment of the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) that the Secretary of State would ensure went down and how the fait accompli would then be announced. It is dishonest for the Secretary of State, if that correspondence means anything in common English, to put together this smokescreen which he is now producing and behind which he is sheltering, because he knows that there is no broad stratum of public opinion in Scotland in favour of this proposal. There may be individuals and there may be special circumstances, but there is no broad stratum of opinion in favour of this proposition. I believe that it ought now to be killed stone dead by Ministers and everyone else.
  I ask the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, when he replies, to address himself specifically to the question whether the decision, which was clearly contained in the Prime Minister's correspondence, has now been rescinded. Is the Scottish Office now saying that there is no decision, and will it hold to that? [Interruption.] I am being encouraged by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas), perfectly fairly. to invite the Secretary of State to intervene and say whether the quite clear arrangement contained in the Prime Minister's correspondence has now been abandoned. Perhaps he could say that quite categorically.—[AN HON. MEMBER: "Come on, answer."] The Secretary of State will not rise. Perhaps during the course of the rest of this debate he and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary will consider that question and give us an answer.
  I also ask the Parliamentary Under-Secretary to say a word or two about how he assesses the support for this proposition at the stage at which he is thinking of legislation, because that is extraordinarily important. It is doubly important in view of the extraordinary argument that the Secretary of State advanced in connection with the school boards which are to be set up under the legislation that we are considering. He said, with approval, that he endorsed the views of Lord Palmerston. The Palmerston principle—very appropriately, given the views of the Government generally—is apparently considered a good rule for Scottish education. Lord Palmerston, I must say, would be absolutely astonished.
  Mr. Rifkind: A Gatling gun!
  Mr. Dewar: No, not a Gatling gun; a gunboat, as the Secretary of State may remember.

  47
  The Palmerston principle is something that we may joke about, but it is not funny in the context of the opting out argument, because the Palmerston principle, enunciated with approval by the Secretary of State, is that if people do not want something, one gives it to them anyway. If that is going to be the ruling principle, what is the value of all these assurances, over which the Parliamentary Under-Secretary is sniggering, about public consultation and support on this issue? I have been left with the impression over this whole sorry and unhappy story that the Secretary of State is no longer master in Dover house and no longer sets the tone for Scottish education policy generally. It is not a good thing and it is something that he should consider with some care.
  I noticed in the correspondence, as reported in the papers, that it was said that the Prime Minister
  "would like to talk to your Secretary of State about all this after Easter."
  I do not know whether those talks have taken place, but, if they have, we shall want to know what happened. We expect a very early announcement that on this occasion the right hon. and learned Gentleman has been able to stand up to the Prime Minister and scupper the whole crazy scheme. It is something that I believe to be very important.
  Mr. Bill Walker: The hon. Gentleman has made much of the Prime Minister's interest and said that in his opinion she has little knowledge of Scotland. Perhaps he could advise the House how that equates with the position of the leader of his party, who obviously thinks that the Himalayas are in Scotland.
  Mr. Dewar: I doubt it, but the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) is no doubt entitled to his delusions. He will be one of a very good crop.
  I do not think that it is right to say that the Prime Minister takes an interest in Scottish education. That is a remarkable euphemism; indeed, it is the prize euphemism of the week.
  It is important that the Secretary of State takes these matters seriously. I notice that in an article on 1 April in the Glasgow Herald, Mr. Geoffrey Parkhouse, in reviewing the right hon. and learned Gentleman's career, described him as
  "The brilliant … schoolboy, the accomplished advocate, the assiduous ministerial technician".
  This was all high praise in a certain sense, but it is interesting that there was nothing about principle or conviction. When one is looking at education policy, a little bit of principle, a little bit of conviction and perhaps even a little bit of backbone in dealing with the Prime Minister would be very welcome indeed.
  Six years ago—I concede that it is not immediate—the right hon. and learned Gentleman very becomingly said that he was ambitious,
  "but in a wholly pleasant and delightful way."
  The Secretary of State was talking about rosy delusions in his speech. I think that that really takes the biscuit and I would merely enter my dissent and pass on. Maybe the problem with the right hon. and learned Gentleman is that ambition, however pleasant and delightful, is the key. I would like to see some respect for Scottish educational tradition and a willingness to stand up against the vandalism which I think is revealed in the Prime Minister's correspondence.
  48
  Turning now to the Bill—these matters are very closely related, for reasons that I will now explain—looking at all the talk about consultation, which is supposed to be the safeguard on the opting-out provision, and considering the school boards' history, I believe that we are entitled to express a good deal of cynicism. The plans were set out, there was a volley of criticism, there was unanimous condemnation from educational, public and parental opinion. Yet, implausible though it may seem to you, Madam Deputy Speaker—or perhaps that is dragging you in in a way that I should not—implausible as it may seem to many people, the Scottish Office team turned up as reasonable men. They announced that consultation, if it was not to become the mark of the Administration, was at least going to be the strategy of the moment.
  It always had about it the smack of expediency, and, of course, what we got very quickly was the retreat that is now included in the present legislation. Early on there were signs of regression and the incurable recidivism of the hon. Member for Stirling on educational matters. That has been confirmed by the threat of opting out which is now presented to us. It is prophetic that The Scotsman, in a leader on 13 August 1987 on the proposals in the original discussion document, said:
  "If implemented in their present form, they will bring the Scottish system to the beginning of the road on which its English counterpart has already started and which ends with individual establishments being able to opt out of the state structure."
  The leader went on to comment upon the social division which lay at the heart of that scheme.
  We must try to take the whole argument seriously, despite the laughter on the Government Front Bench. We must recognise that opting out, for example, would damage Scottish education, fragment provision and make it more difficult to give opportunity to all children across the educational and social range. It may be quoted against me as a concession, but I have no doubt that the Conservative party may be able to instance well organised and probably fairly prosperous groups who might be tempted by the option, but the tragedy is that it opens the door to selection and reinforces social and educational division. It is dishonest to keep it on the statute book and to pretend that it will lie dormant because it is unpopular. Government policy or circumstance can create conditions where the option of last resort becomes attractive for small, unrepresentative groupings, despite the impact on other children and on provision for other schools in the area. We have a duty to stand against that.
  The Bill, as drafted, is unsatisfactory. The Secretary of State conceded that no one dissents from the need for more parental involvement in schools and for parents to take an interest, to show concern and to be able to influence educational matters. I do not believe that the Bill achieves that in a sensible and balanced fashion. The Minister may say that in that case we should nod it through on Second Reading and reform it in Committee. Harsh experience has taught us that that would be a vain chase. In any event, the Bill is fundamentally misconceived in many important ways. I will instance one or two, although clearly much will have to be kept for Committee, if the Bill gets a Second Reading.
  We are concerned about the built-in parental majority; that is not to make an anti-parent point. I was interested to hear the Secretary of State concede that there was a certain conflict of interest in a school which was built on

  49
  the assumption that one interest should be put in a dominating position, with its word prevailing. I do not believe that anyone should have a controlling interest or that it is proper to think about a conflict of concern or interest. There should be a partnership of pupils, parents and community, which is not represented in the arrangements that we are considering.
  There seems to be a power play approach which is seen in the arrangements for the appointment of head teachers. On the appointment committee 50 per cent. of the members will be from the local education authority and 50 per cent. from the school board, but from the parents only and not from the community or any other element represented on the board. Under schedule 2(11), the right to add to or subtract from the short list will be confined to the parents on the school board. To their great credit, the vast majority of the parents to whom I have spoken and who have responded to the discussion paper do not want that to he built in and would support our reservations.
  Expenditure on books and material, which is covered by clause 9, is very important for curriculum development within a school, Again, most people would not want the strange conditions in which the head teacher proposes and the board approves, but both must have regard to the advice offered by the local education authority. It seems to be a funny way of ensuring—I quote the Government' pamphlet—
  "that the initiative on expenditure … lies with professional staff".
  In a narrow, semantic sense I do not think that initiative should he used in that way. It will be a recipe for conflict and difficulty, and I am not sure that the Government have got that right either.
  On the delegation orders, as I said in the Scottish Grand Committee, if there is a disagreement, where the local education authority has not given consent and the matter goes to the Secretary of State, schedule 3(12) says:
  "he shall, after considering the views of the education authority and of the School Board, unless he is satisfied that the delegation requested would prejudice the good running of the school, direct the education authority concerned to make forthwith a delegation order".
  It is a narrow and weighted consideration. It makes it extremely difficult to listen to the advice offered by the local education authority, although there is a statutory duty to consult. Again, it is symptomatic of the way in which the scheme has been put together.
  I shall want to read the Secretary of State's speech with care, but I was anything but reassured by the examples of power given by the Secretary of State which might be sought under delegation orders. He suggested the running cost budget of the school and its control and the appointment of staff under the grade of assistant head teacher. That sounds to me very much like the ceiling proposals being smuggled in by the back door, using machinery that is weighted to create exactly that situation and to put in place a series of proposals from which the Government have, nominally only, been driven by the weight of public anger. Again, we are entitled to make the point that we will return to it.
  In the Government's own words:
  "Boards are not intended to usurp the position of the headteacher … The boards will enhance the authority of headteachers … The fact that headteachers will not vote on their boards is intended to reflect their special status".
  That is sophistry. Their special status is to make sure that they have no vote and therefore, presumably, less influence. The Government document continues:
  50
  "in an extreme case, a headteacher might need to distance: him or herself from a board decision which was professionally objectionable."
  What decision does the hon. Member for Stirling envisage which is professionally objectionable and from which a headmaster might want to distance himself? Is that a sensible way of going about the business of introducing proper and controlled parental influence?
  Mr. Rifkind: Before the hon. Gentleman criticises the Government for not proposing that head teachers should have the right to vote on school boards, he might like at least to consult the representations made by the two head teacher associations for primary and secondary schools. If he did, he would find that they made clear their view that they did not want a right to vote, for reasons which the Government accepted.
  Mr. Dewar: That is a fair point, and that opinion must be taken seriously. I would not for a moment deny that. We have received a wide range of recommendations on this and other points. If we were to carry out a head count, I think that it would come out on our side. Certainly I give the Secretary of State my word that, despite the hypocrisy of the language which I have just read out, I am prepared to consider those representations carefully, although I do not think that they have reached me. Of course, they should be considered and weighed in the balance.
  Mr. Dalyell: May I ask my hon. Friend's forgiveness for interrupting him? I do not normally interrupt the Opposition Front Bench. I tried to get the reaction of the Educational Institute of Scotland, and particularly its lawyers, to the Secretary of State's answer on the legal position of head teachers. Is it not clear that teachers may be involved legally in relation to the boards, whether the Government like it or not? In some circumstances, teachers may come for redress.
  Mr. Dewar: I would have to examine that point carefully. The Secretary of State probably has one fair argument, which is that the employing authority under the Bill will remain the local education authority, although it is unfortunate that the education authority will be liable for what the school board, which it does not control and influence, does and it will have to carry the legal can for the board's actions. That is an unsafe, unsound and unsatisfactory legal position.
  No doubt my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) will have realised that if we were to go down the road of opting out, the position would immediately change because the board of the opted-out school would become the employing authority. The position then would be exactly as my hon. Friend fears.
  I will not make much of it at this stage, but the financial implications are much more serious than the £5 million about which the Secretary of State talked. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West, I got a letter from Mrs. Elizabeth Smith, who chairs the education committee of Dumfries and Galloway regional council and is, I hope, a friend of the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro). It is her view that £20 million is a much more realistic figure. I hope that the hon. Member for Dumfries will reflect on that if he serves—and I joke—on the Committee that examines the Bill.
  What we have here is an unbalanced system. Of course, the objective is desirable, but the means are wrong and the House should take that into account. It is also an unstable

  51
  system. Clause 15 describes what cannot be the subject of delegation orders, which looks fine until one listens to the Secretary of State giving his examples and suggestions of what might come under that heading. If we go down the road of opting out we shall have a Government who smash their own safeguards as they build a new educational world in "her" image—which no one in Scotland wants.
  I am not ashamed to say, and do not apologise for saying, that it would not be right to give a Second Reading to a Bill that is so fundamentally flawed. Indeed, we have made that clear. It is based on a dangerous heresy: that education is merely a commodity to be bought and sold in the market. As has already been mentioned in an intervention, there was a revealing passage in the Scottish Grand Committee on 21 March. I understand the ingenuity of the argument. The Minister is saying that the middle, upper and prosperous classes can use their cheque books to opt out and buy educational privilege and this is an attempt to extend that privilege to other people. I understand but reject that argument. The phrase was used with such venom by the Minister that it is clear that he is very thirled to the concept of a market for education. If people do not like the model they should move on and fragment the system, going for short-term and sometimes, I fear, selfish options, irrespective of their effect on educational opportunity for other children in the community. I am sure that the exercise of preference by the cheque book is symptomatic of that approach and lies behind the way in which the Bill has been drawn up.
  Let us have choice, but not through the cheque book; let us recognise that we must move away from that narrow and offensive vision. Education is not a matter of purchasing power of any sort, nor is it a commercial transaction; it is a partnership between teachers, pupils, parents and the community—common interests co-operating in a common cause. People such as the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, who now calls the tune in the Scottish Office, are the enemies of this common cause and ultimately the enemies of what is in the interests of the vast majority of children in our communities. The Tory approach is fundamentally misconceived, unpopular and unwanted.
  Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman is, I think, in the middle of his peroration, so I am grateful to him for allowing me to interrupt. He knows that the Scottish Parent-Teacher Council has welcomed the Bill. It is the most representative body of Scottish parents. We know that the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the Educational Institute of Scotland and others have said that they accept and welcome the idea of a school board for each school in Scotland. The Opposition have said that they are in favour of school boards. They think there should be not only lip service to parental involvement, but a real role for parents.
  Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the points he has raised, albeit important, are essentially matters of detail for Committee? He has not yet explained how he can justify voting against the principle of the Bill, which is that each school in Scotland should have a school board consisting of parents, teachers and co-opted members. Is he against that? If not, why is he against the Bill?
  Mr. Dewar: We have repeatedly made it clear that we are in favour of reform. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is correct to say that the present school councils have not lived up to expectations or operated in a way that is seen as satisfactory. I endorse some things in the Bill, such as the idea of having a body involving parents that is based upon an individual school, rather than the groupings of the old system. That is a move in the right direction.
  If the Government withdraw the Bill and bring forward, after consultation— [Interruption.] The Bill is fundamentally flawed. The Secretary of State is smiling disingenuously in a vain attempt to make himself human. He is asking me to believe that he will approach the Committee stage with an open mind and listen to public and educational opinion, and accept the amendments that people want. I would certainly be interested in considering that proposition, but that is not the position.
  I do the right hon. and learned Gentleman the credit of thinking that he is labouring under a genuine misunderstanding. If he thinks that the EIS—I take one organisation with which I have had a great deal of contact over the past week or two—wants the Bill to be given a Second Reading, he is in cloud-cuckoo-land— [Interruption.] That is not what motivates me. The Secretary of State asks me to pay attention to the views of the head teachers' associations. Yet, when I say that I pay some attention to the biggest teachers' union in Scotland, he laughs at me. He should think before doing that sort of thing.
  There is no support for the Bill, because it edges back towards what was wholly unacceptable. The Secretary of State will recall that there were 7,600 representations on his original discussion paper. Fifty-nine per cent. were analysed in some detail and the proposals were endorsed by marginally more than 1 per cent. of those who bothered to respond. With reservations, 3·4 per cent. agreed with them; 88 per cent. condemned, disagreed with or dissented from them. Parental sources provided 70 per cent. of the example—only 11 per cent. were teachers. If the Secretary of State wants to argue the case of popular consent, therefore, it is entirely on our side.
  I must end, because the Front Benches have been in possession of the debate for too long. There has been a resounding vote of no confidence in the original proposals and in these proposals and in the approach behind them. We were recently favoured with a quotation from an impeccable source, uttered during the Scottish Grand Committee debate. It is a serious description of Conservative education policy:
  "The job of Scottish Education Minister has been rightly described as the poisoned chalice of Scottish politics. My hon. Friend has wisely not drunk of it, but has hurled it across the room and told the waiter that his job is now open to competitive tender."— [Official Report, Scottish Grand Committee, 21 March 1988; c. 19.]
  That is a tremendous statement on Scottish education policy under this Government, made in a speech by the hon. Member for Eastwood, who is now laughing in an embarrassed way. I am happy to accept that it is a fair comment from a believer. After all, the hon. Gentleman is the cutting edge of the new vandalism, the Prime Minister's chosen vehicle for bringing the bad news from Eastwood to the people of Scotland. If that is what education is about, we are right, to answer the Secretary of State's question, to vote against the Bill because, as we say in the amendment, it will

  53
  "divide parents and teachers, has been rejected by educational opinion and has now been revealed as a paving measure for alien and irrelevant plans to allow schools to opt out of the public sector."
  Every one of those words is justified by what has been said in the debate and by what has happened in the past few months. We do not need the eccentricities of the hon. Member for Eastwood; we need only look at what Ministers are saying and doing to find every possible justification for being in the No Lobby tonight.
  5.38 pm
  Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: I confess that I was left thoroughly puzzled by the speech by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) and some of the questions asked by Opposition Members in the course of the debate.
  The hon. Member for Garscadden ended by referring to the EIS and the analysis of the representations that were received as a result of the thorough consultation process that took place on the Bill. Everyone has admitted that consultation on the original proposals was thorough. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the analysis of the response to the consultation process referred to the consultation paper. One would think from what he said that no changes had taken place. The Bill before us is completely different from the original proposals, and I welcome that.
  I am puzzled by what the hon. Gentleman said and even more puzzled about two aspects of his amendment. The amendment
  "declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill which pays only lip service to the genuine need to encourage parental involvement".
  The hon. Gentleman's criticisms of the Bill are that we are going too far in terms of parental involvement and would make it too effective. He has said nothing about his alternatives or about a better form of parental involvement which he thinks is necessary if the objectives are to be achieved. It is not the Government but the hon. Gentleman and his party who are paying lip service to parental involvement.
  The third point on which I am genuinely puzzled relates to the attitude of the Opposition to opt out. I share the hon. Gentleman's views about opt-out in Scotland and have made that abundantly clear on many occasions. I agree that there has been confusion. I have been confused by the letters that have been bandied about. I am prepared to rest on what my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister has said. He has made clear that opting out is not part of the Bill. My right hon. and learned Friend certainly made clear to me, and no doubt the Minister who is winding up will confirm, that it is quite clearly the Government's intention during discussion of the Bill to reject approaches about opting out. My right hon. and learned Friend was right to try to clarify that.
  To spend so much of the debate on the question of opting out is quite simply a smokescreen by the Opposition. We should concentrate on the debate in hand and look forward to the Committee stage. The Bill is about greater and more effective parental involvement and my right hon. and learned Friend is certainly paying more than lip service to that. I am much more confused about the Opposition's reasons for opposing the Bill than about some of the other matters that I will raise.
  The original proposals put forward in August contained great inherent dangers to the education system
  54
  in Scotland and to our schools, not just in education terms but in simple management terms. The original proposals contained an entirely mixed management system for our schools with education authorities on the one hand and boards dominated by parents on the other. They would have shared different executive functions and the most crucial individual executive function, that of the head teacher, was lost somewhere in the middle. In terms of simple management and executive authority and accountability the original proposals were inherently unsound. I welcome my right hon. arid learned Friend's proposals because they are fundamentally different from those that were made originally. I welcome the modifications now contained in the Bill.
  My right hon. and learned Friend was perhaps a little ungracious in his lack of tribute to those areas of Scotland where school councils have worked well. He acknowledged that in some limited cases and in areas such as Grampian they have worked fairly well as a general system and not just as a good council standing out against others. I support the Bill because it builds on the present system of school councils that work well rather than grafting on a system containing the kind of dangers that I mentioned.
  Equally one must acknowledge that even where school councils have worked fairly well I know of a sense of frustration on the part of some members of such councils. Sometimes an education authority or a head teacher has felt that they were not able to participate as much as they would like in the affairs of a school. That applies more strongly in areas where education authorities did not encourage the setting up of school councils or did not allow them to be effective. The Bill meets that criticism. I welcome the principle of the Bill.
  The hon. Member for Garscadden raised points about the Bill that are Committee points. He did the same thing during the debate on the Housing (Scotland) Bill. I should like to probe some of the matters that he raised but, as I have said, they are Committee points and do not give any fundamental or sound reason for opposing the Bill in principle.
  I should like to pose one or two questions to the Minister who will be winding up and I hope that he will answer them. I should like him to say a little more about the role of the school boards and their relationship to the existing college councils. Where community schools and college councils exist we have seen much greater integration of our secondary school education system and community education in the areas served by such secondary schools. We have some community schools in Grampian and the college council system has worked well. Parents, teachers and those who serve on the councils are generally happy with the way that they have worked, but there is genuine anxiety about how integration of the new boards system will fit in with community education generally and with community schools in particular. We want more clarification and reassurance on that.
  My second point is one that I made in my submission on the consultation paper. We have to look much more closely at some form of co-ordination between the different boards of primary schools that are feeding to the same secondary school. We must keep a very close link between the secondary school and the primary schools that are feeding to it. If we believe in parental involvement, we must ensure that there is some co-ordination between the boards of those primary schools and the board of the secondary school to which the primary schools feed.

  55
  My third point is a small one. In some rural areas where schools may qualify, because of numbers on the roll, to have a school board, there may well be a desire for two or three small schools to come together under a joint school board. That could be effective in terms of future parental support and could evolve to the stage where schools had their own board. Perhaps the Minister can tell me whether there will be opportunities for primary schools that are geographically next door to each other to have a joint board.
  My last specific question before turning to general points is about costs. I very much share the cynicism expressed about whether the actual cost figures for running the school boards are correct. I want the school boards to be effective, and if they are to be effective there will he administrative costs. That matter must be probed further. When the Minister replies perhaps he will give an undertaking that, if it looks as if this will cost more than anticipated, resources will be forthcoming, but not at the expense of other items on the existing school budget. It would be a shame if that happened.
  Finally, I should like to turn to the general aspect of the atmosphere of uncertainty and confusion about opting out. Earlier I made my position clear. Opting out is not appropriate and does not fit in with the development and the historical background of Scottish education. If strong desires for opting out develop in future, they will have to be considered on their merits. My right hon. and learned Friend has said that if this arises it will be debated as a separate issue. For that reason we are wrong to debate it in the Bill.
  My right hon. and learned Friend must realise that, over the past few years, Scottish schools have been through one of the most traumatic periods in their existence. We must not forget the upset and the breakdown in relationships between parents, teachers, education authorities and the Government which have left real scars on the school system in Scotland. At the same time, under the Government, we have seen some real advances in education in Scottish schools, for example, the new curriculum and examination system. We must not forget the burden that that places on teachers, education authorities and pupils. We do a disservice to education in Scotland and to the children whom we serve in our schools if we try to impose too many changes too swiftly over too short a time.
  In that context, I urge my right hon. and learned Friend to be careful in proceeding, even if there is pressure in respect of such matters as opting out. We need now, more than ever, to consolidate the good improvements made in our system and to have a chance for parents, teachers and education authorities to settle down and get on with the job of teaching. In that way, we shall best serve the interests of education and of the young people in Scotland today and in the future.
  5.51 pm
  Mr. Norman Buchan: I am delighted to be called so early to speak in the debate, first, because one can be listened to and, secondly, because some of the sharpness of the argument has to a large extent been located in my area of Paisley.
  56
  I was pleased to listen to the speech of the right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith), as we are old sparring partners and he is possibly the last respected member of the Conservative party in Scotland. He is certainly one of the few who have neither been bribed nor cowed by the Prime Minister and, therefore, we listen to him with a certain respect.
  I wish to make two points to the right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside. First, when he says that he regrets the absence of community school involvement and that we should try to change that, he does not understand the purpose of these school boards. Community school involvement is specifically and deliberately missing. These are specifically school boards with a majority of parents of existing pupils, though making policy for the parents of future children, while the community itself is deliberately excluded. That has implications for all schools in every community and specifically for community schools. Community schools have been one of the great developments in Scottish education and they will suffer as a result of the Bill.
  Secondly, the right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside misunderstands the purpose and structure of the Bill when he says that he would like to see two or three schools getting together to form a joint school board. This is no longer an advisory grouping. It is not a development of parental or parent-teacher involvement. The Bill aims to create a structure of elected parents who will exercise executive and management functions in a school. There is no question of nice, friendly joint school boards considering education policies in a larger area. If the right hon. Gentleman objects to joint boards being missing and if he now understands that that is the nature of the Bill, I hope that he will join us in the Lobby tonight to oppose the Bill.
  Specific problems arise from the Bill, for example, in respect of clause 9(2)(a). That clause contains an extraordinary proposition for teachers and headmasters whose legal duty is to teach and develop schools to their best ability, yet we are told that the headmaster
  "shall from time to time make proposals to the School Board as to how the funds provided under this section should be spent".
  That refers to the purchase of books and other teaching materials. The clause goes on to say that the headmaster
  "shall not spend funds on any proposal unless it is approved by the Board."
  Under those provisions, therefore, the board of parents, without the direct involvement of teaching the children and knowing which books, educational techniques and materials are required, and without envisaging curriculum problems, shall determine book by book and article by article what the headmaster may purchase.
  I hope that the right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside will realise that the functions of the board differ from the concept of an aid or adjunct to involving parents in their children's education. It supersedes the role of headmasters in an executive and educational form. That is why we resist the measure and believe that it has nothing to do with proper parental involvement.
  Some fun was made of the Labour party's policy in respect of this matter. I have done a great deal of work on the Labour party's education policy in the past, and community and parental involvement has always been an important part of that policy. The Government's proposals go against the grain of past Scottish education

  57
  policy in respect of parental involvement. The Government are trying to impose an alien structure on Scottish education policy, as the Prime Minister has done throughout our nation over the last few years, in place of the parent-teacher association, which has often been weak in the past and should be strengthened. We must pull out of the dominie attitude still existing among some Scottish teachers. Parent-teacher associations should be strengthened and developed.
  The Government are seeking to downgrade the role of the individual teacher and parent. They are seeking not wider and more continual parental involvement, but a structure of parental representatives which will manage. That is a different matter. We should get rid of that option. Labour's education policy seeks to involve parents, teachers, the community and the child. There is none of that in the Bill. It is concerned only with the structure of management. As has been said, it should be seen as a paving Bill for the Government's real intention—the right to opt out.
  I know that my hon. Friends may be fed up with my referring to schools in Paisley and particularly to Paisley grammar school, but that is central to the argument. The conspiracy between the Prime Minister and the Scottish Office was exposed in the Glasgow Herald. Ministers are no longer being asked to consider, but are being ordered by the Prime Minister, to ensure that the amendment of the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) is tabled. The Prime Minister says, "Prod him. Make sure it happens." That is what is being imposed upon us.
  That in turn stems from an earlier conspiracy exposed in The Sunday Times and involving the editor of The Sunday Times, the hon. Member for Eastwood and the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland with responsibility for education, whose behaviour in all this has been despicable. I have just discovered that there was another element in this conspiracy, a familiar figure described in the Paisley and Renfrewshire Gazette as
  "former MP, solicitor Gerry Malone".
  It was said that he
  "will also be present to speak to and advise the parents on the next step for them".
  That man claimed to he a Member of Parliament, but he was really a Whip. This is a case of the Rake's progress or the Whip's progress. He left the House and is now taking part in this squalid conspiracy to save a school.
  I understand why the editor of The Sunday Times should do this. He was an old boy and he wanted to come back and boast, "How I 'tapped' Maggie." That was the headline in the Paisley Daily Express on 30 January. The article continued, quoting Andrew Neil, the editor of The Sunday Times:
  "In my job I get to meet a number of people who are senior figures in all political parties. I used people I know in Downing Street to bring the matter to the Prime Minister's attention.… She must have had words with Rifkind at the Scottish Office."
  As The Sunday Times states,
  "He got the message."
  It is worth reminding ourselves about what has happened when additional elements like Gerry Malone creep into these matters. We are sorry to see him mixed up in this. He played a more honourable role in the Tory Whips' Office. I never thought that I would ever be able to say that.
  I must insist that the proposed amendment to be introduced by the hon. Member for Eastwood is all about
  58
  Paisley grammar. Conservative Members are very indiscreet in their conspiracies. One of the Tories' problems is that they are so arrogant in their custom of ruling that they do not conceal their conspiracies very well.
  The hon. Member for Eastwood sent me a letter in which he exposes the nature of the conspiracy. I complained that he was interfering with my kids, parents and constituents. I said that he was interfering from his constituency. He wrote:
  "I am in receipt of your letter … I must emphasise that I have been very rigorous throughout in making it clear that I was representing my constituents, of whom there is a significant number."
  I am glad to know that the hon. Gentleman has a significant number of constituents. I presume that he means that he has a significant number of children of constituents in schools in my constituency. We resent our schools being dictated to from outside our town. The hon. Member for Eastwood continues in his letter:
  "Indeed, the whole issue focuses on my constituents since they are by definition Parents Charter pupils who are being deliberately discriminated against."
  I would have thought that the pupils in my constituency and in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, North (Mr. Adams) were being discriminated against because of the abuse of the parental charter as more than half the children in Paisley grammar come from outside the town and the catchment area.
  From what I have described about Paisley you will understand, Madam Deputy Speaker, why we are worried about the opting-out proposals. The hon. Member for Eastwood is concerned about saving Paisley grammar in the opting-out proposals so that, with a majority of parents in his constituency outside the Paisley catchment area, he can determine the nature of a school in our town. That is why we object to the Bill.
  If the hon. Member for Eastwood succeeds in his opting-out proposal, will those parents who are to be made responsible for the management of the school be entitled to determine a school's entry policy? If so, there will be an alien school in Paisley. Will that happen? When the hon. Member for Eastwood tables his amendment in Committee, will it include a section stating whether parents will determine which pupils will or will not enter a school? We await a reply from the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Allan Stewart: The hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) will have to wait for the Committee stage.
  Mr. Buchan: That is another reason why we should reject the Bill. The best thing to do with a Bill if we do not trust amendments which might be tabled in Committee is to reject it. We should reject it because it paves the way for opting out. We should reject it also because we do not know how far the amendment to be tabled by the hon. Member for Eastwood will go, and we do not trust the hon. Gentleman on education any more than we trust the Minister on education.
  The Government claim that we are against parental choice. We are not. I am in favour of intelligent parental choice. The trouble is that parental choice has not been based on educational purposes or on particular needs, it has been based, on the whole, on the cachet of a particular school. That is apparently happening in Dundee, affecting 2,000 pupils in one school. The inevitable effect is the draining off of another school. A similar thing is happening in Paisley. The newest school building in

  59
  Paisley, the one school whose future is still under threat despite yesterday's decision, is the only school where disabled pupils can be taught alongside non-disabled pupils because it has the proper facilities, including ramps and lifts, to cope with wheelchair pupils. No other school in the west of Scotland and certainly not in Paisley has such facilities.
  We are opposed to the Bill because it will allow the consideration of amendments such as that proposed by the hon. Member for Eastwood. Ministers have rejected some of the voting figures in connection with the proposals in the Bill. However, those figures were massive, with only 1 per cent. in favour of the proposals and 88 per cent. against—even if the vote was taken on earlier proposals. However, the results show a massive rejection of the general propositions.
  The arguments for the proposals were equally interesting. There was universal agreement on greater parental involvement with schools and almost total rejection of the proposed means of implementation. The Government have brought in means of implementation to pretend that they are in favour of greater parental involvement in schools. They have reversed the decision. The parents have seen through that and rejected it.
  The results of the vote show that parents want involvement, participation and partnership in running schools. They are against having an executive or management role. That view has not changed and the 88 per cent. against the proposals remains solid. The results also show that parents are keenly interested in the welfare of their children. They want parents and teachers to be partners. They trust teachers, but not other parents, to look after their children. That is very important. They see the teacher as an objective provider of their children's education, not as an interested parent. Incidentally, teachers have been trained. We should not forget that and we must listen to them.
  We want a partnership of parents, teachers and the community. The widespread feeling is that the proposals are a costly and simplistic approach to a very complex problem. The majority of people believed that it was a mistake to try to produce a rigid system for the whole country. There was also a widespread suspicion that the consultation was a sham and that the Minister intended to go ahead anyway. By God, we have a perceptive population in Scotland. I could not have presented my opposition to the proposals any better after all my years of teaching. The people have got it right.
  The proposed amendment has been made for Paisley. Because of the new regulations, fiddled and brought through by the conspiracy, the schools proposals from the region will have to be sent to the Secretary of State. I must be honest and state that I do not agree with the proposals. There should have been four non-denominational schools in Paisley, not three. I welcome the fact that there are two denominational schools. However, the lack of a fourth non-denominational school will cause some concern in the other sector and we shall have to face up to that.
  I believe that not having four non-denominational schools was a mistake because the Government will impose four and the fourth will be Paisley grammar. Strathclyde region has been trying to deal with the problems of the distortion and abuse of parental choice to
  60
  save the best school building in Paisley with the facilities that I have described. With this "wicked Government"—to quote the Bishop of Durham—Strathclyde region may have played into the Government's hands.
  I hope that the Government will respond to the request from the convenor of Strathclyde region and meet representatives to discuss the proposals instead of acting in a draconian way—as most of us fear that they will—to produce some solution.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, North and I have been considering these problems in the interests of the parents, schools and children. We have not been considering the kind of solution proposed by the hon. Member for Eastwood, who claims that he is interested not in the children in Eastwood, but in children who opt to go elsewhere. He claims that those children are the problem and that we must ignore the other kids, even those in his constituency. He claims that the whole problem involves the kids who opt out of his area and that the whole issue focuses on his constituents. The claim made by the hon. Member for Eastwood is not true. The problem does not focus on all his constituents; it focuses only on that powerful minority who choose to send their children to our school.
  Mr. Allan Stewart: Of course the whole issue focused on my constituents at Paisley grammar, for one reason, if for no other: no proposals in Strathclyde region currently involve the closure of schools within the Eastwood constituency.
  Mr. Buchan: The hon. Gentleman might have brought forward proposals to save the schools in Paisley, rather than endangering them. He might have brought forward proposals to try to ensure that his schools hold pupils rather than export them.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, North and I have properly faced that problem. We still agree that we would have preferred a four and two situation, but we have not achieved that. We do not believe that it is impossible in an urban area to prevent the misuse by certain parents of parental choice.
  How then do we square the democracy of parental choice with preserving comprehensive education in the town? The answer is to form a schools council for Paisley. It should be taken from the four non-denominational schools and its remit would be to try to develop comprehensive education within Paisley while allowing parental choice.
  Parents would be able to ask what a school specialised in and the headmaster would, for example, be able to advise on the right school for a person who was keen on languages. In other words, the schools council would co-operate to make sure that parental choice was not merely exploited to the extent that a school's capacity reached 105 per cent. Such a schools council could also allow curriculum exchange between schools, so that choice could be made according to the curriculum, individual interest, and, perhaps, community interest. Parental choice could be exercised, but exercised intelligently in co-operation with teachers, headmasters and parents in Paisley.
  The Government should meet Strathclyde council and discuss the situation in Paisley and the decisions that would have to be made and come forward with proposals

  61
  that will enable a four and two solution, while still allowing parental choice, and which would put the needs of the children of Paisley first.
  If the hon. Member for Eastwood is concerned with the education of his children, he should concentrate on the schools in his area and make sure that they come up to scratch and meet needs, instead of ignoring them as he is at the moment. He is concerned with the small minority of powerful parents who can be served elsewhere.
  This is a bad Bill. It is a wicked Bill in its own right. It should be opposed for what it presages and for what it already contains
  6.12 pm
  Sir Hector Monro: I do not intend to take up the remarks of the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) about his local school problems. However, my right hon. and hon. Friends must be astonished at the Labour party's opposition to the Bill. The Opposition spend their time talking about their enthusiasm for parental involvement but then try to find some way round the corner to vote against the Bill. Even more astonishing is the fact that, despite the tremendous opposition of the Labour party and the three-line Whip, there has rarely been more than a third of the Labour party present during the debate.
  This is an important Bill. I welcome it, not so much for what it may do, but for its repercussions and its effect on future legislation in Scotland. It will rightly be discussed in detail in Committee and it may well set the tone and structure of Scottish education for the remainder of the century. We must make every endeavour to get it right in Committee.
  I have always welcomed parental involvement in schools. It is usually a huge success. However, I still wait to he convinced that the willing parents who give tremendous support to their parent-teacher association will also come forward, week by week, in an executive function.
  The Scottish Parent-Teacher Council welcomes the Bill, as I do, but I have not yet had a flood of letters from parents showing equal enthusiasm for serving on boards. However, I am sure that, when things are explained to them and they understand the opportunity that they are being given, that will change.
  I am not one who believes in sudden change. In education we should move by evolution. By and large, that is what has happened over the past 120 years. We are particularly proud of Scottish education's international reputation, but there are still some aspects on which we remain disappointed.
  For my sins—it seems to be an ever-diminishing circle—I was a Minister with responsibility for education in the 1970s. Our problems then were a shortage of teachers and adequate buildings. The jargon at the time was "pupil-teacher ratios" and "roofs over heads". We and subsequent Governments expanded the colleges of education and built flat out within our financial limitations. That policy was carried on by the previous Labour Government. Now we have plenty of teachers—
  Mr. Dalyell: I recall that the hon. Gentleman was a most helpful Minister. Will he reflect on the letter on the question of costs that has been sent, very courteously, to all of us by Elizabeth Smith? Does the hon. Gentleman,
  62
  with his experience, think that the Government are right to put the cost at £5 million, or that Mrs. Smith is right in putting it at £20 million?
  Sir Hector Monro: The hon. Gentleman has leapt in long before I intended to deal with the matter of costs and the letter from Mrs. Smith, who is an exceptionally fine chairman of our education authority. However, I shall deal with the matter now. Certainly I share Mrs. Smith's concern. The Bill says in its preamble that costs will be very small. Yet Dumfries and Galloway have done some accurate costing and they insist that there will be about 135 school boards, allowing for a few amalgamations of the small schools, and they cannot see how the cost will be less than £600,000 a year. There is only about £4,000 a board and if one accepts that there will be substantial administrative, travelling and election costs, with teachers having to take time off work during the day, the Government must have grossly underestimated the total cost.
  I have seen the costings, and if Dumfries and Gallo way are accurate in putting them at £600,000 a year the overall figure of £20 million may be reasonably accurate. I do not want to consider the matter in percentage terms of the total overall cost of the education budget for Scotland, which is enormous, including, as it does, teachers' salaries and so on, but the direct cost on each education authority must be substantial. I ask my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State to look at this matter much more carefully before the Committee stage. If the boards are to carry out their work effectively—if we are to have boards they must be effective—their cost has been under-estimated. I hope that the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) realises from those comments that I share his concern about costs.
  We now have plenty of teachers and our buildings are in much better shape. However, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) said, we have been going through a fairly traumatic period with curriculum change, the red book, the technical and vocational education initiative, and so on.
  Way back in the 1970s there was the Munn and Dunning report and now we are translating that into action, and rightly so, always giving quality of education the top priority. I am glad that we have swung to a more practical form of education so that the pupils of today will be a much more effective and skilled work force of tomorrow.
  The 1980 legislation brought forward valuable developments—parental choice and the parents' charter. It was not as effective as I would have liked in rural areas. Time and again we have run into the problem of rural transport. We cannot send children to the schools that the parents wish because the transport is not available. That is another aspect which I hope we shall have the opportunity to discuss in Committee.
  I believe that the assisted places scheme was a first class move by the Government, but I said at the time, and I have said once or twice since, that it was a pity that the Secretary of State renounced his right to be involved in school closures except in particular rural areas or for denominational schools. He had an overall independent view to balance between the parents and the education

  63
  authorities such as now seems to be important in regard to Paisley. I believe that setting the balance was often very effective in school closures through the usual system.
  We have undergone periods of immense change and disharmony over teachers' salaries and other related aspects. Great credit is due to my right hon. and learned Friend for the way in which he managed to conclude the very difficult dispute over teachers' salaries. This year, we are back to a period of consultation, the White Paper, the Government's conclusions, and now legislation. I pay tremendous credit to my right hon. and learned Friend for listening to the advice on the White Paper that came from all parts of Scotland and from a tremendous cross-section of educational opinion. That is why there have been so many changes from the original White Paper to what is now in the Bill. As my right hon. and learned Friend said, perhaps it really would help if Opposition Members criticised the Bill and not the White Paper that was published last August.
  I believe that the Dumfries and Galloway education authority gave an excellent response to the White Paper. It was positive and helpful and indicated that it wanted to move forward far from the ceiling and nearer the floor. That became the jargon expression of last autumn. It is pleased about the Bill in the form in which it seeks a Second Reading today. I said at the time of the White Paper that I would not have been able to support the ceiling proposals. That is why I am glad that we are now discussing much more simple proposals which I have already welcomed in my opening remarks.
  We must think carefully about the pace at which we proceed in education development generally. I believe that we are going through a period of educational indigestion at present and that most authorities and teachers want time to think, to develop and to achieve really practical results through all that has changed in the past 10 or 15 years. That can be achieved only through a period of settled policy rather than by the introduction of too much legislation in future. They want to concentrate on the three Rs, discipline and development of character.
  I should like more emphasis to be placed on sport and recreation which is very important in character development. That has been lacking in the past two or three years as teachers have not been enthusiastic about working on Saturdays and taking school teams away and so on. I believe that the youngsters in this country want more opportunity to participate in all forms of outward-bound recreation.
  We want parental involvement, but there is a world of difference between the work of a parent-teacher association and the regular executive responsibilities envisaged by the Bill. I want to put to my hon. and learned Friend the issue of responsibility. I was first elected a councillor almost too long ago to welcome the thought. As a past councillor, I view the responsibility of an elected councillor in a different colour from those who have not had that experience. Whatever the percentage of a poll in any local council election, a councillor is elected by a majority decision. He or she has the right to play a part in the policy of the education committee and the full council. It is most important that that should not be jeopardised by the views of a school board. After all, the councillors are responsible for expenditure and, from next year, the
  64
  community charge. They must not be responsible for carrying out the overall education Acts without the power to see that it happens.
  In Committee, we will very carefully examine how we can reconcile throw-away words such as consultation, management, policy, and executive decision between the board and the local authority. One can envisage boards making decisions in direct contravention of local authority policy. The Bill states that they must "have regard" to local authority policy, but that is open to all sorts of interpretation. That, too, is an extremely important Committee point.
  We must be absolutely certain that we give the community as much opportunity as possible to be involved. By that I mean also the churches. I have always felt that the Catholic Church and therefore Catholic schools must have a particular place in Scottish education and I do not wish to see that diminished in the Bill or in Scottish education generally. I also believe that we underestimate the immense good will and consultation now taking place between education authorities and schools, parents and pupils.
  Recently there was a first class example in Dumfries and Galloway. A few years ago a network group was set up—I am afraid that many of us anticipated that it would not be a success—which included Lockerbie academy, Moffat academy and Langholm academy. Over the past 12 months, Langholm and Moffat realised that it was not a success and the parents put forward a very strong case for full secondary status as sixth-year secondary schools. They held meetings with the education authority, and now the authority rightly has decided that there should be three full sixth-year secondary schools. That shows that consultation does work between the authorities and the schools in the areas that they represent. I give great credit to Mrs. Smith, who has been mentioned several times during today's debate, for her constructive approach.
  Mr. Alex Salmond: Given the important reservations that he has expressed today about the proposals, may we conclude that the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) will be voting against the Second Reading this evening?
  Sir Hector Monro: That is an extraordinary conclusion. Obviously the hon. Member was not present when I began my speech by giving the most warm welcome to the principle of the Bill.
  I spoke about costs in some detail in answer to the hon. Member for Linlithgow. I wish to make two final points. The first concerns funds. In the consultation document, my right hon. Friend made it clear that the Bill excluded powers to levy charges and of course that stems from the Education (Scotland) Act 1980. I feel that it should be put in the Bill for the sake of clarification. It is much easier for important issues to be included in clause 18 rather than left out because they are included in another Bill that is now a few years out of date.
  Finally, I come to the issue of opting out. Opposition Members have made a tremendous to-do about it. I do not know how often my right hon. and learned Friend has to explain in detail exactly what he meant, how it is not in the Bill, it is not going to be in the Bill and if it is ever brought into operation it would have to be after the most detailed consultation with school boards. We are not setting up school boards until the summer of 1989, so they will have

  65
  another year to think about it after that. It will be a long time before opting out can be contemplated. I made it clear throughout the winter, and I do so again now, that I am not in favour of opting out.
  There is a very good education structure in Scotland. If certain schools opt out, it will have an impact on all schools, particularly schools for the mentally handicapped and other special schools. If schools are allowed to opt out, those that remain in the public sector will suffer.
  I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's proposals. They will result in parents becoming more and more involved in the education of their children. Parents will be able to ensure that their children have the quality of education that they deserve. Apart from the Committee points that I have mentioned, about which I have certain reservations, I warmly welcome the proposals.
  6.31 pm
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: The hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) and the right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) have said why they intend to support the Bill. Their line is, perhaps, predictable, and I think that I could have written their speeches for them. Their point is that the original proposals were very controversial, but, because of the representations of many people, including their own, they believe that the Bill is now in pretty fine shape and commands the support of Scottish parents. I have to tell both of them that that is not so.
  The Minister will refer ad nauseam in his reply to the fact that parents have said that they want to be more involved in the running of schools, but parents have said time and time again that what they want is reform of the school and college council system. Parents were promised such a reform by the Government at the general election. They do not want to take over responsibility for running the schools, but that is what the Government are seeking to impose upon them. The hon. Member for Dumfries and the right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside know that to be the case, but they are seeking to protect their position.
  Throughout the consultation process the conduct of Scottish Office Ministers has aroused widespread suspicion. People realise now, if they did not realise it before, that the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) has proved that he is as ideological as any Marxist and that he is as committed to getting his way as any revolutionary, although he has corrupted his mentor, Adam Smith, who would not recognise the hon. Gentleman's interpretation of his views.
  During the general election campaign, the Secretary of State denied that the Government would propose opting out. He maintained that the proposal was to reform school councils. I support that proposal, and I remind the Secretary of State of the letter that he wrote to me on 29 May 1987, just a few days before the general election. He said:
  "If you wish to understand Scottish Conservative policy you would find it helpful to read our Scottish Manifesto and not the English one".
  I would say the reverse is the truth.
  "This would ensure that you did not make yourself look foolish by attacking policies that are not being proposed.
  Our Manifesto for Scotland promises that:
  66
  'We will improve the management of schools, increase local autonomy and give parents and other local interests a more important role in the running of their schools.'"
  I could not disagree. The Secretary of State continued:
  "'To achieve these ends, we will initiate a major reform of school councils so that they will be equipped in co-operation with headmasters and teachers to assume advisory and executive responsibilities in the running of their schools.'"
  The Secretary of State commented:
  "I am sure that the electors in Gordon would be interested to know which of these policies is opposed by you."
  The answer is, none of them. The Secretary of State then said:
  "They will note the Manifesto for Scotland does not refer to 'opting out'; and that, contrary to your assertion, we have made no such proposal for Scotland."
  The Secretary of State for Scotland wanted the people of Scotland to vote on that basis. Even on those words he got a message that suggested that he did not have resounding support in Scotland. To suggest that what we shall vote on tonight bears any resemblance to what the Government proposed during the general election campaign is to mislead the House to a considerable degree.
  I do not propose to dwell on the opting-out argument. I accept the Secretary of State's assurance that the Bill is not about opting out, but there are a few relevant points that I wish to make. For most of Scotland, the idea of opting out is alien and unwelcome. Comprehensive education in Scotland had grown up naturally and in most cases it works extremely well. People in my constituency are concerned about the fact that the Government might be thinking about creating a system that will lead to unnecessary division and conflict where none now exists. For the Secretary of State to suggest—perhaps he was quoting Alan Massie in the Scottish edition of The Sunday Times last Sunday—that if there is no demand for opting out there will be no problem if it is introduced is deliberately to misunderstand the opting-out process. If' a school board is taken over by a self-interested, privileged clique, it might stir up a campaign for opting out, and if that clique pushed it to a vote there would be winners and losers. The fact that the majority won would not stop the minority from losing and not getting what it wanted. That is particularly absurd in a rural area, where the nearest school might be 20 miles away. The idea of opting out is unworkable, just as the parents' charter is effectively unworkable in many rural areas.
  It is worth noting the selective nature of the Government's argument. Let me take the case of Jordanhill college school. I, together with many other hon. Members, have received many representations about it. The parents wanted to opt in to the Strathclyde regional council system, not to opt out as they have now been encouraged to do as a "guinea pig" for the Government's testing of the water. That school was caught between a Labour-controlled region that would not accept it and a Tory Government who were determined to use it as a guinea pig. The parents' wishes did not triumph at the end of the day, so I do not think that we should take lectures from the Government about wishing to take on board what parents want.
  Opting out is the first step to introducing selection and the creation of grammar schools. The Prime Minister, who is the product of a grammar school and who ought to be an awful warning to us all, is known to favour the reintroduction of grammar schools, but outside cities in

  67
  Scotland they never existed. It is no wonder, therefore, that she is seen to be out of touch with the wishes and aspirations of the people of Scotland. That is why my constituents tell me in increasing numbers that "We dinna want yon wifie" interfering in Scottish affairs.
  Parents continue to express concern about the Bill, and I shall deal with those concerns in the remainder of my speech. Many people will welcome in principle the basic approach of clauses 10 to 17. They require the provision of policy statements, annual reports and more financial information to parents and schools. I stress, nevertheless, that that welcome development could be achieved by means of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973, if necessary with minor amending legislation to enforce it. This Bill is not required to introduce that welcome development.
  I have already said that the Secretary of State for Scotland's expressed concern about parents' views is touching, but it is inconsistent. The Secretary of State wants parents to agree with his ideology. During the lifetime of the last Parliament, parents campaigned over a period of two years to persuade him to meet and negotiate with the teachers to ensure a fair settlement of pay and conditions and an end to the dispute, but he was not interested and he did not respond to their wishes. He dragged out the dispute unnecessarily for two years. The final settlement that he produced was based largely on proposals put forward by me, along with my colleagues and with alliance councillors in Scotland, two years before—when he was appointed—he finally decided that he could bring forward very similar proposals which could have prevented the dispute in the first place. That is the corruption of his view.
  Let me respond to the gratuitous insult handed out by the Secretary of State when he described the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg) as sounding like a Liberal—the implication being that he believed in the principle, but could not support the practice. I should have thought, first of all, that that was a very good summation of the Secretary of State's position on the issue of Scottish home rule. Secondly, he has shown rather less consistency, conviction or ideal on principle since he stopped being a Liberal than during the brief period when he was a member of the party. He has also demonstrated considerably less decisiveness since then. That is not an invitation: we do not wish to be associated with him!
  In the last Parliament, the Secretary of State's then colleague Mr. Gerald Malone refused to address a meeting of 1,200 parents at Aberdeen grammar school during the teachers' dispute, because it would have involved sharing a platform with a member of the Educational Institute of Scotland. That is how keen he was to consult parents on their views. The parents of Aberdeen made it clear what they thought of that when they had the chance.
  In our view, education should be a partnership between the education authority and teachers on the one hand, and between parents, pupils and the community on the other. That is one of the reasons for our belief that no one group should be able to outvote the other on decisions affecting education. While we would still prefer reformed school councils, we feel that if school boards are set up or strengthened, they should consist of equal representation from both sides, the parents providing the largest group
  68
  and probably the chair, but not providing the controlling interest. I also consider it important to make provision for pupils to be represented, because there is much talk in the House about parents being the consumers of education, whereas the actual consumers are the children. At the ages of 15, 16 and 17 they have something to say that is relevant and should be listened to.
  I heard what the Secretary of State had to say about head teachers' views on being denied the vote, but I still consider it comparable to denying the managing director a vote on the board. If the head teacher has both to propose and to implement policy, it is reasonable that he should have a hand in determining it. That, I believe, is still the majority opinion. It is also felt that the local regional councillor should be able to attend and speak on any school board in his area. No one is suggesting that he should be a member of them all, or could attend them all; he should, however, have the right to do so. After all, he is the elected representative of the local education authority.
  I feel that it is right to propose a board for every school, and we think that that should have been promoted for school councils. I agree, however, with the right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside that steps should be taken to ensure that the feeder primary schools and the community interests are represented, although I share reservations about why in some cases they have been excluded.
  Many parental anxieties about who will come forward to stand for a school board will not easily go away. A number of the best people will be unable, owing to various other commitments, to take a full part. Many will wish to go on to a board more to promote the interests of their own children than to promote the wider interests of the school at large. That might pervert the intentions, especially when they have that degree of control. A small group or clique, whether politically or personally motivated, could shift the priorities of a school very quickly to favour a more vocal or more able minority against the wishes of the majority. That is the sort of concern that has been expressed to me, and is contained in a file inches thick.
  The power to raise funds, while desirable because existing parent-teacher associations have that power, is nevertheless a dangerous development if it goes too far. The Minister knows perfectly well that a school board operating in a wealthy area will raise much more than one operating in a poor area. For that to become the basis of resource allocation would be a very unfair development.
  The counter to that—of which the Minister should be aware—is that it would not be unreasonable for a local authority, if that did happen, to suggest cutting its allocation to the school in question and redistributing it to more needy schools. That would be divisive, and I feel that a ceiling should be set.
  The Government have entirely failed to prove their case that the Bill represents the real aspirations of parents in Scotland. They have tried to argue that it does, but have been unable to produce clear evidence. All the representations that I am receiving still suggest that parents are extremely sceptical and dubious about the Government's motivations. In my view, the Bill remains a politically motivated diversion to prevent our noticing that Scottish education continues to be underfunded. It says nothing about nursery provision, which is patchy in the extreme; about class sizes; about school closures; about

  69
  resources for curriculum development. It says nothing about developing adult education, or about providing the time and resources for in-service teacher training.
  Those are the issues that really concern people in education, and the Government know it. But here we are discussing a Bill that has nothing to do with the real, crucial, central issues in Scottish education. It is a diversion to try to take the heat off. It does not even tell us how parents can be involved nationally in the development of thinking about education. Why can we not have an advisory committee that involves parents and teachers, and ensures that it is not only the narrow minds in the Adam Smith Institute that formulate the future of Scottish education policy. That particularly applies to those who have opted out of the education process in the state sector in Scotland, and have the cheek to tell us how our children should be educated according to their political priorities.
  I believe that the overwhelming majority of parents in Scotland have no confidence in the Tories' education policy. They believe that the Bill does not represent the real aspirations of parents to be involved and consulted, and that it is damaging and divisive. We shall therefore vote against it.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Mr. Bill Walker
  Hon. Members: Are you sure?
  6.47 pm
  Mr. Bill Walker: Mr. Deputy Speaker is certain—not just sure—that what I have to say is relevant. The first reason for that is that I can assure the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) that I attended state schools, and so did my children, who left not long ago. My experience, therefore, can be described as current. I can also assure the hon. Gentleman that I have never been a member of the Liberal party, although I was twice asked to join.
  It is interesting that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) objected to the interest taken by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in Scottish education. He seemed to think that there was something wrong about that. I intervened to ask him whether the Leader of the Opposition was taking an interest in Scotland, and whether he was aware that the Himalayas were not in Scotland. He looked nonplussed. It was obvious that he had not heard, or listened to, the interview in which the Leader of the Opposition took part with Kirsty Wark on the BBC, when he said that he had not mentioned the problems of the environment in the Himalayas.
  When asked about matters affecting Scotland, as I recollect, another area that the right hon. Gentleman did not mention was devolution. Devolution is passing power down to the people, which is exactly what will happen if the Bill proceeds through both Houses, as I am sure that it will. When it becomes law, we shall devolve power to the people who matter—the parents of the children concerned.
  Often, when we talk about schools, the last people about whom we speak, and often think, are the children. Yet the purpose of the schools is to serve only the children. We would not require schools if there were no children. [Laughter.] Opposition Members find that humorous. They often miss the fundamental and important matters because they become too involved in peripheral areas.
  70
  That is not surprising. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) is not present. He described the Scottish Office as a peripheral Department. He said:
  "There is a need for awareness on the part of Ministers in peripheral Departments such as the Welsh and Scottish Offices".—[Official Report, Standing Committee D. 10 March 1988; c. 46.]
  That is the thought of a Scottish Labour Back-Bench Member.
  We now know that the Leader of the Opposition believes that the Himalayas have some connection with Scotland, and we understand that the hon. Member for Motherwell, South believes that the Scottish Office is a peripheral Department. In some ways, that tells us why the Opposition are approaching the problem in the way that they are. There is no doubt that we have to view our schools in the light of recent events. One cannot ignore the stress that existed within the system during and after the teachers' strike. There is no doubt that that put enormous stresses and strains on the system and that it affected many children. In fact, one of my children was affected by the strike and it affected the children of many other hon. Members. If we are honest, we will agree that we have to find a better way of managing, running and controlling our schools because we do not want to go through that again.
  Mr. Norman Hogg: I am always interested in industrial relations matters. Can the hon. Gentleman say what aspect of the Bill would have avoided the problems that arose during the teachers' dispute?
  Mr. Walker: The answer is effective communications. The hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg) and I have both been involved in industrial relations. We have both been executives and officials in trade unions and I have been a director of personnel, so I know something about the other side as well. I can assure the hon. Gentleman—he must know this if he wants to get into industrial relations—that as often as not matters such as that can be resolved by more effective communication at local level. Some schools did not go on strike because at local level they did not wish to do so. Very often the way to avoid mass disruption is to have more effective communication at local level.
  There is no doubt that if the school boards are operated effectively they will improve communication between the customers—in this case parents and children—and the teachers. Those people have a common aim and object and if they can be made to work more efficiently[Interruption.] I do not find this at all amusing. The hon. Gentleman representing the Labour party on Scottish education seems to find this amusing. I find that disturbing. The matter is serious. We have to accept that the stress that arose during the teachers' strike might have been substantially avoided had there been better feedback, more effective communication and more effective ways of finding out what was going on at the chalk face.
  It is true that the changes that have been introduced in the curriculum and in examinations are a move in the right direction. However, they have brought about an additional workload. Whenever there is an additional workload, it is important that communications within any organisation are effective. Communication is a two-way thing.
  Sadly, the schools councils, which could have played an effective role in communication, were found not to be as

  71
  effective as many of us would have wished. Indeed, I could probably sum up the feeling of the House by saying that they were a disappointment. One would have hoped that the system, as it was structured, would have provided more effective parental influence within schools. I know that within some schools in my constituency the schools councils work very well. However, I am aware that schools councils do not exist in some schools, never mind work. The reason why they do not exist in some schools is that from the outset they were considered to be a non-job. They did not have the statutory backing that would provide them with the means to bring about beneficial changes within schools. Indeed, it was felt that they were not productive in terms of the time put into them. That is sad, and it explains why we need school boards.
  The current position facing us in Scotland cannot be ignored. There are problems facing education authorities. For instance, there is the decline in school rolls and there is population movement, which means that in some beautiful school buildings there are insufficient children to fill the places available. There is also the historical ingredient. Some schools have a good reputation and parents want their children to attend such schools. Those schools are described as popular. As I said earlier, I believe that the Liberals see that as snob value. There may be something in that; I do not know.
  I know something of the Harris academy, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion). Incidentally, that academy is not in his constituency but in the constituency of Dundee, West. The Harris academy has always been a popular school. In the days of secondary modern schools, secondary schools and academies, the Harris was one of the popular schools in Dundee and children travelled not just from within the catchment area but from the east end of the city, which is in the constituency of the hon. Member for Dundee, East. I am sure that children probably still do that.
  Mr. McAllion: Too many of them.
  Mr. Walker: I understand that. However, it happens because the school has a good reputation. The Morgan academy also has a splendid reputation, as did the Grove academy. The hon. Member for Dundee, East will be aware that the Grove academy in Broughty Ferry did not have adequate facilities in the way of buildings and so on. Therefore, the changes in population movement meant that the school was not big enough. That was one of the difficulties.—[Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) wish to intervene? I cannot hear what he is saying.
  Dr. Moonie: I object to what the hon. Member said about Grove academy. I attended that school for five years and the facilities were excellent and quite adequate for the number of pupils in that part of the town.
  Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman will know that a large school has been built just outside Broughty Ferry. I am sure that he is not the only former Grove academy pupil in the House.
  I repeat what I said: the Grove academy, Harris academy and Morgan academy were all good schools. In addition, there were schools for Catholic children. Those
  72
  schools were popular because of their reputation. If the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy is not proud of his old school, he should be.
  I shall now turn to the reasons why we should support the Bill. I was trying to sketch in the background as to why we are in the position we are in today. It is essential to understand that. As I have said, there were problems brought about by the change in the population, the change in the age structures and the movement of children so that some schools were left with many vacant places. In Dundee there is 40 per cent. over-capacity. One reason why there are objections to children going to the Harris academy is that there is 40 per cent. over-capacity in other parts of the city. The problem of overcapacity is that the cost of maintaining it is substantially felt in rural areas. They find themselves short of funds because schools in the city of Dundee are soaking in the funds towards rent, heating and lighting for places that are not occupied.
  I believe that part of the problem is that local authorities—the elected officials and councillors—have found it very difficult to find solutions. There are examples in Strathclyde. I am not going to second-guess what should be done there because I do not know enough about the details and it would be impertinent for me to suggest solutions, but I should prefer to leave to parents the choice of school for their children. That is why the parents' charter was such a wise legislative introduction. I used the powers within the parents' charter. My children attended schools in Perth because there were problems at the local school in Blairgowrie. The problem was that their father was the local Member of Parliament. All hon. Members may face this difficulty over their children's education.
  Perth city was not in my constituency any longer, so it was possible for me to send my children to another school where they were not affected by the aggravation they suffered because I am their father. [Interruption] If hon. Gentleman find that amusing, I hope that they are never in a situation where a minority party resorts to very devious tactics, including abusing children—my daughters—and that is all on the record. That is why they were moved. Their father happened to be in a different political party. That is one of the real issues facing many parents who are Members of Parliament.
  I notice the smiles on the faces of hon. Gentlemen who can afford and have been to private schools. I expect that they do not find it quite as difficult as I did. I did not have the opportunity to go to a private school, so I know very little about that.
  I turn now to this important Bill. We need school boards because we have not been able to find the right mixture of communication within education where parents are able to communicate effectively and bring about changes within schools that are important for their children.
  We have made some moves in the right direction as a result of the parents' charter, but that in itself was not enough. One of the reasons why parents took their children away from a school and put them into another was that they were unable to influence the situation within a school that was perhaps in the catchment areas where they were required to send their children. The school council did not perhaps exist, or if it did it was not able to do the job effectively.
  The school boards that are envisaged in the Bill will change that, which can only be for the better. It is interesting that the Scottish Parent-Teacher Council

  73
  welcomes the publication of the Bill. As its vice chairman, Harry Smith, has said, accountability and communications are dominant themes throughout the Bill. That is exactly what I said to the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg) after his intervention—that the Bill will improve communications and accountability. SPTC welcomes the emphasis on accountability of education authorities to school boards. That matter was addressed earlier by several Opposition Members who thought there was something wrong with an education authority being accountable in some way to school boards.
  The boards will represent the interests of the children, who are the parties that matter in this situation. It is important that education authorities reflect properly and accurately the wishes of parents in their area, and the accountability of school boards to education authorities and to all parents in the school. That is what the SPTC says.
  That is why I believe that every hon. Member should be prepared to support the principle of the Bill. Everyone says that he wants to see more parental involvement and parents having more say. The differences are in detail rather than principle. I welcome the fact that there will be opportunities, within the Bill, for parents to assume much more power, if they wish. I also welcome the fact that consultations between parents and members of school boards in total and the education authority are an integral and essential part of the concept of accountability.
  Mr. Norman Hogg: The hon. Gentleman refers to school councils and welcomes the development of powers for school boards. Is this a new Conservative principle? If so, why does that not apply to local authorities? The Conservatives have consistently taken away powers from local authorities, whereas in this case they are saying that education will benefit from additional powers. To which principle does the Conservative party subscribe?
  Mr. Walker: I can answer that because I come from a large rural constituency. The hon. Gentleman must be aware that those representing such constituencies find that Highland schools are far from centres of decision making. That centre is Dundee in this case. The communities feel as remote from Dundee as they do from London. They want to see more decisions taken locally. They have always had a co-operative machinery of working locally. There is no question, as anyone with experience of Highland rural areas knows, but that the small local communities have much more community spirit than is the case in the large cities. However, the cities tend to dominate. I have already drawn attention to the 40 per cent. overcapacity in Dundee schools, which is having an adverse affect on expenditure on the Highland rural schools in my constituency. They cannot get enough money because it is being spent in Dundee. Difficult decisions have yet to be taken and Strathclyde authority is facing up to them. I recognise that. But I shall not second-guess them on the appropriate solution, because it would be wrong for me to suggest it.
  I believe that with school boards in existence, and the required consultation, and the methods by which parents can choose schools for their children more effectively under a combination of the parents' charter and school boards, we may move away from a situation where the Harris academy is the magnet school in Dundee. That was much to the consternation of the hon. Member for Dundee, East.
  74
  I believe that school boards have an essential role to play. When one reads the Bill, one wonders why we have not had boards before. Why has it taken us so long to see the obvious? We can involve parents in education much more directly and give them more accountability and responsibility. That can only be beneficial for the schools, the children and the teachers.
  The teachers, too, do not want to work in isolation. They would love to have much more parental interest in their schools. Certainly in my constituency, where I have spoken to many teachers, they all say the same thing. They wish that parents were much more involved. The Bill will bring the opportunity for them to be involved. That is why I see no reason why any hon. Member should vote against the Bill.
  7.9 pm
  Mr. Michael J. Martin: Bearing in mind the many serious problems in my constituency, what benefits will the Bill bring it, and will the Bill resolve existing problems in Springburn's schools? Perhaps I can highlight some of the problems about which I have writ ten to the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary. I have put down parliamentary questions and usually the reply is that the matter is the responsibility of Strathclyde. I have also tried to get Adjournment debates and have been told that they cannot be considered because the subject is not a ministerial responsibility.
  Yet every day when I open the newspapers or watch television or listen to debates here the Secretary of State and particularly the Under-Secretary seem to be discussing the education affairs of Strathclyde. It seems strange to me that I cannot get answers—the Under-Secretary will confirm that he has received a great many letters from my constituents about various problems—yet he can go on television and talk about the problems of Strathclyde. Springburn is in Strathclyde. Why can I not have answers about the very serious problems in my constituency?
  Elmvale school, a primary school, has been earmarked for closure in spite of the fact that new building is due to take place in the area. In addition, a housing estate has been cleared and the Under-Secretary's colleague responsible for housing has stated that he is prepared to see Government money go into that estate—the Fernbank scheme—to turn it into one of the "Quality street" areas that have been discussed in connection with Glasgow.
  I welcome all types of housing in my constituency from both the public and the private sector—although there does not seem to be much from the public sector coming our way. If housing is built and families come in, they will need schools. It would be shameful if this school were to be closed and then in a few years' time we had young couples with children wanting a primary school. I would ask the Minister, when he replies to the debate, to tell us whether this Bill will do anything to help that situation.
  Up the road from the Elmvale school is the Colston secondary school. Because of the high unemployment in the area, many adults are coming back to that school to sit alongside the present pupils in an attempt to get their O-levels and highers and have a better qualification for jobs which do not exactly grow on trees in that area. In Rosemount, in the Garngad area and the Roystonhill area, a very deprived area, nursery facilities are just not available. Rather than close the school here, I do not see why we should not make the empty classrooms available for children under five, of whom there are many.

  75
  I have asked questions and made comments—I hope that the Minister bears this in mind—about a primary school known as St. Rock's. Because of Strathclyde's road building programme and with the encouragement of the Government, if this school closes, the little children who now attend it, some of them only four and a half years of age, will have to negotiate the main Townhead interchange, which includes the M8 motorway. Those who use that motorway in their cars sometimes take their lives in their hands, yet young children may have to negotiate that motorway, the underpasses and the rest. This is not a good thing for children and it is only reasonable that parents should argue for the retention of this school.
  Another school that I should like to mention and about which there has been a great deal of activity from the parents is a first-class primary school with an excellent academic record and atmosphere. We have heard Government Members talk about co-operation between teachers and parents: one could not find a better atmosphere in that respect than at St. Bede's primary school. It is open plan and, as a result, disabled children attend it at present. There has been a good deal of discussion about integration for the disabled rather than separation: it exists in St. Bede's primary school.
  The interesting thing about that school that I would like to put on record is that an official from the Glasgow area of Strathclyde said that she saw no point in closing the school because the surplus classrooms, of which there were not many, could be used for under-fives and nursery facilities. That was an official from Strathclyde. When the parents pursued that avenue, the official clammed up. She was told by her superiors to say nothing further.
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman because I am interested in the development of nursery facilities. Would it not be appropriate for the Minister to tell her, given that he is somewhat under the influence of the Prime Minister, that when, many years ago, she promised that every child wanting nursery education should have it, we in Scotland would welcome delivery of that promise rather than of a promise that nobody wants?
  Mr. Martin: I agree with the hon. Member. I know that the Under-Secretary carries a great deal of influence in Downing street and may be able to get that message across.
  I have it on good authority from the parents at St. Bede's that the Strathclyde official was told that, because of the pressure and because of the activities of parents in trying to keep the school open, she must keep out of it and say no more about nursery school education.
  I understand the plight of a local authority if it is forced to close schools because of population difficulties, but if an official comes up with an idea like this, why tell him or her to be quiet and say nothing further? It will not inspire confidence in the local authority. It does not help the parents. It creates a suspicion that, no matter what they campaign for, somehow or other the authority will step in and override their wishes.
  I do not like to criticise a Labour authority but I feel entitled to criticise fairly when I feel that an injustice is being perpetrated in my constituency. One of the many complaints that I have about Strathclyde is that parents
  76
  and elected members were told that there would be consultation, that there would be what were known as area review committees. It has been put to me that Strathclyde was not required by statute to have them. That is fair enough. But I know from my industrial relations experience that if a boss need not consult but does consult, he must accept the result of such consultations. There is no point in telling people that they will be consulted and that they will be given a fair trial but when it is all over they will be executed anyway, but that is what seems to have happened with the area review committees.
  For months, parents went to evening meetings. They gave evidence to these committees, excellent evidence. Many of them sat for hours in the planning department, finding out how many houses would be built in the coming five years in their area so that they could produce good, solid evidence.
  The area review committee accepted that many of the schools due for the chop were to be kept open. That was their recommendation, and what happened? The region met in Seamill, on the Ayrshire coast, and within a weekend all the work that had been done by the review committees and the parents was thrown out. I was told that, because some of the area review committees bottled out, someone else would have to make the decision for them. I think that that is shameful and the worst type of public relations.
  We are talking about parent power. Had the parents in my area in Strathclyde, and in Paisley as well, not demonstrated outside Strathclyde house, gone to their Members of Parliament and their councillors and attended public meetings, the padlock would certainly have been on the gates in a number of schools in my constituency. The situation would have been worse than the present situation, which is bad enough.
  The leader of Strathclyde region wrote to a parent in my constituency who took her disabled child to Strathclyde house to keep an appointment that he did not think that she was doing the right thing by her disabled child and that she was using him. It is shameful that such a letter should have gone to my constituent, Mrs. McDade, who is a dedicated mother. All she wants is to make sure that her disabled child gets the same chance as any other child and is able to go to a local school. For him it will not be a case of going a mile and a half or two miles along the road; it will be 13 miles, because he will have to travel to the other end of the city. It is shameful that letters of that kind should be sent to parents who are fighting for a decent chance for their children.
  I do not think that the Scottish Office, and particularly the Minister, come out of this well. The Minister went on television and said that there was no way that Paisley grammar school, Our Lady and St. Francis or Notre Dame would be closed down. When the interviewer pressed him, he said that there was going to be a parliamentary order, which went before the House not so long ago. The Chairman of the Select Committee on Procedure said that it was, in effect, illegal.
  I do not begrudge these schools being saved just because I am failing to get my own school saved, but I feel that it is wrong for the Minister to defend some schools when many parents in other parts of Strathclyde cannot get an answer through their Members of Parliament and are told that it is a matter for Strathclyde. What is wrong with Colston? Why cannot Colston get the same attention as Our Lady and St. Francis? I do not begrudge Our Lady

  77
  and St. Francis being kept open, but when the Minister visited that school he should have taken a wee drive up the London road into the heart of Bridgeton, the east end of Glasgow, where the poorest of the poor live. Yet they have an excellent school, St. Mungo's academy. There is a danger—the Glasgow hierarchy have spoken about this—that, if Our Lady and St. Francis is kept open, St. Mungo's, which has a great reputation and was founded for the children in the east end of Glasgow when state education was not available, could be lost.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Forsyth): Could I just point out to the hon. Gentleman that I visited Our Lady and St. Francis in the early part of the summer, before there was any proposal for a closure from Strathclyde?
  Furthermore, on the basis of the information that has been made available to me, Our Lady and St. Francis would not fall within the scope of the regulations which were laid before the House because the percentage occupancy would be below the 80 per cent. figure.
  Mr. Martin: It is interesting that the Minister should say that, but he gave the clear impression that he was putting up a fight for Our Lady and St. Francis to the exclusion of other schools. If he is now saying something different, I hope that the parents of the pupils of Our Lady and St. Francis take note of what he has to say. But I still make the point that Strathclyde—I am more critical of Strathclyde on this issue than any other Labour Member—has to look at the overall position, whereas the Minister has taken the comfortable position of highlighting one or two schools. One school being saved can be the death of another.
  Mr. Buchan: Does my hon. Friend agree with me that we would welcome a commitment from the Government to meet Strathclyde region now before coming to a hurried decision about any of these matters? Would that not be helpful to everybody?
  Mr. Martin: I agree with my hon. Friend. Had that happened earlier, it would have saved me from being in the awkward position that I am in at the moment. I would have been happy to see Ministers and the leaders of Strathclyde region getting together on this issue. I believe that, if Strathclyde had had more resources from Government, that would have eased the situation. The handling of the situation is to be criticised and the Government deserve some criticism. My hon. Friend is right that perhaps the two parties should get together.
  The thing that worries me is that almost every major industry in my constituency has been lost and there has been little in the way of initiatives from the Government. Other areas have enterprise zones and all the rest of it, but not Springburn. The only help for children under the age of 16 in my area is a decent education. I want the people responsible to make sure that they are provided with a decent education.
  I know the difficulty that my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) has with regard to Paisley grammar, the so-called magnet school. Like the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), on principle I sent my children to the local catchment area comprehensive school, and as there was a year between them, they were in the same intake. Quite frankly, I regretted that decision, because it was a bad school and left a lot to be
  78
  desired. But once children are in a school they do not want to leave, because their friends are there. There were a lot of problems in that school.
  I would tackle the magnet schools in the following way. If there was evidence that one school was attracting a lot of pupils, I would look at the surrounding schools and find out why parents were voting with their feet. They are not always voting for the so-called snob value. I know that Notre Dame and Our Lady and St. Francis have a nice ring to them, but if parents are walking past schools to go to the magnet schools I want to know what the problem is. Is it the teachers? I know that teachers are well trained and have all the qualifications, but there are bad teachers just as there are bad engineers and bad people in all the professions—including bad MPs. That is the way that I would tackle a magnet school.
  I do not think that it is a good idea to put a padlock on the door when the magnet schools are bulging at the seams, because the problem could be solved by getting the children to go to other schools. That creates a great deal of resentment.
  The position about school boards may be the same as with tenants' associations, parent-teacher associations and community councils. It is the stalwarts who are left to run the organisations. There will be a big turnout at a meeting of a tenants' association when there is to be a rent rise or when the lift in a block of multi-storey flats breaks down. But for the day-to-day work of the association, the organisers are lucky if there are half a dozen people at meetings.
  We are talking about direct elections to school boards. The Minister will recall that, when Wheatley brought in the reorganisation of local government, he said that community councils should be elected directly. In the early days, there was much interest. I was the returning officer for an adjoining ward in Maryhill and there was a big turnout. Now the same community council can hardly get a quorum because of the lack of interest. That aspect of school boards worries me.
  Reference has been made to the fact that someone ma .y be on a school board because he wants to make sure that his child is well looked after at school. We know that, in parent-teacher associations, the people who are most interested are the parents of children starting off on their O-levels and their highers. When the children have passed their examinations, there is a new intake of parents in the PTA. The Minister should realise that the same problem will arise with school boards.
  I reiterate that Strathclyde and the Minister should get together to resolve the problems of proposed school closures in my constituency and to make sure that children get a decent education.
  7.31 pm
  Mr. Allan Stewart: The House will, as always, have listened with great respect to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin). Obviously it is not for me to comment on the points which he made about his constituency, but I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister and the Opposition Front Bench will pay attention to what the hon. Gentleman said about parental choice and magnet schools. All afternoon we have been hearing from other Opposition Members that parents choose particular schools solely because of their snob value. In my experience, that is nonsense.

  79
  Before turning to the main theme of the debate, I want to deal with one or two other points. My hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) was a little unfair to the Leader of the Opposition. The background to the quote about the Himalayas is that the Leader of the Opposition made a 50-minute speech to the Scottish Labour party conference and did not once mention devolution. The right hon. Gentleman is to be congratulated on, and credited with, getting some of the priorities about Scottish matters properly into prospective.
  The hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) referred to me many times in relation to Paisley grammar school, which is not in my constituency; the House should appreciate that it is not in his constituency either. It is in the constituency of—
  Mr. Buchan: Paisley is divided into Paisley, North and Paisley, South. The catchment area runs across both constituencies. I am affected by everything that happens in Paisley, North. I was also speaking for my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, North (Mr. Adams). The hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) should not equate my position with his. With respect, his constituency is not within Paisley.
  Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman is getting a bit touchy. All I was doing was making the point that Paisley grammar school is not in his constituency. Of course, I know that it is close to Paisley.
  Today the hon. Member clarified the position in important respects in relation to what he and the hon. Member for Paisley, North (Mr. Adams) believe. As I understand their position, they do not agree with Strathclyde's proposal for three non-denominational schools in Paisley, but they do not want the Government to have power to affect that decision. As I also understand it—I shall happily give way to the hon. Member for Paisley, South if I am wrong—he and his hon. Friend want four non-denominational schools in Paisley but one of them would not be Paisley grammar school. I think that is what the hon. Gentleman was saying.
  Mr. Buchan: I want Paisley grammar and Merksworth to be merged. We have got the best building in Merksworth and they should be merged. That seems to be manifest.
  Mr. Stewart: Of course, the majority of parents of children at Paisley grammar do not want Merksworth. That is the whole point of the debate.
  As my right hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside, (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) and others have said, the amendment on the Order Paper in the names of the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues is curious. It criticises the proposals in the Bill because they only pay
  "lip service to the genuine need to encourage parental involvement".
  So the Labour party is saying that the Bill does not go far enough and that there should be greater powers laid down in legislation for parental involvement. The Labour party wants to increase the legislative provision for parental involvement. That is not the theme of what we have heard from Opposition Members. Every one of the criticisms of the Bill by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) was in precisely the opposite direction. He wants fewer parents on school boards. He is concerned
  80
  about the powers to involve parents in consultations on books and other facilities referred to in clause 9. He is concerned about the delegation of further powers.
  The hon. Member for Paisley, South, who has slipped out of the Chamber for a moment, made a long speech explaining Labour party policy. As I understood, the Labour party is in favour of parental involvement. That is all he said, minute after minute after minute. There were no specific proposals. One has to conclude from the debate that it is the Labour party which is only paying lip service to the whole principle of parental involvement.
  The second part of the Opposition amendment is that they are opposed to the Bill because it is a paving measure for opting out. This is probably the first time that an Opposition have opposed a Bill because they are opposed to something which is not in the Bill—a rather unusual position for the Opposition to take. The idea that the Bill is a paving measure for opting out is mistaken. The two concepts can be related in structural terms but they are significantly different. School boards are essentially about parental involvement. Opting out is essentially about parental choice. There is a relationship between the two but school boards are not a prerequisite for opting out.
  Mr. Dalyell: Can the hon. Gentleman help the House? Did the Prime Minister or any senior official at Downing street talk to the hon. Gentleman about the proposed amendment which was mentioned in the letter? Was it discussed with him?
  Mr. Stewart: I can tell the hon. Gentleman the precise position. I do not think that there has been any secret over a long period that I am in favour of the House considering opting out. It is well known that I wrote to the Prime Minister on behalf of constituents about Paisley grammar school. After the decision had been announced by the Government I wrote again to Ministers saying that I was delighted with the new regulations but proposed to pursue the idea of tabling an amendment or new clause on opting out. I never discussed the matter personally with the Prime Minister or anyone else in Downing street. There are all sorts of allegations about conspiracies, but my position has been clear for a long time to anyone interested in it.
  We already have opting out in Scotland, so it is not alien or new or unwanted. We have it in the form of the Jordanhill school, to which the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) referred. He rightly said that the parents at Jordanhill school wanted to opt in to the regional authority, but the regional authority—I do not blame Strathclyde for it, given the position it was in—said it did not want Jordanhill school. So the parents took the next route, which was opting out. The route may have been different but the result was the same. Notre Dame school would be in precisely the same position—it wanted to remain as a regional authority school, but the authority does not want the school. So if, in future, there were opting out, pupils of Notre Dame would be in essentially the same position as those of Jordanhill. I hope that the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg) will make the Labour party's position clear on this. If the Opposition are wholly opposed to opting out, they are saying that a Labour Government would close Jordanhill school—the inevitable result of adopting that position.

  81
  Opposition Members have made great play of believing that there is no demand for opting out. If there is none, or if it is minimal, as the hon. Member for Garscadden said it was, why are they so worried about it?
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing: To follow the hon. Gentleman's argument to its logical conclusion, if he is basing it on the use of evidence, why do not he and his hon. Friends accept the clear evidence of support for devolution of powers for Scotland, including powers to run the education system?
  Mr. Stewart: Tempted as I am to use this opportunity to explain my view of devolution at enormous length, I am sure, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you would swiftly rule me out of order if I did so.
  The essential point about opting out is that it gives people a choice. Nothing will happen unless they want it to happen—unless the Scots want it to happen.
  I want to comment on the criticism of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that has been voiced in the debate. We constantly hear from Opposition Members that she does not care about Scotland and is not interested in it. Then when it becomes clear that she is interested and involved in a particular issue she is accused of gross interference with the Secretary of State. Opposition Members cannot have it both ways.
  The debate has also shown that Opposition Members are confused about the original proposals and the proposals as amended. The Government are to be congratulated because the consultation process was clearly real and clearly mattered, and the proof is that the proposals were changed, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside said, in a number of significant ways.
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: The hon. Gentleman said that school boards were about parental involvement. The Government's proposals are about parental control—a majority of parents in control. Is it not clear that the representations from parents have shown that they do not want that? They want involvement, not control.
  Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman made that allegation and said in his speech that he was receiving many representations from parents who were opposed to the Bill, and I do not dispute his description of his mail bag. But it is significant that the Scottish Parent-Teacher Council said, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North mentioned:
  "we can now reiterate that we are broadly in agreement with the provisions of the Bill."
  So if members of the council were hon. Members they would vote to give the Bill a Second Reading. That does not mean that they agree with all its details. The organisation speaks on behalf of about 500 parent-teacher groups throughout Scotland. I attended one of its conferences one Saturday morning in Glasgow and the impression I received from everyone there was that they were in favour of the Bill and would make detailed representations on it. I know of no evidence to suggest that that is not the broad view of parents and those involved in education in Scotland.
  There were reservations about the original proposals—about the Secretary of State's powers to enforce the pace of change, about school boards perhaps being unrepresentative and about the involvement and professional judgment of teachers. All those categories of concern have been met by the changes that have been outlined by my
  82
  right hon. and learned Friend. The original power of general order has been removed. Further powers have been inserted in the Bill to ensure that a school board can seek to acquire extra powers only if it can show broad parental support. That means that the reservations about unrepresentative groups were met. It is clear that the school board will have no involvement in determining curricular matters, which are for the professional judgment of teachers.
  The revised proposals command widespread support and are sensible, and I have no doubt that the result will be more effective parental involvement in school education in Scotland, to the benefit of all.
  7.48 pm
  Mr. Tony Worthington: This is, in many ways, a strange debate, because the proposal before us is so small-scale and innocuous that one wonders why it excites so much attention. Compared with other parts of the world, there is no doubt that Scotland has little parental involvement in education. It is agreed on the Left and the Right of the political spectrum that there has not been adequate parental involvement in Scottish education. It is strange that I have heard no one adequately challenge the use of the term "parental involvement". Is it not ludicrous that we have been talking about a minimum of four and a maximum of seven people being involved in a school, and calling that parental involvement?
  This Bill is not about parental involvement; it is about an added tier of management in schools, not necessarily acting as a massive stimulus to parental involvement. Unfortunately, as the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) said, throughout the autumn, winter and spring, discussion of this Bill, which concerns school boards, has been the dominant issue in Scottish education. It is not the dominant issue in Scottish education. The dominant issues are resources, crumbling school buildings and the need for a genuine partnership between the Government and the local authorities. The dominant, issues also include nursery education and, quite clearly, in an unexamined way, the Under-Secretary of State has cancelled a long-standing review into nursery education. That was because if the value of nursery education had been reviewed, that would have involved resources. However, we are not discussing that, nor are we discussing education throughout life.
  Something happening in my constituency has more to do with parental involvement than has the Bill. It is about the involvement of adults in education. In the secondary schools in my constituency, about 700 parents have returned to school. They are parents and they have now entered into a real partnership in serious education. That is not the sort of education that we are discussing.
  Why has the Bill excited such fervour? It is because the motive of the Government is to pave the way for opting out proposals. That cannot be denied. I listened to the Secretary of State and watched the face of the Under-Secretary of State and I know which of them is telling the truth. When the Under-Secretary of State was talking about opting out, every now and then he forgot himself and exhibited genuine enthusiasm for opting out. That is where he is trying to drive the Scottish education system. If that is so, let us have it honestly.
  Parental choice is a key concept and we are all in favour of it, except where one person's choice is the denial of another's freedom. That is the borderline that we must

  83
  define. In some circumstances, people exercising their choice will damage the education system of other people. Sometimes we cannot have an unfettered choice. If all the citizens of Dundee wanted to send their children to Harris academy, some of them would have to be refused, because it would be crazy to have the other schools lying empty. That would be a waste of public resources.
  Sometimes the motivation that seems to lie behind parental choice is about creating enclaves of better-off people who are fleeing from low-status populations. That occurs in some cases. People can use the mechanism of property prices and gain control of a school. In that way they can say that they will not be infected by people that they do not like and can get that sort of cachet for a school. We have proof of that in Paisley. Undoubtedly the best buildings, resources and playing fields are available in Paisley grammar school. I understand that the education authority could tell Paisley grammar school that it could move lock, stock and barrel, that it could take the rector, staff and pupils and put them into Merksworth high school and call it Paisley grammar school. Would Paisley grammar school buy that? No, it would not, because it would have to mix with Ferguslie park.
  The school would be setting up an enclave of separate and privileged pupils. Many people would want to be in that enclave and a means would have to be found of choosing the pupils to attend that school. That could be done in a number of ways. It could be done by catchment areas, but that might let in some unfortunate people. It could be done by ability, by going back to testing, or by fees. We must face that. We had opting out before. I am not speaking about Jordanhill school. When the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) spoke about that, he forgot to mention that the Government were in a hole over that school. It was just before the election and they had fading hopes that they could regain Glasgow, Hillhead. Therefore, it was not a decision in principle.
  We have had grant-aided schools before. In 1968, Scotland had 29 graint-aided schools, 27 of which charged fees and selected their own pupils. Seventy per cent. of the pupils had an IQ of over 110 and 80 per cent. were from social classes 1 and 2 and virtually none was from social classes 4 and 5. That is what opting out is about. It is about creaming off and selecting. Under an opting-out system, the Government would ensure that their grant-aided schools were better funded and more generously treated than other schools, and the Government would still put the hems on the local education authorities.
  The way that the Secretary of State has behaved on opting out has demeaned his office. A massive reason for having a Secretary of State for Scotland is that there is something culturally valuable and distinctive about having a separate education system. I can say that because I have experience of both systems. The Secretary of State should tell powerful people that they cannot transplant the opting-out proposals from one place to another and that the separate traditions must be respected.
  It is striking that there has been no justification from the Secretary of State and there will be no justification from the Under-Secretary of State for the proposals that arise and draw strength from Scottish traditions. We are in a constitutionally dangerous position. It is not just that there are 50 Labour Members and only 10 Tory Members
  84
  representing Scotland, but that a minority Government, on issues such as the curriculum and assessment or the opting-out proposals, are under the thumb of the Prime Minister. People will become cynical about whether the Secretary of State is safeguarding the Scottish education system.
  One of the most important traditions in Scotland, and certainly the one that most impressed me in its education system, is that there is the spirit of what James Scotland in his book on Scottish education called militant democracy, caring about those who are at the bottom of the heap. It is saying that in the education system one must think about such people first. I should like to use an 1817 quote from a historian. It is one that could not be used about the English system:
  "The attention which has been paid to the education of the lower orders"—
  that is not my phrase—
  "of the Scottish nation has been proverbial over Europe for several centuries past."
  That is very important but totally lacking in the spirit of the Bill.
  The sad thing is that opting out hangs over the Bill. It is totally legitimate for us to say that we know what the Under-Secretary of State is up to. This is a paving measure, a step on the road to opting out. He must say from which Scottish tradition he draws his sense of custodianship of the Scottish education system. Some simple things need to be done. No one will mourn the passing of school councils. As a former representative in Strathclyde, I know that we quickly realised that we had made the wrong decision about school councils in terms of having groups of secondary schools and their feeder primaries.
  Strathclyde council would have loved to have a school council for every school, but—it is interesting to note that the real cost of £20 million is now coming out—we could never have gone to the Secretary of State, with the grip that he has tried to impose on the education system, and said that we intended to spend an extra £10 million next year on creating extra administrators to run the new school councils system. How could we have done that, especially when the Government would have said that they would claw back the money and that we would pay three times as much—in other words, £30 million?
  Mr. Dalyell: If that question had been put in my constituency or anywhere in Lothian, the quick riposte would have been, "What about the school drains, the walls that are cracking, the ceilings that are peeling and the windows that are boarded up at Queensferry high school? What about some basic maintenance?"
  Mr. Worthington: I could not agree more. It is a massive job setting up school boards for 1,200 schools, although the number is falling. There is no doubt that we should have been encouraging the teaching profession to be much less protective. A secure profession involves other people. It is not frightened by other people's involvement. When I was with Strathclyde council, we were talking about some degree of financial devolution to schools, because some of the procedures by which books were ordered were labyrinthine and should have been stopped. There is much that we can encourage, but we should not reduce the ability of the education authority.
  Mr. Michael Forsyth: I am fascinated by the hon. Gentleman's argument that Strathclyde council could not

  85
  do anything because the Government would not let it spend the money. Why is it that, as soon as our consultative paper was published last summer, both Strathclyde and Central region councils fell over themselves to produce proposals to have school councils for individual schools and produced leaflets explaining how they were going to do this, when they had had the power to do so since 1975? Are they not at least open to the accusation that, seeing that the Government had identified a popular measure and under the pressure of our consultative paper, they should have reacted?
  Mr. Worthington: The council's first proposal to change its school councils proposals was in the 1986 regional manifesto. Work had been going on. That proposal surfaced before the Under-Secretary of State put forward his proposals. In fighting the 1986 election, we were clear about that proposal—it is written down; indeed, I wrote it—but we had to reform the system of school councils.
  However, we must not lessen the ability of the education authority to act in a strategic way. There have been some considerable steps forward in recent years by the local education authorities which, because of their size, can now think in terms of broad development of policy. Under opting-out proposals, the danger is that those authorities would be operating rump schools.
  I wish to make a point which has not been mentioned but is of great significance. I am not putting this point in a party political way. It is a problem that the education authorities and the Secretary of State need to tackle—non-attendance at school. Under the original proposals, non-attendance was to be tackled by the school boards. I am relieved that the problem will not be tackled by the new school boards because that would tend to get in the way. One has to face the fact that the major function of all school councils, certainly those with which I was involved, was to consider the problem of non-attendance at school.
  The way in which non-attendance at school is dealt with in Scotland is diabolical. If it is of any benefit to anybody, it is of benefit to the truant. I hope that the Secretary of State will be willing to open up this issue and have discussions with local education authorities as to how it would be possible to get all the relevant agencies round the table and discuss matters more sensibly.
  In conclusion, we are all in favour of parental involvement, but the Bill is not about parental involvement. All the research of recent years has shown that the parent is the key factor in the school and in supporting the child. However, if we obtain such parental involvement, schools will have to operate differently. They will have to be resourced differently. Links between home and school will be different from what they are at present. That is the kind of parental involvement that Opposition Members wish to see. Parental involvement that involves four to seven parents in a school attending meetings is a charade for involvement.
  8.5 pm
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing (Moray): I listened with great fascination to the speech of the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington), but the tradition that he defines as being relevant to the Scottish psyche and the Scottish approach to education is perhaps in itself indicative of why the people of Scotland voted in a particular way at the last general election. Many of the overall strategies and philosophies of the Government are
  86
  not acceptable to the people of Scotland because they do not show the caring face about which we in Scotland are deeply concerned.
  I have also listened with interest to other speeches. Unfortunately, I had to miss one or two speeches because I had to return to Standing Committee D where a vote was taking place, but I heard the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) speak on the issue of opting out. I find his argument difficult to follow. He spoke about the validity of evidence in supporting his arguments, but no survey has been conducted in Scotland which shows that there is substantial support for opting out. There are no statistics to support that argument.
  It does not seem to me to be appropriate that, because of one or two cases in specific parts of the country, we are now faced with the possibility of local diktats bringing forward national legislation. I do not see that, because there are particular problems affecting the constituency of the hon. Member for Eastwood, his argument should be followed through in every other part of Scotland. Using a specific argument to support a general case is surely something that we in this House should avoid.
  Like the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie, I believe that the Bill is most inappropriate at this stage. People in my constituency do not rush up to me and talk about school boards or about opting out. When they talk about education problems, they are more interested in the curriculum and assessment issues that are not being dealt with in the Bill. They are more concerned about whether money will be made available for school building programmes. For example, phase 5 of the Milne's high school, Fochabers, may not be completed as early as possible because of financial restrictions. That leaves the school with a split site, which we do not want.
  I speak for head teachers in primary schools. They are having to teach about three of four days a week, and yet, if they had an extra two pupils in their schools, an extra teacher would be allocated. As yet we have had no sign from the Scottish Office as to when the staffing reviews will be published. Such anomalies can be eradicated to enable my head teachers to do the work that they so wish to do within their schools. There is a variety of education issues which abound in Scotland at present and to which the Bill has no, or very little, relevance.
  When we discussed education in the Scottish Grand Committee last month, I argued that Scotland needed an opportunity to consider the broad spectrum of education issues and to draw up a national strategy for our education system. There is no doubt in my mind and in the minds of many hon. Members and of those directly involved in education that the Scottish education system has been suffering as a result of underfunding and under-resourcing under the Government. The sooner that we can consider how best to advance Scottish education, the better. It is very unfortunate that we do not have a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs as we could have examined the education system in Scotland in great detail to ensure that policies are enacted to the benefit of all pupils throughout Scotland.
  Everyone believes in parental involvement in schools. It is rather like being in favour of love and peace; no one in his right mind would be against them. However, the Bill is not about parental involvement in the sense that we understand it.
  Reference has been made to the fact that other European countries have systems of parental involvement

  87
  that are much better than ours. I have analysed those systems in the European Community to discover whether the proposals in the Bill compare favourably with the systems in other countries. There are elements of similarity in the proposals in the Bill and the systems elsewhere. However, no executive powers like those in Denmark will be granted to the councils under this Bill. There are many other differences which reveal that there will not be the kind of parental involvement that the Minister suggests.
  Mr. Michael Forsyth: I want to correct the hon. Lady. As I recall, she tabled a parliamentary question about the visit to Denmark, although I may be wrong about that. Far from having no executive powers, the powers granted to school boards in Denmark, which consist entirely of parent representatives, go so far as to give them the power to approve the school timetable and the textbooks used in the school. We have excluded those matters from the Bill. Therefore, she is right to state that our proposed system differs from that in Denmark. The Danish system goes a great deal further and when the BBC interviewed trade unionists, teachers, parents and others in every walk of life with an interest in education it could not find anyone to speak against the Danish system.
  Mrs. Ewing: I tabled a parliamentary question about the Danish visit to establish the visit's costs. It was interesting to note that the costs would have covered at least one major capitation fee for a large school in Scotland.
  Having read the document prepared by the European Commission, I understand that many of the powers in the Government's proposals are not included in the Danish example and are not listed in the delegated powers contained as possible roles for school boards in the Bill.
  My basic concern about the proposals is that they will lead to a very bureaucratic system of administration and involvement. When we consider the way in which the elections must be conducted, the suggested number of meetings, the amount of paper work involved and the co-options on to the school boards should any vacancies arise, we realise that a variety of bureaucratic administration will exist. However, the Government have told us that they want to streamline bureaucracy and eradicate it. Yet we are imposing a very bureaucratic approach to parental involvement on a hard-pressed education system.
  Subsections (4) and (5) of clause 17 mean that hundreds of school boards could knock at the doors of local authorities demanding information and the local authorities will come under pressure. The demand will have to be serviced by the education authorities, and that will lead to additional pressures on local authorities.
  I have always believed that the Government would develop school councils rather than establish a totally new system. The Minister might be interested to know that some time ago, in my dim and distant past in 1974, before I entered the House, I served on a school council in Stirling at St. Modan's school. We tried to anticipate the proposals for school councils and tried to make them work. The central region responded very effectively to the Macbeth report in 1980 and to the consultative document in 1984. It is strange that the consultation document was issued by the Government in the last Parliament in 1984, yet no
  88
  attempt was made to reform school councils, or to give them additional powers to build on what was already effective. As the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) and the right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) stressed, school councils have worked very effectively in the Grampian region.
  Mr. Salmond: Is my hon. Friend aware that, when she was serving assiduously on the school council in Stirling, the Minister was serving on a student representative council in St. Andrew's? The ideas he proposed in that body are just as bizarre as today's proposals.
  Mrs. Ewing: I am aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) attended the same university as the Minister. I suggest that the Minister's experience at St. Andrew's would have encouraged him to adopt a flexible approach to Scottish education because he switched courses midstream and benefited from the flexible system in Scotland.
  The hon. Member for Eastwood and the former Member for Argyll and Bute, Mr. John MacKay, did not have the stamina, dedication or commitment to bring forward reforms which would have been widely acceptable. If we analyse what has been said about school boards and parental involvement, we find that all the organisations and parents tell us that they want the school council system expanded, developed and given additional powers, using what already exists as a foundation rather than replacing it with the Government's bureaucratic approach.
  Various statistics have been bandied around about the costs of the proposals, ranging from £20 million to £5 million from the Treasury Bench. There seems to be a great deal of vagueness about the costings. I have already referred to the elections and the duplication of ballot papers, which will have to be posted to every parent because one paper should not go to two parents in one household and each should be entitled to a single letter. Each board will have a clerk. If the clerk is not appointed internally, the clerk will have to be paid. If boards meet during the day, will appropriate cover be offered for teachers who have to attend board meetings? Will additional staff be appointed to fill the vacancies? If meetings are held in the evening, will teachers be expected, as part of their contract, to attend? Will any compensation be offered to them in the form of time off in lieu or additional payments?
  Travelling and subsistence allowances are to be paid to board members. If we are to pay such allowances, why not consider the payment of attendance allowances? If meetings are held during the day, why not pay financial loss allowances in the way that we pay councillors? If people are to be effective, we must cast the net as wide as possible and consider the financial implications in the Bill. I suspect that the Scottish Office has not done its arithmetic effectively on this matter.
  I want to emphasise my fears about dividing the teaching profession from the parents. That becomes most obvious when we consider the Bill's implications for head teachers. I am not claiming that all head teachers are perfect or ideal, nor would I say that all hon. Members or anyone else were perfect or ideal. However, head teachers have reached their positions after years of training and experience and invariably because of widespread support from fellow members of the profession. They should

  89
  therefore be listened to with great care. However, the implications of clauses 5, 9 and 10 for head teachers are that the Government are pushing extremely heavy responsibilities and duties on the shoulders of our head teachers, but are not giving them back any additional powers.
  Mr. Buchan: We must also consider the proposal for the appointment of the headmaster in which there is a veto by deleting one leet and adding another. There will be competition for the appointment of headmasters. God help me if I had ever applied in such a position.
  Mrs. Ewing: The hon. Gentleman has made a valid point that I was going to cover. I endorse his concern about the system of appointments of head teachers as that is affected by the proposals in the Bill.
  How on earth are busy head teachers—there are far too few women head teachers in Scotland, but perhaps that is a matter for another debate—to find additional time to meet the responsibilities and duties being placed upon them? They are being asked to give advice to the school hoards, to submit spending plans to the boards—and they cannot proceed with any spending plans unless they are approved by the boards—and to issue policy statements on curriculum assessment, discipline rules and school uniform. A variety of pressures are being placed on our head teachers, but they receive nothing in return.
  I am deeply concerned about head teachers not being able to spend their budgets without the approval of the board. I was a principal teacher of remedial education and I remember filling in all the requisition forms. I was trained as a specialist in that subject and I doubt whether many people would have understood the nature of the equipment and books that I requested. However, they were vital for the children in my class. It will be extremely difficult for many parents to understand why particular requisitions are being made. If we are reaching the stage where a board can control a school's per capita budget, we are moving quickly to external control of the curriculum and the privatisation of the Scottish education system as we understand it.
  Those are a few of the many points that have led me to my decision to vote against the Bill. I have heard nothing from Conservative Members to persuade me to reconsider my decision.
  I am sure that many amendments will be made to the Bill in Committee. As usual, the English Conservative majority will come trooping through the Lobby, heavy footed, to vote down the aspirations of the Scottish people. But I hope that all those hon. Members who have emphasised the need for consultation and the fact that no one need fear consultation will support the motion in the name of the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel), if we are fortunate enough to have a Division on it. If the Bill were committed to a Special Standing Committee, it would enable hon. Members to request oral evidence and it would offer a genuine opportunity for consultation with Scottish education establishments, parent-teacher organisations and parent-teacher councils. All those organisations could be invited to address the Committee and, at the end of the day, if their views were listened to we might emerge with a different set of proposals from those in the Bill.
  8.22 pm
  Mr. Michael Fallon: If my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State needed any further support for the Bill, he must have been somewhat encouraged by the speech made by the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington). We were told that the Bill was not really necessary because Strathclyde was just getting there. If, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you believe that, by some pure coincidence, Strathclyde was just discovering the need for parental involvement at the time that my right hon. and hon. Friends were considering extending that involvement as a matter of policy in Scotland, you will probably also believe that it was a sheer coincidence that the Inner London education authority suddenly discovered the need for excellence at the same time that the boroughs were being given the power to opt out of that authority.
  As a Scot with an English constituency, I warmly welcome the Bill because I do not want to see Scotland denied any of the advantages that we already have in England. Most of the provisions in this legislation were enacted in this House in the Education (No. 2) Act 1986. They are already coming into force in England and have already been warmly welcomed here. Certainly in my constituency parents are excited by and involved in the various elections and the new opportunities that are being extended, not by the Education Reform Bill but by the 1986 Act that is already on the statute book which allows them to play a much greater part in the management of their schools.
  I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will not take it amiss when I say that this is hardly a radical Bill. Indeed, it is hard to see how any hon. Member on either side of the House—I must exempt the Scottish National party because it always seems to adopt the most curious position on Scottish affairs—can possibly object to the Bill on Second Reading. The steps already taken in Scotland by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State to extend parental choice of school and to provide more information about schools are incomplete without giving parents the power and ability to act on that wide choice and greater information and that power and ability are summed up in the words "parental involvement".
  I readily concede, as has been argued, that there are great strengths in the present Scottish education system. It has some attractive features when compared with the English education system. But that strength depends on its heavily centralised nature, and in those local authority areas where political control rarely varies, over the years that strength has become a weakness. In fact, the system has become fossilised. It has become almost Soviet in its direction and uniformity, because there is a huge lacuna at its heart, and that lacuna is the absence of the involvement of parents in the running of their schools.
  The new board proposed in the Bill will complete and underpin the degree of parental involvement in the new system that will make teachers and teaching more accountable and will, for the first time, give Scottish parents a proper influence and control in the running of their schools, what is taught in schools, and what is learnt in schools.
  How could anybody possibly object to the principle of such a Bill? They could do so on two counts and we did not hear either of them from the hon. Member for Glasgow,

  91
  Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). First, he could have argued that parents do not want such involvement. He was careful not to argue that. It is clearly nonsense. The 1986 Act for England has already demonstrated that once parents are given the opportunity to be more involved, to stand for election and have a greater say in the running of their schools, they leap to that opportunity, particularly where the involvement is real, where real decisions have to be taken and real issues have to be faced. The evidence put forward by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State already demonstrates that to be the case in Scotland where there are issues to be faced. Where issues such as Paisley emerge, parents do not hang back and are ready to be involved. My right hon. and learned Friend gave some interesting and substantial evidence of the extent to which parents already want to be involved.
  Secondly, the hon. Member for Garscadden could have argued that parents do not need to be involved; that the present system involves them thoroughly. He did not argue that either. It is his own policy to come forward with some form of strengthened school council. If he was satisfied with the present system he would not be arguing for a stronger system of school councils. The Scottish Labour party's position on this issue is extraordinary. It claims to support the principle of greater parental involvement in schools, yet it will vote against the Bill on Second Reading tonight. It claims to be in favour of parental involvement, but all the objections raised by the hon. Member for Garscadden would have meant either fewer parents on school boards or less power for those who are on school boards.
  Finally, the amendment tabled by the Labour party seeks to claim that the Bill does not go far enough. However, it has not even bothered to pretend that its version of strengthened school councils is in any way a stronger substitute for what is in the Bill.
  If the Labour party really believed in state education in Scotland, if it really supported public sector education, it would support, not oppose, the Bill tonight. By involving parents to a much greater extent than ever before in the state education system, the Bill extends into the state system the same advantages that other people can purchase outside the state system through their cheque books. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State was right to use that phrase.
  The Bill gives to the state system the advantages of higher standards and better performance that come through the exercise of choice and the supply of information to consumers. It gives those advantages to those who cannot afford to buy outside the system. That is where the argument about the Harris academy raised earlier was very relevant.
  I know something about the Harris academy, as the children from my village went to the Harris academy. Inevitably, once those choices are extended to parents, the Harris academy will become an ever more popular school. However, the Bill is not about what is to happen to the Harris academy. The Bill is about how we can create more Harris academies. Once we start extending to parents real rights of choice that are not purchased through a cheque book, by buying a house in the catchment area, or by moving into middle-class areas of affluence, once we get a real choice for parents whether or not they have money to
  92
  purchase it as richer people do, we shall get parents all over the town saying, "Why can't my school be a little bit more like the Harris academy? Why can't the schools in our neighbourhood have the same standards? If my kid can't get into the Harris, why can't he go to a local school that is just as good?" Then the engine of consumer choice will begin to rev up, and parents will get more involved and start to demand more from the system.
  What bedevils the education system north and south of the border is not simply the level of achievement, which is worrying enough when we compare the Scottish and English systems with the French and German systems; it is the level of expectation. It is not that children do not achieve as much as they should; it is that parents no longer expect them to do so. Parents will not expect them to do so unless they are involved to a much greater extent than hitherto.
  The Bill, plus the previous extension of choice and power within the education system, represents the paperless cheque book. It enfranchises Scottish parents to a much greater extent than ever before. It gives them real power, real information about schools and the ability to choose between them. If they are dissatisfied, and if they are concerned about the way in which a school is run, it gives them the ability and the means to be involved in the management of that school and to play a part in taking key decisions.
  Therefore, I find the attitude of the Scottish Labour party wholly ambiguous. It is inconsistent with their so-called primary commitment to devolution. Time and again we are told that the Labour party wants power for the people of Scotland. When we ask them what power they want for the people of Scotland they talk about bureaucracy, more layers of government and an assembly at Edinburgh. Yet every time that my right hon. and learned Friend proposes a measure of real power for the Scottish people, Labour Members go into the Lobby and vote against us. When he proposes real power for the parents of children at Paisley grammar school they oppose us. When he proposes real choice for the users of the Scottish transport group they also oppose us. When he proposes real power and real choice for the users and retailers of Scottish electricity again they oppose us.
  Mr. Norman Hogg: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Fallon: No.
  When my right hon. and learned Friend proposes real power of choice and decision-making for council house tenants they oppose us. Finally, now when my right hon. and learned Friend comes to the House and proposes real power to the parents of all Scottish schoolchildren, Opposition Members object again. I hope that this time, having decided to vote against the Bill tonight, they will at least do us the decency of supporting their own amendment in Committee, and, where they feel that the Bill does not go far enough, coming forward with amendments to strengthen it.
  8.34 pm
  Mr. John McAllion: The hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) said that he knew something about the Harris academy in Dundee. He also said that the purpose of the Bill was to look at ways in which we could create more Harris academies throughout Scotland. By that remark, he revealed his ignorance about what is really

  93
  going on at the Harris academy. If he spoke to teachers at the Harris academy, they would admit to him that they are openly telling parents in Dundee not to send their children to that school because it is likely to damage their educational opportunities. They will be placed in overcrowded classes in annexes where the teachers are under pressure and cannot give children the attention that they get in other schools in Dundee. That is the practical remedy that the Conservative party is holding out to the people of Scotland through this legislation tonight.
  The hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) addressed the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) and asked him why, as it became clear in the debate tonight that the Government would not stand in the way of any demand in Scotland for the opportunity to opt out from the state system, they have not taken the same position in regard to a Scottish assembly. There is an overwhelming demand for a Scottish assembly, yet the Government are standing in the way of that demand and refusing to concede to the Scottish people that which they want.
  The remarks of the Secretary of State for Scotland in opening the debate were outrageous. It was a gratuitous insult to those who serve on school councils throughout Scotland for the Secretary of State to say that people of ability did not become involved in school councils in Scotland and that people of the second order gave up their time to take part in school councils. I know from personal experience when 1 served as a parent representative on my school council and as an elected representative as a regional councillor that the ability of the parents who took part in school councils was well above the standard of ability I have seen on the Conservative Benches since I arrived here almost a year ago.
  Next Sunday, there is what is described as a unique event in Scottish publishing, with the launch by the Sunday Mail newspaper of a comprehensive history of Scotland to be published in 52 weekly parts. Part one has already been sent to Scottish hon. Members. I hope they have taken the opportunity to read it as it contains an excellent introduction by Sir Alwyn Williams, principal and vice chancellor of Glasgow university, in which he attributes the distinctiveness of the Scottish way of life to our education system of historic merit. He very properly points out that the Scottish education system was imported originally, not from England but from the mainland of Europe. The hon. Member for Darlington might take note of that, as he honestly admitted that the idea behind the Bill came from England and was alien to the whole Scottish education tradition.
  Sir Alwyn also pointed out that Scottish education now ranks among Scotland's greatest all-time exports, having been successfully transplanted around the world and that, unlike England, its great success has stemmed from a broadly based secondary school curriculum which turns out very well-versed Scottish men and women. That is obvious from the Opposition Benches, if not from the Government Benches.
  Sir Alwyn concludes that the best way to safeguard Scotland's cultural heritage is to preserve its education system intact. The university of Glasgow is very fortunate in having a principal with such a perceptive insight into the great strengths and merits in the Scottish education system.
  Scotland is very unfortunate in having a Minister responsible for education who neither understands nor cares for the merits of the education system for which he
  94
  is legally responsible. The intentions of the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland with responsibility for education have never been very difficult to fathom. They are malign rather than benign. They certainly do not include, as he claimed in an article he wrote especially for the Dundee Courier, the formation of a real partnership between parents, head teachers and school staff. If those were his intentions, then his proposals for creating a parent majority on school boards would not have been persisted with right through from the consultation process to the Bill that we are debating tonight.The Secretary of State for Scotland declared the parental majority to be fundamental to the purpose of the Bill. Without parental majorities, school boards would not even be allowed to exist. Yet that very proposal cannot be anything other than divisive between parents, teachers and education authorities.
  In its response to his consultation document, the Church of Scotland's education committee told the Minister precisely that. It could not have made it any clearer. It said that it could riot accept the proposal that the parent group should have an absolute majority and that if a partnership of concerned bodies was envisaged, a parent majority was not acceptable. The Church of Scotland's education committee wanted parents to constitute a maximum of 50 per cent. on any school board. The majority of the almost 8,000 respondents to the consultation process came out against the proposal for parent majority on school boards. Even the 1980 Macbeth report on schools councils, for which this Government asked, recommended that there should be a balance of teachers and parents on school boards. It is only the Minister with responsibility for education in Scotland who wants an imbalance between teachers and parents and who wants to create an imbalance in favour of parents. That is no small matter, because it goes to the core of what school boards, as envisaged by the Government, are about. They want to have control over schooling in Scotland.
  The Secretary of State for Scotland and his friends argue on the surface that they wish to give power to parents, but beneath the surface their purpose is much more insidious. Mr. Fred Forrester of the Educational Institute of Scotland was one of the first to sense what that purpose is: to take away from or seriously to weaken the powers of elected education authorities to control the level of education provision throughout their area—for example, the power to direct special help and additional expenditure to deprived areas—and in its place to substitute what looks like parent power at school board level but what in reality are increased powers for the Secretary of State for Scotland, who can then more easily control the activities of thousands of separated and fledgling school boards than he can control powerful, elected bodies such as education authorities. As Mr. Forrester so aptly put it, for "parent power" under this Bill read "paternalism"—read more centralised and authoritarian control over another important aspect of our lives, our education system. That is the real reason why the Secretary of State has chosen to ignore the majority of respondents to the consultation process that stated their opposition to an absolute parental majority on the new school boards.
  However, the consultation process had the very worthwhile effect of making the Secretary of State climb down from the more extreme ceiling powers that he originally advocated. However, the Bill leaves an opening

  95
  through which many of the same proposals can be resurrected. The Secretary of State referred to this taking place by means of a process that he described as natural evolution. The right of individual boards to ballot parents against an authority's refusal to delegate powers means that individual schools will have the means by which they can gain control of the school's recurring budget and of staff appointments below senior staff level—the very powers that were so overwhelmingly rejected in the consultation process.
  The intention behind this provision is manifestly clear: to allow, in the long run, for the opting out process that is so loved by the Prime Minister and that has been so overwhelmingly rejected by majority opinion in Scotland.
  The Government recognise that within individual schools there exist many potential majorities that will vote to take over the ceiling powers and that, in the long run, will vote against the wishes of the minority in that school to take it out of the education system. It may be that this Bill does not technically allow for opting out, but it is a half-way house towards opting out. I take as an example the trade union legislation that was introduced not in one Bill but in a series of Bills. I foresee that the opting-out process will become a reality, not perhaps in this Bill but in the next Bill or in the one after that. It is a step-by-step process by which the Government hope to gain by stealth what they are frightened to impose on the Scottish people publicly.
  Clause 10 requires education authorities to provide information to school boards, including policy statements on the curriculum and the assessment of pupils, as well as information on the level of attainment of pupils. That paves the way for the Government's curriculum and assessment policies that were announced at the end of last year, with nationally agreed guidelines and national tests in English and mathematics. They also include new guidelines for the curriculum.
  Grove academy was mentioned earlier by the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker). Grove academy school council—the school lies within my constituency—wrote to me recently about the changes in Scottish education provision, and in particular about the proposed curriculum changes. It pointed out that it did not accept the general thrust of the new curriculum and assessment proposals. In its view, some of them are positively harmful to the educational interests of the pupils and destructive to the established Scottish approach to curriculum and assessment matters. It pointed also to the lack of education research to support the Government's confident assertions and general statements. It deplored the priority that is given to some subjects at the expense of more aesthetic subjects which will be neglected under the Government's proposals. It regretted the damage that will be done to the broad and balanced curriculum for which Scottish schools are noted. In particular, it registered its opposition to the kind of information that will be made available, for which clause 10 calls. I quote directly from the letter that the academy sent to me and to the Secretary of State for Scotland. It said:
  "The requirement that head teachers should issue statements on attainment levels should be abandoned as harmful to schools, pupils and teachers. Such statements read
  96
  out of context could produce totally erroneous impressions of the educational achievements of schools and mislead both parents and the general public."
  The view of those who will be affected by the Bill is that it is harmful, erroneous and misleading, yet the Government intend to persist with it because they are determined to pursue their policy of favouring some schools at the expense of others.
  The Grove academy school council is typical of school councils across Scotland. It does not want the divisive, destructive, class-ridden measures that are the hallmark of this Bill and of the philosophy that lies behind it. The Scottish people have rejected that philosophy time and time again. They rejected that policy less than a year ago at the ballot box by a ratio of 3:1. They voted overwhelmingly against the kind of measures for which this Government stand. They do not want parents to be set against teachers through the medium of the new school boards. They do not want schools to be set against other schools, as will happen under this Bill. They do not want educational effort and expenditure to be wasted on massive shake-ups. Far from advancing the educational interests of all pupils in Scotland, that serves merely to advance the interests of a few pupils at the expense of the majority. The Government, education authorities and Members of Parliament should listen to what parents and pupils want from the school system and the Government should act on what parents say to them. What they are saying could not be clearer. In the words of the parents of the Grove academy school council,
  "Resources should be spent on improving the staff ratios and providing enhanced facilities for the schools."
  Resources should not be wasted, as the Bill intends, on sowing division and dissatisfaction among school communities. School councils have fought a magnificent fight against the successive attacks on education in Scotland that have been mounted by this Government. Their powers and role need to be strengthened, but not in a way that brings them into conflict with other interested groups in education, or into conflict with teachers and other staff, or into conflict with elected councillors who represent the community at large.
  The way forward is through co-operation between all the groups that are interested in Scottish education. We do not want opting out of our Scottish school system. We want genuine opting in by everyone—by concerned parents, teachers, communities, education authorities and central Government—to make sure that our schools work well for all our pupils, not just for some of our pupils, which is the main purpose of the Bill. That is why hon. Members with a real interest in Scottish education will join us in the Lobby to vote against the Bill.
  8.48 pm
  Dr Lewis Moonie: This has been a fascinating debate, particularly for the speeches of Conservative Members. Unanimity on this side of the House is to be expected when Scottish business is being discussed. I was amazed by the number of veiled criticisms by Conservative Members, although they desperately tried at the same time to justify their support for the Government.
  I am reminded as much as anything else of the warring factions in the Lebanon, which are united only in their dislike of Israel and their hatred of each other. One can see sitting on the Conservative Benches the Sunnis, the

  97
  traditionalists from Kincardine and Deeside and Dumfries voicing their traditionalist views about our excellent Scottish education system, behind the Shi'ites on the Front Bench wanting to tear up the tradition. We even have a solitary Druze, from North Tayside, who unfortunately has deserted us.
  We have heard a fairly instructive—if not constructive—debate from the Conservative Benches. There was an interesting aside from the Minister. Opening the debate, he talked—I believe that he was speaking ironically—about schools being too important to be left to parents. That is the nub of this evening's argument. Schools are too important an institution to be left merely to parents, or to the staff within them, to decide what should go on inside them.
  The real question to which we should turn our minds is the role of the modern school in its community. Its role is not only to educate children, although obviously that remains the primary purpose. It is to serve as a focus for learning and recreation for everyone in the community. That applies equally to a large town school—with its extensive playing fields and facilities such as swimming pools, large gynmasia and games halls—and to a small rural school, which may be the only focus for any community activity in areas that contain no other available hall or meeting place.
  The school, then, serves a much wider function. In the course of a year, it may be used by far more people with no direct connection with it as a basic learning institution for their children than merely those involved in education, whether primary or secondary. We ought to focus on the role of the school in the community, and that is my main reason for opposing the Bill.
  There are grounds for saying that parents should have a greater say in what goes on in their children's education. I favour that. The Government, indeed, have been taken to the European Court more than once purely to establish that parents have philosophical and moral rights over the way in which their children are educated. Those rights would not, of course, be abrogated by the formation of a school board or any such body. If a parent has the temerity to disagree, that parent will still have the right for his or her view to prevail over those of the school board. That is an important facet of the argument.
  We all benefit from good schools, not just the parents who are fortunate enough to see their children pass through them at some point. It should not, therefore, be only a tiny number of parents who have control over a school's activities. Make no mistake: only a small number will become directly involved, in terms both of the small number which it is proposed will serve on the boards, and the small number who will take an interest in what is going on.
  I can envisage the procedure laid out for us in the schedules. There will be secret ballots; that is fine. On other occasions, parents will be informed through the medium of a note for children to take home. We can see it, can we not? "Here is a note from the teacher"—and it goes into the school bag. I have seen that several times with both my children. Three weeks later, when I happen to be looking through the bag for something else, out drops the note, and I discover that there was a meeting last week. That is not the most reliable medium for transmitting information about the school.
  98
  If that does not happen, what will? Will it all be done by post? How many posts are we talking about in Scotland?
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett rose—
  Dr. Moonie: Just a moment: I am enjoying myself
  There are 30,000 or 40,000. That is taking account of the councillors who may be involved. But if we consider all the parents who will send out material in the post, the estimate of £20 million may well prove greatly inadequate in postage alone.
  Mr. Bennett: There is a simple solution to the problem of school-home communication. It is a system that I used to operate when I was a schoolmaster. The children are given a tear-off slip which they must bring back to school signed by the parents, saying that they have seen it. The teacher then chases up those who have not brought back the slip.
  Dr. Moonie: The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett), whose views on many things I respect—but not, alas, those that he expresses tonight—has obviously never heard of forgery. I assure him that it is widespread in our experience when tear-off slips are involved, particularly in relation to any disciplinary procedure. I assure hon. Members that that frequently happens, despite the disparaging look from the Minister.
  I should like to see more democratic control of local services. I should like more tenants to be involved in the management of housing schemes, and the repairs and services with which they are provided. We have seen examples in many areas, both in England and Scotland—usually under Labour administrations—in which that has proved a resounding success. Like many members of my party, I favour local control of other institutions, such as the police, who again have escaped democratic control. Why should education—or health—be any different? We see no signs of democracy being extended to the Health Service in Scotland. All the board members will continue to be appointed by the Secretary of State. It is amazing how singularly unsuccessful he has been in finding members to promote his point of view. That may be a marker for the future of schools as well.
  Many important points in the Bill cause me concern, particularly the power over the use of schools outwith school hours. In my own experience—and that of many others who have served on regional councils and education committees—when we have been involved in the community use of schools, there has often been a conflict between the traditionalists within the school involved in education and those of us who wish the provisions to be widened to include the whole community. That conflict could well be exacerbated by the Bill.
  The Bill contains many inadequacies, but I intend to concentrate on only one or two, as I know that other hon. Members wish to speak. The problem of books and materials, for instance, is not that parents should have more control over, or say in, what the head teacher buys; it is that the head teacher has not enough money to spend on books and materials in the first place. That is directly the fault of the Minister and his colleagues, and their attack on the funding of local services over the past few years. It is the fault not of the councils, but of the Government who have failed to provide adequately for the community.

  99
  Again, information in reports will be linked with the appalling proposals that we have heard, which have yet to find any support except from Conservative Front Benchers. That applies to the testing of children in schools and the construction of league tables stating that one school is better than another, while ignoring the fact that such information is meaningless without any proper psychological, social or economic analysis of the schools concerned. I have mentioned the use of premises, and the conflict involved. Are the people who use them out of hours—hundreds of individuals, and scores of clubs and other organisations—any less entitled to a say in how the schools are organised? Of course they are not.
  As we have said, there are aspects that we would like extended, in which parents could be constructively involved: for example, in setting up a school disciplinary policy, and the policy on school uniforms. Those things are not covered by the Bill. In relatively minor areas such as that, parents could be constructively involved.
  The ethos of the school should reflect the wishes of the people in the area and not just the parents who happen to send their children to the school. To confine the elections for a school board—if we are to have elected school boards—to parents is to weaken the system. It involves too small a percentage of the electorate and it involves horrendous difficulties in identification.
  In some schools in my constituency we calculate that 15 per cent. to 20 per cent. of children come from one-parent families. That does not mean that the other parent has ceased to exist but that they are living somewhere else. Surely they are still entitled to a say in their child's education. How will such people be identified? We are talking about a great number of people. It will be difficult to ensure that they are identified and the provisions in the Bill on identification will be difficult to carry out.
  I believe that the proposals give head teachers and a handful of parents inordinate control over schools. I do not believe that they are democratic. I do not believe that they form the best way forward for Scottish education and I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will join us in opposing them.
  8.59 pm
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett: As a Welsh Member of Parliament, I am delighted to take part in a debate on Scottish legislation, because as taxpayers my constituents pay towards the Scottish education system as they do towards the English and Welsh system. This is a United Kingdom Parliament and it is right that hon. Members from all parts of the country should take part in the debate. I spent most of my professional life in education, so I am pleased to comment on the Bill. I have been a schoolmaster, a local authority education officer and a local authority education committee member.
  Although the English and Welsh system differs from the Scottish system, the process of education in Scotland is the same as in England and Wales. Therefore, I welcome the Bill as a modest step forward. I see Opposition Members shaking their heads. The process of teaching children is the same in Scotland as in England and Wales. The system is different, but they do not teach children in Scotland any differently from the way in which children are taught in
  100
  England and Wales. That is the crux of the matter. If hon. Members had listened they would have heard me refer to
  "the process of education".
  This is a modest Bill. It comes as a surprise to English and Welsh Members that Scotland appears to have been in a time warp on governing bodies. Governing bodies have been in existence in English and Welsh schools for many years and have worked extremely well. The system has given a measure of devolution to schools and a measure of power to parents. It should be enjoyed by Scottish parents as well.
  This is a small mouse of a Bill. It is the first step towards shifting the power in education from the producers to the consumers. I welcome that. Parental choice means that schools will no longer be able to ignore the wishes of parents. The common sense that most parents have when it comes to the education of their children is something that we should value, and we should ensure that schools use it. So many of the trendy educational ideas of the past 40 years would not have taken place had the professionals listened to parents in the first place. Therefore, I welcome the fact that Scotland is to have governing bodies, and that there will be a role for parents.
  Standards and quality cannot be as high in a system in which parents do not have any influence as they are in one in which parents do have some say. Parents are concerned about standards and quality, and if they are to be on governing bodies they will be able to ask questions about how the school is performing. That cannot be anything but good.
  The Bill is, as I have said, a modest Bill. Clause 17 on page 11 deals with financial delegation. I was amazed to see that a school board will be entitled to make representations to an education authority concerning the statements required for the purposes of the running costs of the school. That is a modest measure and it is far behind what is embodied in the Education Refom Bill. It is a first step.
  In clause 15 I was amazed to see how limited the powers of school governing bodies will be in comparison with those in English and Welsh schools. There is a long list in clause 15(2), running from (a) to (g), of things that a school governing body in Scotland may not do. Therefore, there is some substance to the criticism of Opposition Members that the Bill does not go far enough. I agree with that. However, in that case I would be interested to know why Opposition Members are not following up the point of principle by supporting the Bill and seeking to amend it in Committee.
  The speeches from Opposition Members have not opposed the principle of the Bill. In the debate so far, even from the Front Bench spokesmen, we have heard no speeches about the principle of the Bill. That is what a Second Reading should be about. In fact, I took a note of the speech of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). He stood up at 5.1 pm. By 5.18 pm, he had not mentioned the contents of the Bill. We had 17 minutes on opting out, which is not mentioned in the Bill. At 5.18 pm, 15 hon. Members were present. That is a measure of the opposition to the Bill, when 15 out of 50 Opposition Members are present.
  Mr. Norman Hogg: Where are the Scottish Tories?
  Mr. Bennett: The hon. Gentleman asks about the Scottish Tories. During speeches by Front Bench

  101
  spokesmen from both sides of the House, four of the five Conservative Back Benchers were present. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn)) is ill in hospital and cannot be present, but every other hon. Member is here. On the Opposition side, 12 Labour Members were present to hear the speech of the hon. Member for Garscadden. That is how much they oppose the Bill. The 50 Scottish Labour Members of Parliament are supposed to be fighting on the beaches for Scottish legislation.
  Mr. Michael Forsyth: They were on the beach.
  Mr. Bennett: The Minister says that hon. Gentlemen were on the beach. They may well have been. They certainly were not in the Chamber during the hon. Member for Garscadden's speech.
  At 5.18 pm precisely, the hon. Member for Garscadden started to deal with the Bill. But that was only for 30 seconds and he continued to refer to opting out. At 5.21 pm, he was back on the Bill—I noticed that the hon. Gentleman is opting out now. He continued until 5.30 and then, having given the Bill nine minutes of his study, he returned to the subject of opting out until 5.38 pm. That is a measure of the paucity of argument by Opposition Members. In a speech lasting 37 minutes, the Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland found nine minutes to speak on the Bill.
  But that is not surprising when one reads comments by Opposition Members concerning parental devolution. They seem to be confused about whether they are in favour of that. The hon. Member for Garscadden, who has now left us and opted out, said in The Scotsman on 13 August 1987:
  "The Labour party strongly supports the principle of democratic control."
  It accepts that
  "there is a case for rethinking many assumptions about education. Schools should not be a closed world where children arc handed over to the professionals."
  I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman.
  Unfortunately, that view has not been followed by the Labour party in Scotland. Where it is in power, there has been a very different set of assumptions and behaviour. For example, taking the Strathclyde region and the closure of Paisley grammar school, more than 10,000 letters of objection to its closure have been written. Councillor Gray, the leader of Strathclyde regional council, has said about parental involvement in the decision about Paisley grammar school:
  "The aggressive stance of parents over the controversial review of schools provision in Paisley is insulting, insensitive and quite intolerable."
  That is what the Labour party in power really believes about parental involvement and parents' views. The party does not believe, when it comes down to it, in giving parents a say.
  Therefore, the Labour party has tabled this weasel amendment. Hon. Gentlemen could not bring themselves to oppose the Bill outright on Second Reading. They could not find anything to oppose in this modest Bill, so they say that the Bill only pays lip service to the genuine need for parental involvement in Scottish schools. Yet, where they are in power and there is an opportunity for parents to protest, as they have done in Paisley, the Labour party is not interested. It does not want to know. It is interesting to see the difference between the reality of Labour power and what appears on the Order Paper.
  Mr. Eric Forth: While my hon. Friend is on the subject of the Opposition amendment, does he get any encouragement from the fact that the Opposition believe that the measure, however humble, is a small step in the direction of allowing schools to opt out? Does he hope that our hon. and right hon. Friends on the Front Bench will be prepared to take these small steps with us?
  Mr. Bennett: My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) anticipates some remarks I shall make in a moment. I am sure that the Minister will also take note of what my hon. Friend has said.
  The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce), who is not here, spoke on behalf of what I believe was called last week the Social and Liberal Democratic party. I apologise for missing the hon. Gentleman's speech, due to a prior engagement, but I was here for his earlier intervention, when he accused parents who want choice of choosing schools on the basis of "snob value". It is an interesting illustration of how the Liberal party, or whatever it is now called, views parental choice. What has happened to the Liberal party's values of pluralism, diversity, choice in education—all the things that the former Liberal party stood for? What has happened to the great Liberal traditions?
  It is very interesting to look back to the philosophy of the Liberal party in the 19th century, to the true Liberals, to John Stuart Mill, that great Scotsman, who said, in his essay "On Liberty"—
  Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You have an excellent reputation for bringing hon. Members to order. There are four Scots Members who wish to speak. Is going back to a treatise by Mill relevant to the present discussion?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): I am waiting to see just how relevant it is.
  Mr. Bennett: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is very relevant, because I am showing that the Liberal party's opposition to this Bill is at total variance with everything that it has stood for during the past 200 years. It just shows how the Liberal party has prostituted its own principles recently. I was just going to quote from "On Liberty" to show that John Stuart Mill, the 19th-century Liberal Member of Parliament, set out clearly the principles of his party when he said:
  "That the whole or any large part of the education of the people should be in State hands, I go as far as anyone in depreciating. All that has been said of the importance of individuality of character, and diversity of opinions and modes of conduct, involves, as of the same unspeakable importance, diversity of education."
  What surprises me is the way in which the Liberal party, every time a Bill comes before the House to give parents more choice or to extend diversity in education, votes against it, as it did on direct grant schools some years ago.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire talks about opting out. I regret that it is not in this Bill. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister responsible for education in Scotland, whose principles on this subject are well known, whom I have known since we were undergraduates and whose view on the central issue of parental control is well known to us, will succeed in ensuring that next year a Bill on opting out comes before the House. It is clear that if parents want to opt out, they

  103
  will vote for it when given the opportunity. If, as Opposition Members say, they do not want to opt out, they will not vote for it. But they should at least have the opportunity to make the choice.
  Opting out would also create a third force in education, create another strand of education between the state-maintained sector of the local educational authorities and the private sector, a third force which will give yet another opportunity for diversification and experimentation. That is something that all of us who are concerned about education will welcome.
  Mr. Forth: Does my hon. Friend agree with me that it would be completely in accord with arguments often made by Opposition Members about devolution of power and decision-making if we were to devolve power and decision-making to parents in schools? Is he as much at a loss as I am as to why Opposition Members can oppose the excellent principle of devolution in schools, yet apparently propose it for Scotland as a whole? How does he resolve that apparent contradiction?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I very much hope that the hon. Gentleman will not take up that challenge, but will confine his remarks to the Bill before the House.
  Mr. Bennett: I take your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but the conundrum posed by my hon. Friend reminds me of the character in "Alice Through the Looking-Glass" who says,
  "When I use a word . . . it means just what I choose it to mean".
  The Bill is a modest first step on the road to improving parental choice. I look forward to further legislation from the Scottish Office in line with the legislation which has been put forward for England and Wales.
  9.13 pm
  Mr. Henry McLeish: I want to make only brief reference to the contribution of the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett): it combined richly ignorance and arrogance. I sincerely hope that the hon. Member was a better teacher in his school than he is a student of Scottish education. It clearly highlights the contempt in which the Government hold Scottish education that we have had to listen to such speeches not only from the Government Back Benches but from the Government Front Bench.
  The debate has been overshadowed by two ideological developments in the last few weeks. First, there was the cheque-book-choice statement made by the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) in a recent debate in Scotland on education, which was in many ways an expose of Government thinking in relation not only to the private sector but, I believe, to what they would like to see in the public sector in the months and years ahead. Secondly, there was the extraordinary exchange of letters between the Secretary of State for Scotland's office and the Prime Minister. The credit-card curriculum was put on the agenda for the first time. An important debate on Scottish affairs, Scottish education and the future of Scottish children has been overshadowed by the ideological adventures of the hon. Member for Stirling, aided and abetted by the arch-ideologue at No. 10.
  104
  Clearly Opposition Members are interested in extending parental choice. There is a consensus in Scotland among teachers, parents, pupils, education authorities, teaching unions and the Labour party that parental involvement should be extended. The essential weakness of the Government's argument is that they confuse school boards with extended parental choice. Our argument, put simply, is this. If there is a consensus within Scotland on the need to extend parental involvement in our schools, is that not the best basis on which to build? But this Government will have none of that; co-operation and consensus must always give way to conflict. So. instead of taking what is a very sensible consensus and developing it, they are putting forward school boards as the panacea for further parental involvement in Scottish schools.
  It is also important to put on the record the fact that nobody on the Government Benches will praise the quality of Scottish education. It is an outrage and a disgrace that those on the Government Front Bench are unwilling to recognise that Scottish education is offering, and will continue to offer, some of the best quality education to be found in Europe. It is that which is now under threat, not only from the imposition of school boards but from the cuts, the haranguing of teachers, and the prolonging of the strike by the Government. All these factors have contributed to the very delicate situation in Scottish education and Scottish schools.
  When looking at the Bill, we have to consider the hidden agenda. Clearly two major attacks are taking place. The hon. Member for Stirling can laugh, and that may exhaust his capabilities on this subject, but this is a major attack on professional competence in schools and on local democracy in the sense of regional councils being able to work with parents to determine the future of their education programmes. It comes back to the ideological confusion that exists in the Government's mind. Why on earth can they not allow the consensus in Scotland to develop incrementally over the next two or three years so that we can take the best school councils and allow them to prosper and take the best management committees and community schools and let them develop? And why can we not, in primary schools and elsewhere, provide a suitable framework within which local democracy and parental involvement can flourish and we can see the emergence of many of the things which have been raised in this debate but which will not emerge because of the imposition of the Government's school board proposals?
  If something positive is required from the Opposition, may I say that I believe that we need legislation to extend the rights of parents as individuals to have greater access and information and much greater involvement in the work going on in schools. I am a parent of a girl of 12 and a boy of 14, and they have been given the best education possible within the Fife school system. I do not want to sack staff, appoint staff or decide the number of pencils, rulers and rubbers in a class; I am more interested in my own children. That is the essence of parental involvement—ensuring that one looks after the interests of one's own children and that the school environment is constructive, sensitive, and sympathetic to their individual needs and also to the type of educational philosophies and theories that the EIS, teachers and education authorities are dealing with very ably in Scotland.
  The Bill is a mess. It is bigoted and bizarre and will contribute nothing to the welfare of children or of schools;

  105
  indeed, it will ensure that there will be a battle over the next two or three years when sensible, constructive policies could have been built on consensus. I hope that many Government Back Benchers will see the sense of our arguments and will come with us into the Division Lobby to defeat a thoroughly bad Bill.
  9.20 pm
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: First, I wish to ask why priority has not been given to the real problem of Scottish education, such as the maintenance of schools. In my constituency, as in many others, academies are falling apart for want of simple maintenance. That for many of us is the first priority.
  My second question concerns the cost of the proposals. Is it £5 million or is it, as the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) and Mrs. Smith of Dumfries and Galloway have said, £20 million? Dumfries has worked out its sums but it is far from clear whether the Scottish Office has done anything of the kind.
  Thirdly, will the Minister in his reply to the debate say something more about the legal position? Throughout the debate and in the Bill it has become clearer and clearer that school boards will have some say in the appointment of headmasters and, therefore, surely in dismissals and staff negotiations. Once this is introduced into the equation there are legal problems. Perhaps he did not have time, but in his opening remarks the Secretary of State did not explain the real worries of many teachers about the legal implications of being employed not by a local authority but by an employer who does not have the full power of an employer because the school board will have some power in the matter. I see my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan), who was Secretary of State, nodding. Anyone who has gone through the Scottish education system can easily understand the problems that will arise.
  Finally, I refer to an answer which I received this afternoon to the following question:
  "To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is now taking to safeguard the confidentiality of information in his Department, in the light of the unauthorised disclosure of correspondence on opting-out of the educational system between No. 10 Downing street and his office; and if he will make a statement."
  The Secretary of State replied:
  "The measures taken in the Scottish Office to protect official information are in accordance with standards laid down for application throughout Government Departments. The circumstances of the unauthorised disclosure of recent correspondence between the Prime Minister's office and my own are being investigated."
  With what success are they being investigated because some of us think that Ministers know very well how this occurred? May we hear just a little more about the role of No. 10 Downing street in all this?
  I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg) for giving me the opportunity to speak.
  9.23 pm
  Mr. Norman Hogg: Today's debate has been dominated and influenced to some extent by issues which are not in the Bill. We have admitted that all through the debate. Latterly I thought that the debate fell apart a little because of a failure of the Government Whips, who dragooned in to speak two of the worst speakers in the House, the hon. Member for
  106
  Pembroke (Mr. Bennett), who does not know where Paisley is, and the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon), who went on about choice, except of course the choice of the electorate in Scotland at the general election, which he did not mention. I am sure that the electors of Pembroke and of Darlington will be interested to read the speeches about Scottish education and will ask themselves what sort of bargain they have got. There may be some in Pembroke who will think that Desmond Donnelly would have been a better choice than the hon. Member for Pembroke.
  Mr. Allan Rogers: Will my hon. Friend allow me to put the record straight? The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) is not from Pembroke; he is from London and merely represents Pembroke.
  Mr. Hogg: It appears that the Tory party's fortunes in Wales have faded as much as they did in Scotland—they have to import these Anglos to do the job.
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Racism.
  Mr. Hogg: It was a reference to the English, which is perfectly respectable in a Scottish debate.
  The extraordinary and amazing exchange of correspondence between the Cabinet Office and the Scottish Office has also featured strongly in the debate. I was surprised that the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) did not take the opportunity to tell us that he would not be pressing his amendment in Committee in view of all that has been said by the Government Front Bench. Perhaps he might clarify the position now, but I should have thought that after having heard the Secretary of State for Scotland, whom the hon. Gentleman faithfully served at one time, he would be willing not to press his amendment for opting out. We shall find that out in Committee.
  Hon. Members have mentioned the plans for testing and the curriculum, which no one wants or asked for. I thought that the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) made some useful comments about that. We also heard a great deal about the Minister's involvement in school closures, not for educational ends but to serve to bolster the fading fortunes of the Tory party in Scotland.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) spoke with great commitment and conviction on behalf of his constituents, and we welcome that. My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) properly stated the case for the schools in Paisley and drew the correct conclusion on how best to proceed. The best way to proceed is not for the Minister to play politics with children's education in Paisley.
  The real agenda for education is probably best defined in the Education Reform Bill, to which the hon. Member for Pembroke referred. That, plus the preference for cheque-book education, which the Parliamentary Under-Secretary has tried to make respectable, is what the Government are about. The debate was certainly strongly influenced by that hidden agenda and manifesto.
  The Tory party's education policies in Scotland now stand exposed. The leak in the newspapers has left the Secretary of State looking a somewhat battered figure, as he is pushed from pillar to post by the Prime Minister and senior civil servants at the Scottish Office. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary was described by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) as being second fiddle at the Scottish Office. I have

  107
  always thought of him as being the first violin, orchestrating events in the Department. Nothing that we have heard today has persuaded us that that is not so.
  The starting point when evaluating any education legislation must be: does it enhance the quality of education provision in any way? The answer in this case must surely be no. Underneath its claim to increase parent power the Bill is designed further to advance the views of the Tory party and is consistent with more Thatcherism, not less, as we have been promised by the Secretary of State. Despite what he says, it will help to de-professionalise—if that is a word—education, with the powers that it proposes. There is little doubt that the reintroduction of the word "board", which disappeared from school life 60 years ago in Scotland, is wholly consistent with the adherence to Victorian ideas of management and values.
  The Bill will set parents against teachers and is about paving the way for the opting out of schools. We believe that, and I think that the Prime Minister believes it because she seemed to suggest it in her interview on Scottish television. There is little of education value in the Bill, but that is not surprising because it is a means to an end. It helps to explain why the Bill is devoid of merit and why education considerations seem to have taken a back seat.
  We all remember the original proposals that were produced in August. They were so badly worked out that they brought down on the head of the Minister the criticism of everyone concerned with education. According to the Educational Institute of Scotland's analysis of the school board consultation, only 1 per cent. of returns were in favour and 95 per cent. of parents were opposed. That was a case of parents exercising their right of choice. The Government and the Minister lost the argument and the Minister then brought forward the Bill.
  Some of the more ridiculous suggestions in the original proposals are still in the Bill, or at least there is a hint of them that worries us. That is certainly true in respect of senior appointments in the schools. There is no consent to that proposal and as far as I can see it leaves in place the veto that we are worried about. It does nothing to persuade me that the Government are not intent on shifting the appointment of head teachers and senior staff from the education authorities and into the hands of school boards. There was unanimous opposition to the original proposal. Of course it was different, but none the less the Government seem to be pressing on with a similar proposal in the Bill.
  There is no doubt that the Government's proposals for a parental majority on the boards does not find consent among parents. Indeed, Strathclyde School Councils' Parents Federation called it divisive and likely to drive a wedge between parents and teachers. That same sentiment was expressed by the Church of Scotland in its submission to the Government and the Association of Directors of Education expressed the same sentiment. As far as we can gather, the whole of Scotland's concerned education establishment, if its members will forgive me for calling it that, has made it quite clear that it is not in favour of parents having a majority on these boards. Neither is the Opposition. We take the view that there should be a partnership between parents, teachers, the education authorities and the community. Anything else is to give power to a vested interest in a situation where that is not
  108
  appropriate. I hope that in Committee the Minister will carefully consider our submissions and amendments to deal with that.
  Parents certainly want to be involved. We have never denied that and are strongly in favour of it. The 1986 regional elections in Strathclyde, the largest education authority in the country, were fought on a manifesto that promised one school council for each school. We do not dissent from the proposal for one school board for each school. The suggestion that somehow or other we have only now formulated ideas for promoting parental interest is quite wrong. Any reference to the published manifesto for the 1986 regional elections in Strathclyde will prove that to be the case.
  When he is winding up the Minister must clarify the matter of cost. Under the Bill about 32,000 people in Scotland will be able to draw expenses against the budgets of regional education authorities. We are talking about electing 32,000 people to serve on school boards and that will cost a great deal of money. The suggestion that it will cost only £5 million makes me wonder what kind of arithmetic is taught in the Adam Smith Institute. It does not seem to me to require a great grasp of arithmetic to come to the conclusion that the £20 million spoken of by the Dumfries and Galloway education authority is much nearer the mark. I would far rather listen to the cautious Conservatives of Dumfries and Galloway than the more radical elements which have found their way into this House. When the Minister winds up, I hope that he will address the question of cost and will tell us plainly just what is involved in that regard.
  I take the view that the Bill is not a response to a particular Scottish demand because there is no particular Scottish problem. Parents have access to education authorities. They have access to the schools in Scotland through the existing school councils and, where those are less active—I accept that, in many parts of the country, they have not proved to be a success, and that the system requires examination—they have access through parent-teacher associations, open days, parents' evenings and all the other events in which many of us become involved as local Members of Parliament. School councils in that context appear to have been conveniently forgotten, along with the Macbeth report, which aimed at reforming them and increasing parental involvement. I am surprised that we have heard so little about that today. Surely that would be a far better basis for introducing real parent power, which we all accept has to come, and the time is opportune to introduce it. We do not believe that Scottish parents will consent to the use of this measure to achieve another objective.
  I found it quite amazing that, in the exchange of letters between the Prime Minister's Private Office and the Private Office of the Secretary of State for Scotland, we were told that we would be having an education Bill next year which would present proposals for opting out. We were even told what the name of the Bill would be. As a Member of Parliament, I find it amazing that senior civil servants can exchange letters of that kind and tell the Executive how to behave, when we are trailing along behind not knowing what is going on behind the scenes.
  That is not good enough. It is consistent with the Government's commitment to secrecy. They do not like telling people what is going on. That is why we know that what is being proposed here is a fraud. That was certainly

  109
  confirmed by the reply that my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) brought to the attention of the House a few minutes ago.
  I have no hesitation this evening on calling on my right hon. and hon. Friends to decline to give the Bill a Second Reading. In view of the rather infantile and silly debating techniques deployed by the hon. Member for Darlington and his foolish hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke, we shall now discuss the money resolution. In the words of the reasoned amendment, the Bill
  "pays only lip service to the genuine need to encourage parental involvement."
  It is divisive. It has been rejected by educational opinion. It destroys the distinctive qualities and traditions of Scottish education and I call upon my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote for our reasoned amendment, to vote against the Second Reading, to vote for the Liberal amendment and to vote on the money resolution.
  9.38 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Forsyth): I am somewhat bemused by the Labour party's position on this matter tonight. The Opposition amendment criticises the Bill on the basis that it
  "pays only lip service to the genuine need to encourage parental involvement in Scotland's schools, will divide parents and teachers"
  and
  "has been rejected by educational opinion."
  Yet, when our proposals enshrined in the Bill were announced in January, the leader of the Educational Institute of Scotland, John Pollock, speaking on Radio 4, said:
  "the changes in the revised proposals, transformed the Boards into a workable idea which will help develop a constructive partnership between parents and teachers . . . the Government has been overwhelmed by the public response."
  Mr. Douglas: He had not seen the Bill.
  Mr. Forsyth: I can tell the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) that we have not heard a single argument from Opposition Members tonight showing that the Bill does nothing other than implement the proposals that we promised to make.
  The Scottish Consumer Council represents consumers in Scotland. Its verdict is contained in a letter to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland dated 8 April, which states:
  "My colleagues are most impressed not only by the contents of the School Boards (Scotland) Bill which follow closely and in impressive detail the proposals announced in January but also by the way the legislation is drafted. It is a model of clarity and coherence. More than any other legislation that comes to mind, it conveys to the reader a clear picture of how the new system will work."
  That may account for why we have not heard a single speech which has done other than refer to what is not in the Bill or made passing reference to it and there has been no contribution from any Opposition Member to justify the Opposition's decision to vote against the Second Reading.
  Mr. Dewar: Perhaps it is a little unfair to ask the Minister this. However, as he is so impressed by the Scottish Consumer Council's advice on these matters, does he give equal weight to what it says about the poll tax regulations?
  Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman's problem is that he appears to take the view of the Scottish Consumer Council selectively. I merely use the council to endorse its view that our original proposals which the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) welcomed as a major climbdown by the Government and a victory for public opinion in Scotland should be included in the Bill.
  In response to claims made tonight about lip service, I must state that the Government have done something for parents instead of paying lip service to parental involvement in schools. The whole thrust of our education policy since we took office has been directed towards giving parents a better deal from the services which most of them use and for which most of them pay as ratepayers and taxpayers.
  Our earlier measures were directed towards improving the range of choice for parents through the parents' charter legislation and the assisted places scheme. However, there has been a widely recognised unmet need for a much better two-day flow of communication between parents and schools. If we had done nothing to reform the school council system, no doubt we would have been roundly criticised. The proposals that we published for consultation last August have changed the ground for debate. The proposals caused the EIS in its response to admit:
  "The role of parents in Scottish education is one of the areas in which the Scottish educational system is not pre-eminent and indeed lags behind the systems of other countries."
  The proposals drew a set of counter-proposals from COSLA, starting with the proposition that every school should have a school council, including schools with fewer than 100 pupils. If we had not brought the proposals forward or if we had put forward proposals such as those put forward by COSLA, the Opposition would have opposed them, claiming that they were too difficult, too troublesome and expensive.
  It is high time that Opposition Members turned their attention to the interests of parents as consumers and recognised that the education establishment has been patronising parents for far too long. Parents have a right to choose what they judge is best for their children. We know that parents are well able to tell a good school from a bad one when making their choice.
  The Bill seeks to release the latent interest of parents in the schools attended by their children because any responsible parent wants to see his children's school improved. That can only be to the good of the system. The Bill provides a straightforward and workable framework within which parents can exert a beneficial pressure on the system. It is also a framework in which a genuine partnership between parents and teachers can be formed.
  Mr. McLeish rose—
  Mr. Forsyth: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to make some progress, I shall give way.
  The Bill will require parents to learn a lot about what teachers are trying to achieve for their children and it will require teachers to formulate their own aims arid objectives in clear terms and to put them across persuasively. It should be a salutary experience for both parties.
  Opposition Members may bluster and fulminate because that is what they think they are supposed to do, but in their hearts they know that when this measure is on

  111
  the statute book everybody concerned with education—local authorities, teachers and parents—will want to get on and make a success of the boards to the great benefit of everyone in Scottish education.
  The hon. Member for Garscadden spent 17 minutes of his speech discussing opting out, which is not included in the Bill. Indeed, he went so far as to accuse me of being dishonest in what I had had to say on opting out. As long ago as last summer we were making it clear that we would not rule out opting out in the long run.
  The hon. Gentleman has said in this debate that there is no support in Scotland for opting out. If there is no support for opting out in Scotland, why is he so afraid of it? The hon. Gentleman said that opting out would damage Scottish education. How could opting out damage Scottish education if no one was interested in it, if no one was going to opt out?
  Mr. Dewar: The Minister did not listen to my speech.
  Mr. Forsyth: Most of the hon. Gentleman's speech was not about the Bill.
  The amendment, to which the hon. Gentleman's name is added, criticises the Bill for paying only lip service. It says that it does not go far enough. Yet every point that the hon. Gentleman made in criticism of the Bill was designed to reduce parental influence and parental rights. He said that there should be no parental majority and yet the whole purpose of the Bill is to give parents a forum in education, which they have been denied for too long. He said that parents should not have a right to confirm the head teacher's capitation proposals. Yet in January he welcomed our proposals, enshrined in the Bill, which provide exactly that. He was against ballots of parents. Where a majority of parents were in favour of taking additional delegated powers, he was against those delegated powers being given.
  The lip service comes from the Opposition. They say that they are in favour of parental involvement provided that parents have no influence or power and the power remains in the hands of the producers in education.
  Mr. McLeish: I am a politician and a parent. These proposals will do nothing for me as a parent because, apart from the ideological adventures of the exercise, as a parent, I would rather have legislative rights for information on and access to a range of activities relating to the school. I do not want to run the school. What will these board proposals do for me?
  Mr. Forsyth: If the hon. Gentleman takes the trouble to read the Bill, he will find that under clause 12 the school boards will have a duty to provide exactly that sort of information. Fortunately for Scottish education, most parents do not take the view that they are interested only in their own children's education.
  The hon. Member for Garscadden said that parents only would be involved in appointments. If he studies the Bill, he will find that that is incorrect. Teacher members of the school boards will not be involved in appointments, but parents and co-opted members will be. It would be singularly inappropriate for members of staff to be involved in appointments of staff in the same school.
  The hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) talked about cheque books, which had all the Opposition
  112
  Members jumping up and down. They need to recognise that the system which they defend in voting against the Bill tonight is a system where choice is limited to those who can afford to pay twice—once through taxation, and once through their cheque books. The Bill is about providing choice and the opportunity to influence what happens in schools for those who have no cheque books and cannot afford to pay twice. Labour Members are opposed to that because they wish those people to remain under the thumb and under the control of Labour-controlled local authorities.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) asked why the Opposition will vote against the Bill tonight. In a slip, the hon. Member for Garscadden gave away the answer when he said that the Educational Institute of Scotland does not want the Bill to receive a Second Reading. When he was pressed, he said that the problem with the Bill was not that it was going too far, but that it was going the wrong way.
  Yet in January, when we announced the proposals, the hon. Member for Garscadden, in an interview on BBC television, said:
  "Well, I'm delighted that they have retreated—in some disorder I may say so, and it's a tremendous victory for the teachers, for the parents and I think for Scottish public opinion. We said in the very beginning that Michael Forsyth had hijacked some very sensible discussions about how we strengthened parent participation in the life of a school and I think we've been totally justified by the fact that most of these proposals have now been dropped in a somewhat embarrassed fashion."
  It is a pity that the hon. Gentleman made such a proud boast, yet he is not prepared to vote for the Bill.
  Mr. Galbraith: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Forsyth: No. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to get on. There were a couple of serious points made by hon. Members during the debate.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) asked what would be the position of feeder primary schools being able to operate in conjunction with secondary schools. There is no provision in the Bill, but there is nothing to prevent umbrella organisations from being set up or for small schools to come together to discuss matters of mutual interest.
  The hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) complained that there was nothing in the Bill to strengthen parental involvement in schools and the parent-teacher associations. Clause 12 places a specific duty on school boards to provide for the formation of parent-teacher associations, and indeed to provide them with information.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and the hon. Members for Garscadden, for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg), and for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) all asked about the question of costs. I pay tribute to the submissions made by Dumfries and Galloway as part of the consultation exercise, and to the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth who said that he preferred their judgment to mine. Dumfries and Galloway announced that it is to establish a pilot scheme setting up school boards ahead of the legislation, so I agree with its judgment. The costs estimate which Dumfries and Galloway produced appeared to ignore a number of factors. We have made an estimate of £5 million as the net cost after savings from abolishing school councils. Many authorities are having to develop financial information on

  113
  a school-by-school basis anyway and that was included in COSLA's estimates of costs. The fact that delegated functions will not be available to all boards at the outset but will happen at the board's own pace makes it extremely difficult to come to a conclusion on costs.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries was also worried about the question of charging. May I assure him that the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 makes it unlawful for any charges to be made for the provision of education, but, if it will help my hon. Friend, may I say that I take his point about clarity and I shall be perfectly happy to look again at the matter in Committee.
  The role of councillors is in no way eroded by the establishment of school boards because education authorities will still be responsible for strategic planning in their areas. My hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) made the point that the devolution that matters in Scotland is the devolution of power. This clevolution of power will be real; it will be devolution to parents of matters that concern their own schools.
  The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) said that he did not want the Prime Minister to interfere in Scottish affairs. He did not support our regulations on school closures, but it is a bit rich of him to tell the House that he does not want the Prime Minister to interfere. It is also a bit rich of him not to support the regulations when the leader of the alliance on Strathclyde regional council has written to me pleading that we should use the regulations to save Notre Dame school.
  The hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth quoted the Educational Institute of Scotland survey that claims that 95 per cent. of the responses to the consultation exercise oppose our plans, but what he did not say was that, even when somebody said, "I very much welcome the proposals but I am not very happy about this particular aspect", it was counted as opposition. On that basis, the hon. Member has been misled by the EIS, which has listed as opponents of the package people who were making constructive contributions to the debate.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) made a perfectly proper distinction between the purpose of this Bill and that of opting out. As he said, the Bill is about parental involvement. Opting out is about extending parental choice. The hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) torpedoed the whole of the Opposition's case when he said that he thinks that the Bill is so small in scale that he wonders why it is attracting so much attention. My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) pointed out that the English experience has been that where parents are offered real power and responsibility in schools they take that opportunity and become involved.
  The Bill is a major step towards redressing the balance in education—
  Mr. Douglas rose—
  Mr. Forsyth—between the real needs of pupils and parents and the convenience of education authority administrators, trade union interests and teachers' organisations.
  Mr. Douglas rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) knows better than to try to intervene when it is clear that the Minister is not giving way.
  Mr. Forsyth: This Bill is a major step towards creating a responsive, sound and productive education service.
  Mr. Douglas rose—
  Mr. Forsyth: It will provide an opportunity for parents to help to shape the schools that they use to educate their children.
  Mr. Douglas rose—
  Mr. Forsyth: Both schools and children will be the better for it. The Bill gives effect to principles and—
  Mr. Douglas rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Dunfermline, West knows that he must not persist.
  Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman thinks that he is still at the Labour party conference.
  These are firm and positive proposals. The Government have identified a vital issue and have brought forward clear plans to deal with it. What have we heard from the Opposition? They have reiterated the tired views of a defensive education establishment. They have produced airy statements about the rights of individual parents. They have tried to create anxiety about provisions that are not and will not be in the Bill.
  The truth is that the Opposition have no alternative policy to offer. They know that the involvement of the people who use the service and decide how it should be provided and run is both right and sensible but, like the authorities and teacher associations to which they are in thrall, they are afraid of change. The key to the provisions in the Bill is the need to make the education service more responsive to those who use it—to pupils, parents and employers. That means making the system more open, producing more information and looking more critically at what is provided. That is in all our interests. I ask the House to support the Bill.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:
  The House divided: Ayes 203, Noes 260.

  Division No. 249]

  [9.59 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Allen, Graham

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E.)

  Alton, David

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Buchan, Norman

  Ashdown, Paddy

  Buckley, George J.

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Caborn, Richard

  Ashton, Joe

  Callaghan, Jim

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Barron, Kevin

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Battle, John

  Canavan, Dennis

  Beckett, Margaret

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Beith, A. J.

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Bell, Stuart

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Clay, Bob

  Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)

  Clelland, David

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Cohen, Harry

  Blair, Tony

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Boyes, Roland

  Corbett, Robin

  Bradley, Keith

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Cousins, Jim

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Cox, Tom

  McKelvey, William

  Crowther, Stan

  McLeish, Henry

  Cryer, Bob

  McTaggart, Bob

  Cummings, John

  McWilliam, John

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Madden, Max

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Dalyell, Tarn

  Marek, Dr John

  Darling, Alistair

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Dewar, Donald

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Dixon, Don

  Martlew, Eric

  Dobson, Frank

  Maxton, John

  Doran, Frank

  Meacher, Michael

  Douglas, Dick

  Meale, Alan

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Michael, Alun

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Eadie, Alexander

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Eastham, Ken

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Fatchett, Derek

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Fearn, Ronald

  Morley, Elliott

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Fisher, Mark

  Mullin, Chris

  Flannery, Martin

  Murphy, Paul

  Flynn, Paul

  Nellist, Dave

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Foster, Derek

  O'Brien, William

  Fraser, John

  O'Neill, Martin

  Galbraith, Sam

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Galloway, George

  Patchett, Terry

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Pendry, Tom

  George, Bruce

  Pike, Peter L.

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Prescott, John

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Radice, Giles

  Gould, Bryan

  Randall, Stuart

  Graham, Thomas

  Redmond, Martin

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Grocott, Bruce

  Reid, Dr John

  Hardy, Peter

  Richardson, Jo

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Robertson, George

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Rogers, Allan

  Henderson, Doug

  Rooker, Jeff

  Hinchliffe, David

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Holland, Stuart

  Ruddock, Joan

  Home Robertson, John

  Salmond, Alex

  Hood, Jimmy

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Hoyle, Doug

  Short, Clare

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

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

  Illsley, Eric

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

  Janner, Greville

  Snape, Peter

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Soley, Clive

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Stott, Roger

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Strang, Gavin

  Lambie, David

  Straw, Jack

  Lamond, James

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Turner, Dennis

  Leighton, Ron

  Vaz, Keith

  Lewis, Terry

  Wall, Pat

  Litherland, Robert

  Wallace, James

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Walley, Joan

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  McAllion, John

  Wareing, Robert N.

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  McCartney, Ian

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Williams, Alan W, (Carm'then)

  McFall, John

  Wilson, Brian

  Winnick, David

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Worthington, Tony

  Mr. Frank Haynes and

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths.

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Dover, Den

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Dunn, Bob

  Alexander, Richard

  Durant, Tony

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Eggar, Tim

  Allason, Rupert

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Amess, David

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Amos, Alan

  Evennett, David

  Arbuthnot, James

  Fallon, Michael

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Farr, Sir John

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Favell, Tony

  Ashby, David

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Atkins, Robert

  Forman, Nigel

  Atkinson, David

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Forth, Eric

  Baldry, Tony

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Batiste, Spencer

  Franks, Cecil

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Fry, Peter

  Bellingham, Henry

  Gale, Roger

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Benyon, W.

  Gill, Christopher

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Gow, Ian

  Boswell, Tim

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Bottomley, Peter

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Bowis, John

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Gregory, Conal

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Grist, Ian

  Brazier, Julian

  Ground, Patrick

  Bright, Graham

  Grylls, Michael

  Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

  Hannam,John

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Burns, Simon

  Harris, David

  Butcher, John

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Butler, Chris

  Hayes, Jerry

  Butterfill, John

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Hayward, Robert

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Carrington, Matthew

  Heddle, John

  Carttiss, Michael

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Cash, William

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Hind, Kenneth

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Chope, Christopher

  Holt, Richard

  Churchill, Mr

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Colvin, Michael

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Conway, Derek

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Jack, Michael

  Cormack, Patrick

  Jackson, Robert

  Couchman, James

  Janman, Tim

  Cran, James

  Jessel, Toby

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Day, Stephen

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Devlin, Tim

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Key, Robert

  Dicks, Terry

  Kilfedder, James

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Knapman, Roger

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Knowles, Michael

  Knox, David

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Lang, Ian

  Sims, Roger

  Latham, Michael

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Speller, Tony

  Lightbown, David

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Lilley, Peter

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Squire, Robin

  Lord, Michael

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  McCrindle, Robert

  Stern, Michael

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Stevens, Lewis

  Malins, Humfrey

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Mans, Keith

  Stokes, John

  Mates, Michael

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Sumberg, David

  Miller, Hal

  Summerson, Hugo

  Mills, lain

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Morrison, Hon Sir Charles

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Neale, Gerrard

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Nelson, Anthony

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Neubert, Michael

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Tracey, Richard

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Tredinnick, David

  Page, Richard

  Trotter, Neville

  Paice, James

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Patten, Chris (Bath)

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Patten, John (Oxford W)

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Pawsey, James

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Walden, George

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Portillo, Michael

  Waller, Gary

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Ward, John

  Price, Sir David

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Raffan, Keith

  Warren, Kenneth

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Wells, Bowen

  Rathbone, Tim

  Wheeler, John

  Redwood, John

  Whitney, Ray

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Riddick, Graham

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Wilshire, David

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Wolfson, Mark

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Wood, Timothy

  Rowe, Andrew

  Woodcock, Mike

  Ryder, Richard

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Tellers for the noes:

  Scott, Nicholas

  Mr. Alan Howarth and

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Mr. David Maclean

  Shaw,Sir Giles(Pudsey)

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 60 (Amendment on Second or Third Reading), and agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time.
  Motion made, and Question put,
  That th Bill be committed to a Special Standing Committee.—[Mr. Bruce.]
  The House divided: Ayes 198, Noes 254.

  Division No. 250]

  [10.14pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Ashton, Joe

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Allen, Graham

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Alton, David

  Barron, Kevin

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Battle, John

  Armstron, Hilary

  Beckett, Margaret

  Ashdown, Paddy

  Beith, A. J.

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Bell, Stuart

  118

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Home Robertson, John

  Bennett, A. F. (D'nfn & R'dish)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Blair, Tony

  Hoyle, Doug

  Boyes, Roland

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Bradley, Keith

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Illsley, Eric

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Janner, Greville

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Buchan, Norman

  Lambie, David

  Buckley, George J.

  Lamond, James

  Caborn, Richard

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Callaghan, Jim

  Leighton, Ron

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Lewis, Terry

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Litherland, Robert

  Canavan, Dennis

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  McAllion, John

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Clay, Bob

  McCartney, Ian

  Clelland, David

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  McFall, John

  Cohen, Harry

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Corbett, Robin

  McKelvey, William

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  McLeish, Henry

  Cousins, Jim

  McWilliam, John

  Cox, Tom

  Madden, Max

  Crowther, Stan

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Cryer, Bob

  Marek, Dr John

  Cummings, John

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Dalyell, Tarn

  Martlew, Eric

  Darling, Alistair

  Maxton, John

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Meacher, Michael

  Dewar, Donald

  Meale, Alan

  Dicks, Terry

  Michael, Alun

  Dixon, Don

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Dobson, Frank

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Dover, Den

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Dunn, Bob

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Morley, Elliott

  Eadie, Alexander

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Eastham, Ken

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  Mullin, Chris

  Fatchett, Derek

  Murphy, Paul

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Nellist, Dave

  Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Fisher, Mark

  O'Brien, William

  Flannery, Martin

  O'Neill, Martin

  Flynn, Paul

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  F'atchett, Terry

  Foster, Derek

  Pendry, Tom

  Fraser, John

  Pike, Peter L.

  Galbraith, Sam

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Galloway, George

  Prescott, John

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Radice, Giles

  George, Bruce

  Randall, Stuart

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Redmond, Martin

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Reid, Dr John

  Gould, Bryan

  Richardson, Jo

  Graham, Thomas

  Robertson, George

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Rogers, Allan

  Grocott, Bruce

  Rooker, Jeff

  Hardy, Peter

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Rowlands, Ted

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Ruddock, Joan

  Haynes, Frank

  Salmond, Alex

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Henderson, Doug

  Sheerman, Barry

  Hinchliffe, David

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Short, Clare

  Holland, Stuart

  Skinner, Dennis

  119

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Warden, Gareth (Gower)

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

  Wareing, Robert N.

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

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Snape, Peter

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Soley, Clive

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Wilson, Brian

  Stott, Roger

  Winnick, David

  Strang, Gavin

  Worthington, Tony

  Straw, Jack

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Turner, Dennis

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Vaz, Keith

  Mr. James Wallace and

  Wall, Pat

  Mr. Archy Kirk wood.

  Walley, Joan

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Colvin, Michael

  Alexander, Richard

  Conway, Derek

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Allason, Rupert

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Amess, David

  Cormack, Patrick

  Amos, Alan

  Couchman, James

  Arbuthnot, James

  Cran, James

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)

  Ashby, David

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Day, Stephen

  Atkins, Robert

  Devlin, Tim

  Atkinson, David

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Dicks, Terry

  Baldry, Tony

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Batiste, Spencer

  Dover, Den

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Dunn, Bob

  Bellingham, Henry

  Durant, Tony

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Eggar, Tim

  Benyon, W.

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Evennett, David

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Fallon, Michael

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Farr, Sir John

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Favell, Tony

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Boswell, Tim

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Bottomley, Peter

  Forman, Nigel

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Bowis, John

  Forth, Eric

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Franks, Cecil

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Fry, Peter

  Brazier, Julian

  Gale, Roger

  Bright, Graham

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

  Gill, Christopher

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Gow, Ian

  Burns, Simon

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Burt, Alistair

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Butcher, John

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Butler, Chris

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Butterfill, John

  Gregory, Conal

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Grist, Ian

  Carrington, Matthew

  Ground, Patrick

  Carttiss, Michael

  Grylls, Michael

  Cash, William

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hannam, John

  Chope, Christopher

  Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')

  Churchill, Mr

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Harris, David

  120

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Hayes, Jerry

  Rathbone, Tim

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Redwood, John

  Hayward, Robert

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Riddick, Graham

  Heddle, John

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Hind, Kenneth

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Rowe, Andrew

  Holt, Richard

  Ryder, Richard

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

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Sims, Roger

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Jack, Michael

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Jackson, Robert

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Janman, Tim

  Speller, Tony

  Jessel, Toby

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Squire, Robin

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Stern, Michael

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Stevens, Lewis

  Key, Robert

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Kilfedder, James

  Stokes, John

  Knapman, Roger

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Knowles, Michael

  Sumberg, David

  Knox, David

  Summerson, Hugo

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Lang, Ian

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Latham, Michael

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Lightbown, David

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Lilley, Peter

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Lord, Michael

  Tracey, Richard

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Tredinnick, David

  Malins, Humfrey

  Trotter, Neville

  Mans, Keith

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Mates, Michael

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Miller, Hal

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Mills, lain

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Walden, George

  Morrison, Hon Sir Charles

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Neale, Gerrard

  Waller, Gary

  Nelson, Anthony

  Ward, John

  Neubert, Michael

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Warren, Kenneth

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Wells, Bowen

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Wheeler, John

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Whitney, Ray

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Page, Richard

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Paice, James

  Wilshire, David

  Patten, Chris (Bath)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Patten, John (Oxford W)

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Pawsey, James

  Wolfson, Mark

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Wood, Timothy

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Woodcock, Mike

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Portillo, Michael

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Price, Sir David

  Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd and

  Raffan, Keith

  Mr. David Maclean.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  1Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

School Boards (Scotland) [Money]
Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the School Boards (Scotland) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

(a) any expenses of the Secretary of State under the Act; and

(b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums so payable under any other enactment.—[Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.]

10.27 pm
Mr. Norman Buchan: There are one or two points which I should like to discuss. If the Bill is passed, further developments are forecast, including the opting out of schools. If schools opt out, how will they be paid for? Will the money be raised separately for those schools?
The hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), in advocating an opt-out solution to parents in Paisley, encouraged the publication of a letter calling for consideration to be given to opting out. As my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, North (Mr. Adams) will remember, the letter said that, if people supported the proposal to opt out, it would not cost them anything individually. Before we approve the Bill, we should know whether there will be any additional cost if schools opt out, or whether parents will be expected to pay for the running of the school. We must have an answer to that before we continue.
Secondly, has the Minister considered the total amount of money that will he necessary to fund these highly bureaucratic school boards? They are neither popular nor wanted, and it will be difficult too for the Government to convince the people of Scotland that the expense of these unwanted boards is necessary or desirable. What sort of payment to this end is envisaged under the resolution? What will the individual expenses of individual members of the boards be? Will there be a maximum? Will there be loss of wages? Will there be expenses for travel and time off work? All those things must be considered. We want to know about them before we pass the resolution.
Thirdly, what consideration have the Government given to the general implementation of the Bill? What additional resources, apart from those for the members of the boards, will be required? What clerical and secretarial staff will be required? What additional strains will all this put on headmasters? They will not be considered within the general expenditure of the implementation of the boards but will be very much part of the expenditure incurred by school administrations to operate and co-operate with the boards.
These, then, are the reasons why we need answers about the resolution: the additional resources needed for technical aspects; the costs of board members; the issue of who will pay for elections; and, finally, the issue of who will pay for opting out, which will surely be the next stage after this Bill. The hon. Member for Eastwood encouraged the call for opting out in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, North (Mr. Adams). The multiple letter stressed support for the demand for Paisley grammar school to opt out, unless that cost money. In that event, it would be opposed
10.32 pm
Mr. Sam Galbraith: The part of the Bill that deals with its financial implications states that the
"overall level of costs will depend largely on the level of functions which individual boards take on, but it is likely to be very small and there will be offsetting savings arising from the abolition of school councils."
If the costs are to be small, we want to know how small. We want more detailed information than we have had from the Minister tonight. He quoted a figure of £5 million, but we are always dubious about figures from the Scottish Office, particularly those that emanate from the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth). They tend to be highly massaged, selective figures, always played down.
We suspect that the Bill's financial implications will be much greater, and we want detailed answers to some of the questions raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan). The Bill's financial implications will apply to all education in Scotland, not only the boards. Nursery education is important to my constituency, in the whole of which there is no nursery education for under-fives. That is a major educational concern of ours. None of that has been dealt with tonight. If money is to be taken away from education authorities to finance the school boards' as yet frequently undefined functions, my constituents need to know what implications that will have for nursery education.
I would be happier about some of these financial aspects had it not been for the way in which the Minister spoke tonight; instead of being generous in spirit, he was his usual bitter, nasty, mean self. He did not speak of education, but tried to settle old scores. We saw the venom with which he spoke about this as he spat across the Chamber. His speech was not about education but simply about settling old scores. The Government will use any devious means, including telling us how much it will cost. The Minister is well known for using devious means and he sails close to the wind. His rules are that if it is legal he will do it, and if it is not legal he will do it anyway as long as he can get away with it. Those are the implications and that is why we need to know the financial aspects of the Bill.
I am concerned about another financial aspect, the appointment of head teachers. That is detailed in schedule 2(10), which says:
"For the purpose of enabling the Board to carry out their functions under paragraphs 9, 11 and 12 of this Schedule, the authority shall supply to the Board such information relating to the applicants for the post as—

(a) the authority have in their possession or can readily obtain; and

(b) the Board may reasonably request."

There are financial implications in that, because the local authority could draw up a short leet which the school board then alters. What information will the school boards have that the local authority will not have that will make the board alter the short leet? On what basis would a school board alter a short leet? We heard nothing about that in the debate, but it is important in terms of the financial resolution because teachers on a short leet may be taken off it. They may raise legal actions against boards if they are taken off the short leet without explanation or for some indeterminate reasons put forward by a school board.
We need to know more about whether the financial resolution is considered in any legal actions that may arise

123
as a result of the powers envisaged for school boards. We are unhappy with the reassurances, partly because of the dubious practices employed by the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, because of the way in which he always sails close to the wind, his venom, and the way in which this is clearly a settling of old scores. We require answers to these questions.
10.36 pm
Mr. Dick Douglas: For a short time I served on the Public Accounts Committee. For that reason, I and other hon. Members are conscious of the fact that we must get value for money. That is why, when we vote money or accede to a money resolution, we have to be clear about what the nation will get in return. The explanation in the Bill about its financial effects is extremely sparse.
On Second Reading we were given two figures. If the difference between them were minuscule, we could disregard it. The Government figure is £5 million. We have heard a figure not from a Labour party source or from what I consider to be a biased source but from a source that the Under-Secretary of State has prayed in aid in another connection—Dumfries and Galloway regional council. Its figure is £20 million. There is a considerable difference between those two figures. The House must have an opportunity to ventilate its views and to get some explanation about that difference in estimated expenditure.
I do not think that Dumfries and Galloway regional council has made up the figure or has embarked on a completely meaningless exercise. The Under-Secretary of State and the Scottish Education Department are considerably underestimating the strains on public expenditure contained in the proposals. Can the Under-Secretary of State tell the House that there will be offsetting savings from the abolition of school councils and what they will be? How much is involved? The Scottish Office should have an idea of that figure. It should know how much will be taken into account in future rate support grant settlements. Those are fair questions for hon. Members to ask.
Above all, we are duty bound to ask whether any of that expenditure will improve Scottish education. I beg to question that. I would not argue that Scottish education is perfect, but I am the husband of a teacher and the father of a teacher and I know the dedication of members of the teaching profession in Scotland to their job. I do not think that money spent in that area will necessarily give us better value for money in return.
Obviously I am in favour of parental interest in education. I speak with some feeling on the subject this evening because my wife, as a teacher, has had a harrowing experience in the past few days, involving one of her young pupils. I do not want to belabour this too much, but one of her pupils was involved in a motor accident as a result of which he died and another pupil was severely injured. I know how much that affected the feelings in my home and the feelings of other teachers in the school.
I should speak only for Fife and my constituency, but, in the main, Scottish teachers are dedicated to the job in hand and the difficulties that they encounter in schools
124
have little to do with education. They have a great deal to do with the type of society that the Under-Secretary wants to perpetrate—a greedy, acquisitive society.
The hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) may nod his head, but he is only an aspiring parliamentary private secretary. The really dangerous man in Scottish education and health is the Under-Secretary of State. He is the most dangerous man in the Scottish Office today. I called him a pusillanimous polecat. I was perhaps being over-generous. We must have freedom of speech. We must respect other people's views, but the Under-Secretary of State does not respect other people's views.
Mr. Bill Walker: That is not true. My hon. Friend has listened very carefully to all the representations. I should also like to assure the hon. Gentleman that I have no wish to be a parliamentary private secretary.
Mr. Douglas: I do not wish to become involved in discussing the hon. Gentleman's political aspirations.
If the Under-Secretary of State could have got away with his original proposals, he would have done so. Unfortunately, he has got away with his proposals for the poll tax, but that is another issue and I would be called to order if I enlarged on that while we are debating a money resolution. However, we must be clear about the type of character with which we are dealing. We are dealing with someone who will not adhere to the normal conventions of political debate. If the Under-Secretary of State can get his way, he will. Opposition Members must be clear about that and the implications for Scottish education and health.
Tonight we are dealing with education. There is nothing in the proposals that will enhance the quality of Scottish education. On the money resolution we must ask ourselves whether this will be money well spent. We have been told by the Under-Secretary of State that the proposals deal with parental control. I asked the Minister to give way on that point earlier and I hope that I have got him right as I do not want to misquote him. If they deal with parental control, the next stage—opting out—will deal with parental choice. The proposals represent the first stage of a two-stage rocket. If we grant permission to spend money on the Bill, we will be taking an important step.
Whatever the qualities or deficiencies of the Scottish education system, it has had the characteristic of preserving a sense of community and identity. Although I have said this before, I emphasise that I am one of the few hon. Members on either side of the House who left school at 14. I realise the value of education and the education process. If we inject self-aggrandisement and acquisitiveness into the system, we will destroy the essential characteristics of Scottish education.
I want to refer to a leading article in The Economist which the Minister might find attractive. It should be read by all hon. Members and especially by Opposition Members. It shows clearly that the thrust of the Thatcherite revolution—if I can dignify it in those terms—is to promote the standards and outlook of south-east England in Scotland and elsewhere. We do not want that. If we desired that, we would have moved south-east. The Minister's experience of local government comes from the city of Westminister. He has no experience of Stirling, Fife, Strathclyde or Grampian. The Minister's value-for-money outlook is not shared in Scotland.

125
Many schools would refer to the expenditure involved in the Bill in terms of gross national product. The Minister must explain why we have heard estimates of the costs varying between £20 million and £5 million. What we are debating now may have no impact or effect on the form of education in schools. I believe that, with their background, Scottish teachers will resist what the Minister and the Government are trying to impose on them.
The dislocation still exists. That is why I believe that we must resist the aura of opting out. The Tories want opting out because they know that it will divide us. Opting out will be divisive and it will make people atomistic and selfish. That is not value for money. It is destructive and it appeals to the selfish outlook that people in other areas of society have called wicked and selfish. If we follow that path, we will destroy the cohesion in Scottish society. We should resist all the attitudes and ideas in the Bill with all the force that we can command.
10.48 pm
Mr. Alistair Darling: It is important to discuss the financial effects of the Bill because it is one of the many aspects on which Ministers have been reticent. They say that the cost of setting up the school boards will be in the region of £5 million. They dispute COSLA's figure of £20 million. If the school boards are to work properly and do everything that they are told they should do, they will cost a great deal more than £5 million.
As I said earlier, I served on three school councils in the six years that I was on the education committee of Lothian regional council. I suspect that I have more experience of serving on school councils than any Government supporter. They know as little about school councils as they know about the schools that we are discussing tonight, because most of them have chosen to send their children to the schools in the private sector. [Interruption.]
I would be interested if any Conservative Member could name one governing body of a private school that is run predominantly by parents who have children currently at the school. The fact is that those governing bodies are comprised of parents of former pupils and of other interested parties. That is something that the Government seem to ignore when they talk about having a preponderance of parents of pupils currently at the school. They should be aware of the difficulties and the invidious position in which parents of current pupils would find themselves.
Mr. Buchan: Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to correct the annoying belief of Conservative Members that, because he was sent by his parents to a fee-paying school, he is somehow guilty?
Mr. Darling: I have always found it interesting that Conservative Members are often keen to refer to that matter, but it does not worry me. Having been to an institution of that nature, I am in a good position to comment on its defects. I suspect that if I had not been educated in such an institution, any criticisms I offered would be denounced as having been made without experience. I am in a good position to make some good criticisms of such institutions.
Each member of the school boards will be able to claim allowances. That is important because if parents and school board members are expected to run schools properly they will have to spend some considerable time
126
getting to know the school, the intricacies of the modern curriculum and maintenance and how to distinguish between income and capital, let alone mastering Munn and Dunning, the Pack report, curriculum assessment, and so on. All that needs time.
If we do not pay proper allowances and accept the fact that parents and others will have to take considerable time off work—if they are lucky enough to work—and that they may incur expense, those people will be severely disadvantaged and will not be able to run schools in the way that the Government envisage.
I spent a number of years as a governor of Napier college in Edinburgh. Almost total financial responsibility there was given to the governing body and it was necessary for each of us to spend considerable time grappling with the intricacies of college finance. If one cannot devote the time and energy that is required, one is simply paying lip service to governors or school board members being able to run schools. It is a fact that, unless one is familiar with the curriculum and financing of schools, one will be guided by the advice offered by the head teacher and other staff.
That brings me to my second point. I readily admit that school councils have weaknesses, one of which is that they are dominated by teachers. Time and again it was obvious to those of us who were councillors and parents that those who did most of the speaking were teachers. It was only the teachers who understood modern developments arid were familiar with what was going on within the school from day to day.
That is why I suspect that it will cost substantially more than the Government care to admit to enable parents to be properly trained and to spend the amount of time necessary to tackle the head teacher and the teachers on an equal basis. I am all for an interchange of views between teachers and parents, but it must be on the basis of equality. I would certainly back any measure that enabled parents to be properly financed so that they could argue with and tackle head teachers.
When I was a councillor, I often felt that what I was being told by the head teacher was not quite right, but because I did not have the grounding in the curriculum that they had I was not able to compete with them and speak the same language. That is a serious point. If Conservative Members had the slightest experience of school councils, they would realise that it is a very serious problem. Of course the serious problem for Scottish education is that Conservative Members do not have such experience.
Indeed, one of the fundamental problems facing Scottish education is that the Government are blockading funds to schools and at the same time are waging guerrilla warfare against the schools in the public sector because :it does not affect them and it does not affect their children if they experiment with other people's children. That is why this measure is so deeply resented.
Clauses 9 and 10 place significant impositions on the education authority and on the head teacher to provide information to those members of the school board who ask for it. It is quite right that they should have such information. One of the weaknesses of school councils is that they did not get information that they might have wanted. One of the reasons why they did not get it was the tremendous cost of providing that information and the cost that would have been incurred by members of the school council in getting that information. If the Minister

127
is serious about the school boards being successful, he must be prepared properly to fund the activities of the board.
All the school councils that I was on wanted to communicate with the parents and the community in the areas that they served. They could not do so because they did not have the funds to put together a newsletter. It is as serious and as simple as that. They did not have the funds because the local education authority was not in a position to make those funds available. That is another reason why the Government's estimate of the cost of running the school boards is wildly wrong. They know nothing about school councils because they have no practical experience. Indeed, their total experience of Scottish education is gained from lunatic fringes in obscure academic institutes that seem to steer our education system.
Opposition Members intend to pursue the debate tonight because every penny that is spent on school boards will come out of the budgets of education authorities. The concern of school councils and of parents throughout Scotland, England and Wales is the lack of money to be spent on buying school books, laboratory equipment and games equipment, and on painting and maintaining the schools. The one thing about which parents are concerned is lack of funds.
That is why we feel very resentful that the school boards proposal will take funds away from the rest of the education budget, at a time when the Government could quite easily put the matter right. If they are serious about parental involvement, first, they should fund the boards properly, and, secondly, they should start funding schools and education properly.
10.58 pm
Mr. John McFall: It is important that we look at the financial implications of the Bill. The Government have mentioned £5 million as a basis. I contend that that is a throw-away figure, as the Government are not interested in state education and public provision and the figure of £5 million bears little relation to the cost.
If the Bill were to provide a genuine basis for parental involvement, it would be welcomed by parents, educationists and the public. However, we have to look to the Government and to the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), in order to determine our faith in their intentions. On 11 November 1985, in the debate on the Gracious Speech, he said to the then Secretary of State for Education and Science:
"In the industrial areas of our land, the strategy of privatisation has broken the mould … I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science will embrace the same strategy in his attitude to education."—[Official Report, 11 November 1985; Vol. 86, c. 366.]
That is what he and every individual in Scotland see as the Government's intention in proposing the Bill.
The consultation exercise confirmed that fact. Only I per cent. of the 7,600 returns supported the Government's proposals; 95 per cent. of the individuals who replied refuted them; and 95 per cent. of the parent-teacher associations refuted the Government's proposals.
What will the Bill do for individual parents and for Scottish education? It will do nothing for individual
128
parents who seek information about their children. The Bill does not provide for the rights of individual parents and it does not provide resources for Scottish education. It will take much-needed money away from Scottish education.
What will the Bill do for my constituents? There is a secondary school in my constituency that has to close and amalgamate with another school. I warn the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), that I shall demand that he provides as good public education in Dumbarton in the future as has been provided in the past.
Opting out will denude local authorities of finance. The Bill already provides for opting out. Clause 5, in conjunction with clause 8, will make opting out a reality. According to clause 5, school boards can operate in an autonomous fashion to the extent that they can seek further functions until they opt out of local authority control completely. Subsection (2) confers on head teachers a status that is independent of that of employee and representative of the local education authority. Subsection (3) provides that a local education authority can give advice to a school board only if the school board requests it. Subsection (2) of clause 8 provides that in exercising its functions a school board shall act as the agent of the local education authority in its dealings with third parties. The combined effect of these clauses will have grave implications for local authorities.
The clause also specifies that school board members have no personal liability so long as they act in good faith. Thus, a school board will be able to negotiate with third parties and in doing so commit grievous errors, yet the local authority will be unable to do anything about it other than take the consequences for the wrongful act of a school board. If local authority councillors have to take responsibility for their actions, then school board members should also have to take such responsibility.
The lack of definition suggests to me that the Government do not give a toss for education. They are on their way to opting out and to privatisation. The Government are telling the Scottish electorate that the good state education system that has been built up in Scotland over many years no longer features in their plans. That is demonstrated by the status that the Government have given to members of school boards.
Further, clause 8(4) provides that school boards shall have regard to further education, but it does not specify that it has to be provided. In theory, a school board could decide to provide further education, but a simple majority of parents on the school board would have the right to decide whether adults could enjoy further education in a particular school. It will be for the school boards to decide whether further education is to be provided for the local community. It is a recipe for disaster in education.
I am very much aware of the time. Let me say, however, that the results of consultation show that the Government have been deaf to the responses that they have received. Their blindness in going ahead with their plans can only mean the destruction of education in Scotland. That is why, for the sake of resources and of Scottish education, we must fight the Bill line by line and clause by clause.
11.4 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Forsyth): The hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) has just made the most

129
astonishing attack on the judgment of his own Front Bench. It was that Front Bench, and the spokesman responsible for education, who welcomed the proposals in January as a major climbdown on the Government's part, and as representing a consensus that people in Scotland would be prepared to support.
The hon. Gentleman raised again the same point—about 95 per cent. of responses to consultation being opposed—that was made by several speakers in the Second Reading debate. I answered then, but in case he did not hear what I said, I shall repeat it. The EIS rated every response that made any criticism of our proposals as opposition, and the consultation process—which resulted in some 8,000 responses—produced a remarkable number of positive suggestions, many of which have been incorporated in the Bill.
However, we are discussing the money resolution. The resolution provides for two sets of costs which may arise from the Bill. Both are very modest. First, it provides for expenses accruing to the Secretary of State, to cover expenditure incurred in the development of any information and training programme for board members. That is clearly of crucial importance. We estimate that such a programme will cost about £500,000 in 1988–89, and we intend the amount to be met from existing planned provision.
Secondly, the resolution provides for other costs attributable to the Bill. That will allow the Government to meet their pledge to look at any case that local authorities may make for net additional costs arising from the introduction of school boards to be included in the annual rate support grant settlement.
Mr. Buchan: Will the Minister answer the questions?
Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman asks me to answer the questions. He spent a great deal of the House's time asking what would be the cost implications of opting out. There are no proposals in the Bill for opting out, so no question arises about the costs of providing for it in either the resolution or the Bill. Indeed, I have just answered that point implicitly by pointing out the two purposes to which the resolution relates. [Interruption.] I shall come to the points made by hon. Members one by one, in my own time.
A curious line of thought seems to run through the questions raised by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) and some other hon. Members who have contributed to this short debate. They seem to suggest that there is something deficient in Scottish parents. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Oh, yes. They seem to take the view that every other country in Europe, and other parts of the United Kingdom, can have highly developed systems of parental involvement in schools, but that Scotland cannot—that Scottish parents will somehow behave differently, and are not able to take on the responsibilities that exist elsewhere.
Mr. Brian Wilson: The Minister travelled to Denmark at public expense to shore up the assertion that certain things happen in Europe, only to be contradicted entirely by teachers' representatives in that country. Should he not be a little more cautious about citing European examples in support of his statements?
Mr. Forsyth: I should give a little advice to the hon. Gentleman. It is always wise to check one's facts before
130
making a point. I appreciate that it was difficult to see, but tucked in the bottom part of the letters page of The Scotsman he would have seen a letter from the Danish Minister of Education, who is a Liberal, pointing out that the person who was dragged across to this country by the EIS to make the point that the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) made was totally unrepresentative.
The suggestion of the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North was also an attack on the BBC, which sent a film crew to Denmark with us. It spoke to all the teachers' representatives, the Minister of Education, the trade unions and parents and could not find one person who did not take the view that the effect of having parents involved in schools had been to increase the quality of provision of education. That is also the answer to the point made by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas), who asked how the proposals will result in an improvement in the quality of education.
Our estimate of the true net additional cost—net additional cost is the key point—of the introduction of school boards is in the region of £5 million at the outset. That is less than 0·5 per cent. of the total local authority current expenditure on schools in 1986–87. Even the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities' inflated estimate amounts to only just over 1 per cent. of that expenditure. Nevertheless—I should have thought that Opposition Members would welcome this—we have shown our willingness to look at any case that the authorities may make for an increase in the rate support grant settlement, and this resolution provides the mechanism for us to meet that promise.
The resolution provides for the essential expenditure associated with preparing and training school board members and allows us to meet our promise to consider the effect of the Bill on education authorities. It should have the support of both sides of the House.
The reasons why the COSLA estimate differed from our net figure were explained during my response to the Second Reading debate.
Mr. Douglas rose—
It being three-quarters of an hour after the commence ment of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 ( Exempted Business):—
The House divided: Ayes 201, Noes 72.

Division No. 251]

[11.12 pm

AYES

Alexander, Richard

Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Allason, Rupert

Boswell, Tim

Amess, David

Bottomley, Peter

Amos, Alan

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Arbuthnot, James

Bowis, John

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

Brazier, Julian

Ashby, David

Bright, Graham

Aspinwall, Jack

Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

Atkins, Robert

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Atkinson, David

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

Baldry, Tony

Buck, Sir Antony

Batiste, Spencer

Budges, Nicholas

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Burns, Simon

Bellingham, Henry

Burt, Alistair

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Butcher, John

Bevan, David Gilroy

Butler, Chris

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Butterfill, John

131

Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

Jackson, Robert

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Janman, Tim

Carrington, Matthew

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Carttiss, Michael

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Cash, William

Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

Chapman, Sydney

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Chope, Christopher

Key, Robert

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Knapman, Roger

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Knowles, Michael

Couchman, James

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Cran, James

Lang, Ian

Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)

Latham, Michael

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Lawrence, Ivan

Day, Stephen

Lee, John (Pendle)

Devlin, Tim

Lightbown, David

Dorrell, Stephen

Lilley, Peter

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Dover, Den

McLoughlin, Patrick

Dunn, Bob

Malins, Humfrey

Durant, Tony

Mans, Keith

Eggar, Tim

Maude, Hon Francis

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

Miller, Hal

Fallon, Michael

Mills, lain

Farr, Sir John

Monro, Sir Hector

Favell, Tony

Morrison, Hon Sir Charles

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Neale, Gerrard

Fookes, Miss Janet

Nelson, Anthony

Forman, Nigel

Neubert, Michael

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Forth, Eric

Nicholls, Patrick

Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Franks, Cecil

Page, Richard

Fry, Peter

Paice, James

Gale, Roger

Patten, Chris (Bath)

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Patten, John (Oxford W)

Gill, Christopher

Pawsey, James

Goodhart, Sir Philip

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Porter, David (Waveney)

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Portillo, Michael

Gow, Ian

Powell, William (Corby)

Gower, Sir Raymond

Price, Sir David

Greenway, Harry (Eating N)

Raffan, Keith

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

Gregory, Conal

Rathbone, Tim

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Redwood, John

Grist, Ian

Riddick, Graham

Ground, Patrick

Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

Hampson, Dr Keith

Roe, Mrs Marion

Hannam, John

Ryder, Richard

Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')

Sayeed, Jonathan

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Shaw, David (Dover)

Harris, David

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Hawkins, Christopher

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Hayes, Jerry

Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Sims, Roger

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Hind, Kenneth

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

Holt, Richard

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

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

Squire, Robin

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Stanbrook, Ivor

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Stern, Michael

Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

Stevens, Lewis

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Jack, Michael

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

132

Sumberg, David

Waller, Gary

Summerson, Hugo

Ward, John

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Warren, Kenneth

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Wells, Bowen

Temple-Morris, Peter

Wheeler, John

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

Whitney, Ray

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Widdecombe, Ann

Thurnham, Peter

Wiggin, Jerry

Tracey, Richard

Wilshire, David

Tredinnick, David

Wolfson, Mark

Trotter, Neville

Wood, Timothy

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Waddington, Rt Hon David

Tellers for the Ayes:

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd and

Waldegrave, Hon William

Mr. David Maclean.

Walker, Bill (T'side North)

NOES

Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

Lambie, David

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Leadbitter, Ted

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Leighton, Ron

Bermingham, Gerald

Lewis, Terry

Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

McAvoy, Thomas

Buchan, Norman

Macdonald, Calum A.

Buckley, George J.

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

McLeish, Henry

Canavan, Dennis

McWilliam, John

Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

Marek, Dr John

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Clelland, David

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Crowther, Stan

Maxton, John

Cryer, Bob

Meacher, Michael

Cummings, John

Meale, Alan

Dalyell, Tarn

Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Mowlam, Marjorie

Dewar, Donald

Nellist, Dave

Dixon, Don

O'Neill, Martin

Dobson, Frank

Pike, Peter L.

Doran, Frank

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Douglas, Dick

Ruddock, Joan

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Salmond, Alex

Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

Short, Clare

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

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

Fyfe, Maria

Spearing, Nigel

Galbraith, Sam

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Turner, Dennis

Graham, Thomas

Wallace, James

Haynes, Frank

Walley, Joan

Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

Home Robertson, John

Wilson, Brian

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Worthington, Tony

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Tellers for the Noes:

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

Mr. Alastair Darling and

Kirkwood, Archy

Mr. John McFall.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved.
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the School Boards (Scotland) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

(a) any expenses of the Secretary of State under the Act; and

(b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums so payable under any other enactment.

Church Commissioners (Priority Areas)
11.22 pm
Mr. Michael Alison (Second Church Estates Commissioner, Representing Church Commissioners): I beg to move,
That the Church Commissioners (Assistance for Priority Areas) Measure, passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.
The general aim of this Measure is twofold. First, it updates some existing powers of the Church Commissioners so that they may assist the dioceses with finance for church buildings in any area where social or economic changes have taken place. "Church buildings" here means buildings of any description provided or adapted for church purposes, and could include, for example, facilities for youth clubs or even sheltered workshops or a day nursery or some other such provision. Secondly, it gives the Commissioners separate, discretionary powers to make payment to the Church urban fund, which has been established by the Church of England to target financial assistance to urban priority areas.
As regards the church building provisions, the Commissioners currently have the power under the New Housing Areas (Church Buildings) Measure 1954 to make payment out of their general fund towards suitable buildings for use by or in connection with the Church in areas of substantial housing development.
That Measure reflected the special need for such buildings in the aftermath of the second world war, when local sources of finance were unable to keep pace with the demand for such buildings created by the huge mushroom growth in new building. This power was exercisable in areas of recent housing development, which the 1954 measure defined as the provision of new dwellings after I April 1945. That is well over 40 years ago now. Wartime developments also qualified if the Commissioners were satisfied that the lack of suitable Church buildings was due to wartime conditions.
The 1954 definition of recent housing developments has been blunted by the passage of time, since it now includes developments which took place, as I have said, over 40 years ago. So clause 1(1) of the new Measure substitutes a new definition which limits eligible developments to those completed during the period of 25 years preceding a request to the Commissioners for assistance under the 1954 Measure, thereby telescoping the eligible time frame.
Clause 1(2) is a transitional provision to ensure that requests for assistance received by the Commissioners before clause 1 of the Measure before us tonight comes into force will be dealt with by them in accordance with the definition as originally enacted.
The Commissioners have become increasingly aware that the concentration of the 1954 Measure on new housing areas touched only a part of the problems facing us today. Social and economic changes on their own can create a new need for suitable Church buildings of the kind I have already described. This point was well made in the report of the Archibishop's commission on urban priority areas.
Accordingly, clause 2(1) gives power to the Commissioners to make grants or loans for or towards the provision of Church buildings in any area where there are not enough suitable Church buildings because of social or
134
economic changes in that area. And these, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will be glad to hear, need not be limited to urban priority areas. The rural community—my right hon. and hon. Friends and right hon. and hon. Gentlemen will be glad to know that the rural environment has not been lost sight of in this Measure—will also be eligible.
Clause 2(2) supplements this by incorporating certain provisions of the 1954 Measure, the most notable of which is section 1(5), which defines the provision of Church buildings as including their acquisition, or the acquisition of sites for them, their erection, enlargement or improvement, and the conversion or adaptation of any buildings for use as Church buildings.
The 1954 Measure was directed to the provision of buildings wholly or mainly used for purposes connected with the Church of England. By section 2(1) of the Sharing of Church Buildings Measure 1970, the powers under the 1954 Measure were extended to Church buildings affected by a sharing agreement and owned by the Church of England only, or jointly with another Church. Clause 2(3) extends, as it were, the ecumenical powers in subsection (1) in a similar way.
Clause 3 authorises the Commissioners to make payments to the Church urban fund. Subsection (2) describes in more detail the ways in which money may now be made available, and corresponds to the power that the Commissioners have under section 1(4) of the 1954 Measure.
The establishment of the Church urban fund was recommended in the report of the Archbishop's commission on urban priority areas—which was the commission that authorised, and indeed set up and produced, the familiar book "Faith in the City"—as a means for creating a financial mechanism to target financial assistance from the Church on urban priority areas. It was recognised that most of the fund's resources would have to be obtained through a national appeal. Indeed, the Church is shortly to embark upon an appeal to raise no less than £18 million for the Church urban fund. However, the report also recommended that the fund's resources should include an annual contribution from the Church Commissioners.
The House will know that the Church Commissioners' power to spend money is regulated by the Church Commissioners Measure 1947 which established the Church Commissioners and which specified what they could spend money on, principally the care of souls. If they step outside the prescribed limits or areas of expenditure they have to come to the House for authority to do so, which is the purpose of the Measure before us.
The Church urban fund has already been incorporated as a company, registered under the Companies Act 1985 and limited by guarantee. The Archbishop of Canterbury is the chairman of the directors, who are referred to as trustees. The vice-chairman is Sir Richard O'Brien, who is chairman of the Archbishop's commission. There are nine other trustees, of whom three are nominated by the Church Commissioners.
The prime task of the fund is to contribute to urban renewal by helping local people to plan and implement ways of meeting their own spiritual, social and economic needs. The Church is well placed, because it already has a considerable presence in urban priority areas. The fund will work ecumenically and promote partnership with other voluntary organisations, local authorities and statutory bodies. It aims to generate spending of £4 million

135
a year until at least the year 2010. The Commissioners hope to contribute £1 million a year to the fund. They are confident that this will not prejudice their existing commitments or their basic object, which is the financial support of the clergy.
Mr. Peter Thurnham: Can my right hon. Friend explain whether "Faith in the City" means that the Church will be selling its agricultural holdings in order to invest in the new urban fund?
Mr. Alison: The resources for the £1 million which the Commissioners hope to contribute to the Church urban fund will come out of the Church Commissioners' general fund, which is a pool of income derived from their investments. They will not be selling any investment to effect the £1 million contribution which they are hoping to make.
There are one or two technical provisions which I should mention. Clause 4 is largely technical. Subsection (1) deals with citation; subsection (2) contains definitions; subsection (3) provides for the Measure to come into force on a day or days to be appointed by the archbishops jointly. Now that the Church urban fund has been incorporated, there is no reason why the Measure should not be brought into force at the earliest possible date—subject, of course, to the House approving it.
Both strands of the Measure are a natural development of the Commissioners' historic role to help the clergy, especially in poor parishes. The Measure gives an opportunity to take further practical action for the Church in areas of economic stress, whether in town or country. The Commissioners are happy to be able to help in this way and are confident, although not complacent, about their ability to find money for it from the general fund.
I hope, therefore, that the House will approve the Measure.
11.33 pm
Mr. Simon Hughes: The Measure is most welcome. As the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) knows, the Church has been waiting for us in this place to have the opportunity to debate it, having itself resolved, with no opposition from bishops, clergy or laity, that the Measure was a way of responding to one of the calls in "Faith in the City". Sometimes the Church is criticised for interfering in matters of the state. This is archetypally not a Measure which seeks to do that. It is archetypally a Measure whereby the Church is seeking to put its own house in order, to redirect its own resources and to re-order its own affairs. The approval of the House is needed so that the Commissioners can make their contribution on behalf, as it were, of the whole established Church and, out of its accumulated funds, to the Church urban fund, which will be launched on 20 April, as the right hon. Member for Selby said.
The launch date is near and the two archbishops have asked that in all churches on the following weekend there will be an appeal for all dioceses to contribute to the fund. The large contributions to the fund will come from within the Church—led, supported and directed by the bishops, or their nominees in the diocese of the Church of England—and the grant funding of projects to assist the Church's
136
mission in urban areas will then be made as a result of applications being submitted and carefully processed with the approval of the bishops.
This will not be an independent body working within the Church. It will be an essential method by which the Church will fund its mission in the urban areas in ways which those concerned consider to be appropriate. The procedures for doing this have been carefully prepared to ensure that applications for grant most appropriately help the work of the Church.
This is an important Measure to the Church, and in saying that I should perhaps declare my interest as the only hon. Member on the committee appointed by the Archbishop of Canterbury to continue to advise him on the implementation of the document "Faith in the City", as it applies to both the Church and the nation.
The key conclusion, in fundamental terms, in that report as it addressed itself to the Church was that the Church had been failing in particular to address the concerns and needs, both social and spiritual, of many urban areas. Many such areas have seen a change of pattern. People have moved out of the old city centres and have created new communities for themselves in peripheral estates. But the Church leadership has remained; the parish priests are still there, often some of the few professionals living in the places where they work.
They have often been left with the feeling of having old plant—old churches, old equipment and old resources—and without the wherewithal, because they have small, often poor, congregations, who may be unable to rise to the challenge of meeting the demands and costs of the Church in the 1980s and beyond. If the Church, in an ecumenical way, as the Measure would provide, is to become renewed, it must in many instances have renewed plant, resources, strategy and enthusiasm.
Another method which "Faith in the City" identified as appropriate to help the Church was for the historic resources of the Church to be diverted away from areas where they had accumulated but had little applied use, apart from creating income on capital. The report did not see that historic wealth being at present applied in ways which allowed the Church to go about its work, remembering that the work of mission and support is expensive and must be funded.
Many eminent members of the Church, lay and ordained, have been involved in the preparation of this Measure, and it is noteworthy that Sir Richard O'Brien is the vice-chairman of the fund. Having previously been chairman of the Commission, he has been committed, as a financier and leader of commerce and investment policy, to making sure that the Church does its job in a professional and competent way. His advice and that of many others has been sought, as a result of which this Measure has come into being.
There was no opposition in the Synod. There was agreement in the Committee of both Houses that met to consider whether it was expedient for this matter to come before the House. By an overwhelming majority, it decided that now was the time and there could be no delay.
I hope that the Measure will go through, and that there will be no opposition to it. I hope that we shall not be distracted by peripheral issues. The Church wants to be effective in the urban areas of Britain, and to set its own house in order. Like many other hon. Members, I represent a constituency in inner urban Britain, with its dereliction and decay—both secular, and, apparently,

137
religious. The sooner those who are working for the renewal of urban Britain are aided by having the resources to go about their work, the more likely will be physical and structural renewal, and the renewal of communities, their morality and the social fabric of inner Britain.
The sooner also will be the renewal of the sort of hope that has long since gone for many who live in our urban areas and which, were it not for the Church, would have been extinguished altogether. The flames of that hope had become embers in many places. Now is the chance for the House, given that the Church has decided it can move ahead, to fan those embers back into flame and renew the practical application of what the Christian message is meant to be in the urban areas of Britain in the 1980s, and beyond.
11.42 pm
Mr. Alistair Burt: I wish to say a few words in strong support of the Measure. It provides a welcome opportunity to look again at "Faith in the City", a document which was open to easy misinterpretation, partly because it touched on political matters, and so fell easy prey to the tabloid press, which sought only the sensational parts of it.
The document was important because it was a sensitive understanding by the Church of its own problems in the inner cities. It confronted them honestly and straightforwardly, and looked hard at its own flaws. It is a shame that that aspect of the report was never really brought out in subsequent discussions of it. I disagree strongly with some of its political conclusions and solutions, but it is to be strongly commended for its self-criticism of the work the Church was doing in the inner cities.
There are some shining examples of Church growth in our poor areas, mostly depending on inspired leadership and strong biblical teaching. There are also examples of failure by the Church in the inner cities. If the Measure can help to build up successes and prevent failures, it is to be warmly welcomed. The removal of Jesus Christ from the heart of our cities is as dire as his removal from our own lives. If the Measure can help to deal with that, too, it is to be welcomed.
The Church must ensure that its work, whether in cities, towns or inner cities always puts God first. It must remember that its real renewal, as the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said, is based around its biblical teaching, not its social policies and skills. It is true that the one is a tool for the other, but the Church must always remember that God's work comes first, because that is the engine of growth and renewal in the Church.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey will remember that when he and I were in South Africa two years ago with the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike), we went to a church service in Alexandra, one of the townships outside Johannesburg. In terms of material deprivation and poverty, that place outstripped anything that our inner cities can produce. Yet the church was filled to capacity on the morning we went to it. No political sermon was preached; there was simply an immense feeling of the love of Jesus Christ and of God. It filled the people in that church, and the amount of good work
138
engendered by that spirit was immense. There was no question there of using resources for one particular purpose and putting politics before God. God was at the heart of it, and everything flowed from that.
I quote that example to remind the Church in this country of exactly the same thing. If God is in the right place, and if the spiritual leadership and the biblical teaching of the Church are right, the resources can help to build up the atmosphere and the work of the Church, and that will have extra influence on the inner cities around the Church. If we get that the wrong way round and concentrate too much on the social and political side and move people too far away from God, they will not make the right connections and the right decisions.
The Measure will he sensibly used by the Church in the inner cities to do exactly what is needed. It has long been necessary and I am glad to see it. I am certain that the Measure will be used in the right way by the Church and the House should warmly welcome it.
11.45 pm
Mr. Frank Field: Clement Attlee gave Members of the House the advice that in debate, whenever possible, they should say yes or no, or admit that they had nothing new to contribute. Having listened to the contribution by the Second Church Estates Commissioner, I am happy to say that I have nothing new to contribute to the debate, except to say that I hope we approve the Measure. After all, it may be the last non-contentious issue for some time that we receive from the Church.
11.46 pm
Dr. John G. Blackburn: I have been honoured by the House by being given the opportunity to serve for the past nine years on the Ecclesiastical Committee of the House and I have always taken a great interest in the spiritual welfare of the Church and in the message that it presents to the country at large.
Like hon. Members in all parts of the House, at times I was challenged and confused by the document that is at the centre of our debate—"Faith in the City". Having examined it at great length, I think that the House must applaud the fact that for the first time in many years the Church has stopped, has publicly examined itself and has produced the method by which we should go forward well into the next century. My right hon. Friend outlined that when he opened the debate.
It is true beyond words that today Britain needs a spiritual awakening, and that must not be marred or tarnished in any way by the social and other aspects of the Measure. The Measure is expedient and in the quietness of the House tonight we are taking a most historic step that will have a tremendous impact on the spiritual values of the country. It is my prayer that it will bring new life and a new vision of Jesus Christ. I wish the Measure godspeed.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Church Commissioners (Assistance for Priority Areas) Measure, passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.

Green Belt (Bearsden and Milngavie)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Durant.]
11.48 pm
Mr. Tony Worthington: I wish to speak about the green belt in Bearsden and Milngavie district council area and I propose to leave some time for my esteemed colleague the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) to take part in the debate. We shall speak with a massive amount of public support and with Bearsden and Milngavie district council behind us.
Only this afternoon the community council in Milngavie phoned to say that it was fully behind us on this issue. All political parties in Bearsden and Milngavie agree on the importance of defending the green belt and are worried by a recent decision of the Secretary of State which undermines the Strathclyde region structure plan. That plan has been immensely important in regenerating Glasgow and in ensuring that that city avoids becoming what the Americans call a doughnut city—one that expands to the outside and leaves a great hole in the middle.
Through that structure plan, there has been a considerable move that has stopped the green belt being encroached upon and the outside of Glasgow becoming wall-to-wall Wimpey. Before Strathclyde came into being, there was a massive overprovision of building land on green field sites. The reason for the debate is to protest at the weakening of the structure plan as a result of the Secretary of State's approval of the building of 6,600 more houses in green field areas. That is not yet affecting Bearsden and Milngavie, but, if we follow through the argument, it will eventually do so.
Bearsden and Milngavie are highly desirable places to live and they both retain their precious, separate identities. People like living there. There are strong community ties, but those depend very much on the size being kept to a reasonable level. The demand to live there is simply immense. Builders would wish to build there continuously, if they were not prevented from doing so, but the demand should be resisted because of the need to continue the regeneration of Glasgow, which has been an immense success, with tenements restored and new housebuilding in areas such as Maryhill, Priesthill and, above all, the Gear area.
One would also need to resist the builders' demands, if the Government's urban policy, announced two or three weeks ago, were to have any chance of success. The Government say that they are now interested in the peripheral housing schemes. One assumes that what occurred in Priesthill will occur in some of those schemes—selective demolition of some areas where there are vacant houses and new private building.
Builders will not go on to brown field sites in inner-city areas unless they are forced to do so. At the inception of the structure plan, the builders said that there would be no demand for city centre sites, but they were proved wrong. They simply wanted to go on building in the traditional areas—Bearsden, Milngavie, Strathkelvin, Lenzie and so on.
It is also important that the builders are resisted because of the infrastructure implications. It is common sense that, where the infrastructure in terms of roads,
140
water, sewers and schools, has already been put in, one should not unnecessarily duplicate that work. As the Under-Secretary of State knows, the Secretary of State for Scotland is singularly mean with Strathclyde regional council. There is no service for which Strathclyde council has been proportionately funded for the past five years. There has been systematic and planned underfunding of that local authority.
In addition to considering the infrastructure factors and the need to regenerate Glasgow, we must also bear in mind that the communities of Bearsden and Milngavie want very much to maintain themselves as they are. They are densely congested districts. They have the least countryside of any district council in Scotland. There is a need for some development in terms of the demand for sheltered housing and further council housing in the area, which is desperately needed, and housing for first-time buyers, but that is not what the builders want to put up.
All that is threatened by the Secretary of State and his weakening of the structure plan. There has been a denial of the fact, demonstrated by the regional and district councils, that Greater Glasgow is a single housing market. Everybody knows that, although people may talk in terms of north of the Clyde and south of the Clyde. To treat the district council areas as the Secretary of State is urging, as the basic unit for supply and demand is frankly ridiculous. What the Secretary of State has done in allowing for mobile demand in Greater Glasgow and Lanarkshire, at half the level shown by recent outside purchasing moves, has no basis in fact. This is denying the regional role in terms of a structural plan. Oddly enough, the district councils fully support the regional role.
It is not true, as the Secretary of State for Scotland has claimed, that the detailed matching of supply and demand is clearly a matter for district councils. It is not. As far as we can tell there is unlimited demand to live in Bearsden and Milngavie. If the demand is yielded to, it will destroy the integrity of the area.
The Secretary of State has accepted the view of the house builders. He has said:
"councils should define an approach to housing market areas which accords more closely with the perceptions of the house builders. The effective land supply as agreed and tabulated by the house builders during 1987 should be taken as a starting point for district assessments."
Why? What evidence is there that the district is right? The elected representatives, the professional planners in the district and region, do not think that the builders are right, but the Secretary of State has taken the view of the self-interested group without accepting that the self-interested group will automatically claim that there is a need for more housing on green field sites. The Secretary of State admits that he is not going by the demographic facts alone and claims that other vague factors must be taken into account. However, there has been no public examination of the builders' submissions.
Left to themselves, the builders automatically prefer green field sites unless they are forced to build on brown field sites. We can reach only one conclusion and I regret saying this. In effect, the Secretary of State and the Tory party have been bought by the builders' interests. Last year the builders made donations of about £150,000 to the Tory party and they are now receiving the reward for their investment.
We have had an immensely successful structure plan for which all parties, including the Government and the local

141
authorities, deserve credit. All the evidence is that the structure plan is working. However, it is being undermined by the Secretary of State's decision, and the revival of Glasgow and the urban policy announced two or three weeks ago are under threat. If we followed the requirements of the Secretary of State in his yielding to the builders, there would be wasteful provision of infrastructure.
As the local Member representing the Milngavie part of Bearsden and Milngavie district, I can tell the Secretary of State that he will undermine the special community nature of places like Milngavie if those areas are prevented from becoming stable and settled communities. If the Secretary of State pushes out along that line, one of the great success stories for which all parties can take credit—one of the great success stories of post-war planning—the green belt, will be threatened.
By choosing this subject for the Adjournment debate, I hope that the Minister will justify the extraordinary example of special pleading which. the builders have made without any authentication or public examination of their submission. Why has the Secretary of State given in to the profit desires of the builders and ignored all the informed opinion and the public sentiment of the citizens of Bearsden and Milngavie?
11.58 pm
Mr. Sam Galbraith: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on behalf of my constituents in the Bearsden part of the Bearsden and Milngavie district council and to protect their interests in what is a desirable, beautiful and excellent place to live. My constituents wish it to stay that way, and I see no reason why it should not do so.
We now find the Government forcing changes on the district which will significantly alter its characteristics and my constituents oppose that. They do not understand, as my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) said, why the districts are suddenly to be the measure by which ranges of options of land are to become available. What has happened to the Greater Glasgow market?
I have many friends who were born in Bearsden or Milngavie who moved off for a while to the centre of Glasgow and lived in the west end, Hyndland and Clarence driveway, before returning eventually to Bearsden or Milngavie. That is the nature of the Glasgow housing market.
I hope that the Minister will address himself to the specific points that I am about to raise. In the Secretary of State's decision letter, Res. I says:
"Each district will bring forward and maintain a range of opportunities for private house building."
That is important, because it means that in Bearsden and Milngavie parts of the green belt will have to be opened up. There is enough land available for future housing needs in Bearsden and Milngavie, but for the range of options being considered the green belt will have to be opened up, particularly if, as the builders tell us, the plans are not just for flats or houses with one or two bedrooms but for houses at the upper end of the market at £150,000. Is Res. 1 in the Secretary of State's letter to satisfy the need for the upper end of the market? The builders will use it to open up the green belt. As my hon. Friend says, they will not go to brown field sites.
142
Let us consider Res. 3 and the increased demand that is written into it. There is some confusion with Res. 1. Paragraph 1.5.6 of the decision letter recognises that immediate cross-boundary flows and opportunities may occasionally justify some flexibility in matching local demand and supply for individual districts. What does that mean? Have the districts to be self-contained, or shall we take into consideration what is going on in surrounding districts? If so, we are back to a Greater Glasgow housing market.
Let me remind the Minister of the Tower farm decision. The Secretary of State recognised that demand for the kind of housing sought in the application. Tower farm is in the Strathkelvin area of my constituency which, according to Resolution 3 will have to find additional land for houses, which will, of necessity, mean opening up the green belt. Tower farm would have been the initial opening up. Yet the Secretary of State said that demand for the kind of housing sought in the application could be met through the development of available sites in Bearsden and Milngavie, which are nearby within the conurbation as well as in the same market area.
Is not there a confusion in the Secretary of State's decision letter where he talks about single districts and the greater market? How much flexibility will there be? Will Strathkelvin have to meet all its extra demand by opening up the green belt or can it be met in surrounding districts with surpluses of land? Can Bearsden and Milngavie deal with Resolution 1 by looking at the Strathkelvin area? That is important. It is also relevant to the current issue of the Langfauld farm application, which is going to written submissions. Does the Secretary of State agree that that must go to a public inquiry?
Is it not the case that the Scottish Office is now paying its debts to the builders? As we know, the chairman of the Conservative party has close links with McTaggart and Mickel. Are the Government now paying them back in kind for their contributions to the Conservative party?
12.4 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): Our premise is to act in the best interests of Scotland as a whole. May I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) who is responsible for at least 50 per cent. of the Adjournment debates which I have answered, as well as an enormous host of parliamentary questions. I say that in advance, as I am about to disagree with much of what he said. I shall endeavour to answer all the points that he raised and I shall read again what the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) said and if I miss any points I shall follow them up in writing.
I am aware that the modifications have given rise to concern and I should like to make two preliminary points. First, I should make it clear that I cannot offer a definitive interpretation of the policies which now form part of the approved structure plan. The reasoning behind the various modifications which my right hon. Friend made to the policies submitted to him is set out in my Department's decision letter of 10 March. Therefore, a decision has been made and any dispute over the interpretation, if pursued, would have to be a matter for the courts to decide.
However, I believe that the policies are clear. They will have to be interpreted by the district council in preparing its revised local plan for the district and in considering the

143
planning application which it receives. What I can do is give the general considerations which gave rise to that decision letter.
Secondly, I should make it clear that any alteration of green belt boundaries is primarily a matter for the district council. Green belt boundaries are not fixed by the Secretary of State. The need for a green belt in a particular area and the general shape that green belt should take are matters for the regional council, in areas like Strathclyde where both the region and the district having planning responsibilities. As part of its strategic planning for the region as a whole the regional council may wish to propose alterations to the general shape of the green belt, to provide additional protection or to accommodate new development, but the actual boundaries of the green belt can only be formally determined by district councils in local plans.
Thus, the boundaries of that part of the Clyde valley green belt which falls in Bearsden and Milngavie district have been set in the local plans adopted by the district council and will be revised or confirmed in the districtwide local plan which the council has in preparation. Only in exceptional circumstances would my right hon. Friend be prepared to intervene in the preparation of the local plan. I am aware of only one case in which that has happened in the past.
I now turn to the Strathclyde structure plan update 1988, which my right hon. Friend approved with modifications last week.
Mr. Galbraith: Will the Minister give way?
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I should like to get on with the debate; I have many points to answer in a short time.
When our proposed modifications to this update were published last October, many of those who commented argued that they would have the effect of encouraging housing development in the green belt on a significant scale and would detract from the efforts which have been made to encourage regeneration in the Glasgow conurbation. That was the point that the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden just made. Particular concern was expressed by Bearsden and Milngavie district council about the erosion of the green belt in its district. I believe these representations were based on a misunderstanding of the modifications, for a number of reasons.
In the first place, the update contains, as well as a review of the supply of housing land, a review of the Clyde valley green belt. The purpose of this review, which stems from my Department's circular on green belts issued in 1985, was to establish a longer-term settlement strategy for the definition of the green belt, to ensure that the green belt had stability and endurance and to give consideration to the reinstatement of land of which was not making a significant contribution to the green belt.
The review concluded that the general shape of the present green belt was consistent and defensible and that no major alterations to its boundaries were needed. This conclusion was endorsed by my right hon. Friend in approving the update. While this endorsement does not preclude local boundary adjustments, it underlines the
144
commitment of the region and the Government to the maintenance of a green belt around Glasgow and to the retention of the general shape of the existing green belt.
Secondly, while the modifications identify certain districts where in our view action needs to be taken soon to increase the effective supply of housing land during the period to 1993, Bearsden and Milngavie district is not one of the districts concerned. That is one of the key points which I seek to emphasise.
As the district council pointed out in its representations, it has a fair amount of land allocated for housing which has not yet been developed. This does not necessarily mean that no further land is needed for housing in the district in the years ahead—this is something which the district will have to discuss with the house builders in preparing its revised local plan—but it does mean that in a regional context Bearsden and Milngavie is not one of the districts where we perceive a particular shortage and I hope that both hon. Members will accept that assurance.
Mr. Worthington: I accept what the Minister says about the present position, but we are firing warning shots. There is a seven-year supply of building land and an unlimited demand by builders for permission to build. The Minister says that the matching of supply and demand has to be within a district council area. The implication is that the green belt will be threatened if the builders' estimate of demand has to be taken as the truth instead of considering the regional context and giving a proper role to both the district councils and the regional councils.
Lord James Doulgas-Hamilton: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will allow me to answer as many of his questions as possible. We have not gone all the way towards meeting the builders' arguments. We have consulted fully both the councils and the builders and have made the best assessment we can of demand and supply in the years to come. I accept that this is not an exact science; we have to use our best judgment, and we believe that we have done so.
My third point—it is not strictly relevant to the Bearsden and Milngavie district, because no target for additional housing land has been set for that district—is that in districts such as Strathkelvin, where action is needed to find additional housing sites, it does not follow that these sites need to be new green field sites. Many districts have sites allocated for housing which the house builders do not at present believe are likely to yield houses in the near future. In some cases, the sites are not being released by their owners, or there are difficulties over site servicing, ground conditions or other problems.
We believe that a joint examination of these sites by the district council concerned and the house builders could lead to many of them being accepted as effective. In addition, there remains scope in many areas for development on brown field sites in existing built-up areas. We believe, therefore, that many of the additional sites which are needed will be found without and not involving new green field development.
My fourth point is that the new policies that we have introduced have to be read as a whale and that they have to be read in conjunction with the other policies in the structure plan. That is a point which the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden raised. Bearsden and Milngavie district council drew particular attention to the wording of the policy called Res. 1, which states that each district

145
council must bring forward and maintain a range of opportunities for house building. Read in isolation, that could be taken to imply endless green field residential development in each district, but it is specifically subject to Res. 2, which restates the long-standing presumption in the structure plan in favour of brown field rather than green field development.
In addition, the structure plan contains strong policies to protect the green belt, which are unaffected by the recent update. The new policies acknowledge that demand in one district may to some extent have to be accommodated in neighbouring districts—another point that the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden raised.
My right hon. and learned Friend and I therefore consider that the modifications made to the update do not present a major threat to the green field belt around Glasgow. Indeed, by encouraging district councils to sit down with the house builders and examine why sites already allocated for housing are not delivering a steady supply of houses, by re-emphasising the priority to be given to brown field sites and by requiring further housing sites to be found within Glasgow itself, the policies will help to take pressure off the green belt and reinforce the central strategy in the structure plan of encouraging the regeneration of the conurbation.
Giving encouragement to house builders, far from being counter-productive as the hon. Members suggest, will indirectly help the homeless, about which the hon. Members and their colleagues speak on many occasions. The major initiatives that we announced last month in Castlemilk and Ferguslie Park are evidence of our commitment to the strategy that I have mentioned.
I have already stated, in a parliamentary answer to the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) on 9 February—it is in column 64 of Hansard—that we do not expect the modifications that we have made to the update to have a significant effect on the existing green belt. Any boundary adjustments that are needed are most likely to arise in districts where targets for additional sites have been set. As Bearsden and Milngavie is not one of those districts, the policies in the update are even less likely to lead to significant adjustments to the boundary in that district.
As I have explained, I cannot predict how the policies will be interpreted in detail, or prejudge the conclusions that the district council reach in revising its local plans, but I hope that what I have said will allay some of the concern prompted by our modifications to the structure plan update.
Let me now comment more generally on our policy towards green belt and private house building. The
146
Scottish Development Department's circular 24 of 1985 deals with development in the countryside and green belts. As it says, we attach great importance to the need to preserve the existing designated green belts, and to the need to establish confidence in their permanence. We believe that development in designated green belt should continue to be strictly controlled. Appropriate development control policies should be set out in structure plans.
Green belt policies can, however, remain stable only where a proper balance has been struck between the containment and the growth of urban development. Green belts should therefore be based on a long-term settlement strategy for the structure plan area, which provides adequately for such development as can be foreseen. If the green belt boundary is everywhere close to the boundary of the existing built-up area, it is likely to be under constant pressure because of the absence of room for expansion.
The three main purposes for which green belts have traditionally been established are to maintain the identity of towns by establishing clear boundaries and preventing coalescence, to provide countryside for recreation and other purposes and to maintain the landscape setting of towns. We expect authorities, in reviewing green belts, to consider carefully whether land within is making a significant contribution to those central objectives. Where it is not, there may be a case for releasing it for development to relieve pressure on other parts of green belt, or, alternatively, a case for taking positive steps to restore its value as green belt. In general, therefore, we remain strongly committed to the retention of effective green belts, and where cases are referred to us we will authorise development in green belts only in exceptional circumstances.
Let me return more closely to housing in the structure: plan. It has been suggested that the number of additional housing sites that the Secretary of State's modifications to the structure plan update require district councils to find is excessive, and that the Secretary of State has been influenced too much by the views of builders. I do not accept that. The Department's guidance on the provision of housing land, contained in circular 21 of 1983, states that in keeping the provision of housing land under review and assessing the demand for new private housing, planning authorities should work closely with representatives of the private house builders.
The motion having been made after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at eighteen minutes past Twelve o'clock.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Mr. John T. Saxon
  Mr. Allason
  To ask the Attorney-General if Her Majesty's Government plan to proceed against Mr. John T. Saxon, of Springfield, New Jersey, for alleged breach of duty of confidentiality to the Crown in respect of observations attributed to him as a former member of the British Security Service, in the recent biography of Klaus Fuchs, by Professor Robert Williams; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  No.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Passport Office, Birmingham
  Mr. Faulds
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will give consideration to the provision of a passport issuing office in Birmingham.

  Mr. Renton
  We have no plans to do so.

  Sports (Fire Safety)
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many notices have been issued under sections 7(1), 9(1) and 23, respectively, of the Fire Safety and Safety of Places of Sport Act 1987 since the Act came into force.

  Mr. John Patten
  Section 7 of the Fire Safety and Safety of Places of Sport Act 1987 has not been brought into force. We have ascertained that between 1 January 1988, when section 9(1) came into force, and 31 March 15 notices prohibiting and 31 restricting use have been issued, under section 10 of the Fire Precautions Act 1971, by 12 tire authorities in England and Wales in respect of 25 buildings. For some of the buildings in multiple occupation more than one notice was served. Information about notices issued by local authorities under section 10 of the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975 as amended by section 23 of the Fire Safety and Safety of Places of Sport Act is not collected centrally.

  Prisoners (Remission)
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in how many cases of conviction on indictment he has recommended to Her Majesty the Queen(a) a free pardon, (b) remission of imprisonment, (c) remission of detention and (d) remission of time in the years 1986 and 1987.

  Mr. John Patten
  No free pardons were granted in 1986 or 1987 to any person convicted on indictment. In 1986, 94 persons and in 1987, 81 persons convicted at a Crown court were granted remission of sentences as follows :2

  1986

  1987

  Imprisonment

  79

  66

  Youth custody

  15

  15

  Fines

  —

  —

  Total

  94

  81

  ANC Representatives
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, in the light of the murder of the representative of the African National Congress in France, he will call for a report from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis as to the level of police protection he intends to provide for the African National Congress's representatives in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Leading members of the African National Congress were given further advice about their personal security by the police on 29 March. The police have also instituted other measures, but it would not be appropriate to disclose these publicly.

  Brockhill Remand Centre
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if consideration has been given to the recommendation in the Chief Inspector of Prisons report on the Brockhill remand centre to the effect that regular meetings be held between the governors of remand centres and prison department officials to identify common problems and solutions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Existing regional and national conferences should normally provide an adequate opportunity for discussion of matters common to particular classes of establishment. But we do not rule out the possibility at some future date of an ad hoc conference along the lines suggested by the chief inspector.

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, in the context of his response to Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons report on Brockhill remand centre, he will indicate(a) if routine monitoring of the allocation of prisoners from ethnic minorities to accommodation and work has been introduced; if disciplinary charges are recorded according to race; and if time has been allocated on the essential task list for the work of the race relations liaison officer and (b) what steps have been or are due to be taken to improve the state of accommodation and the poverty of the regime at Brockhill.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The position is as follows :(a) yes, except that the number of adjudications by race is monitored regularly (one week per month) but not continuously; and
  (b) considerable improvements have been made. Defective windows have been replaced and floor surfaces repaired; improvements to the kitchen and servery have been carried out and repairs to the activity centre, recess areas, and waiting accommodation for visitors completed. An additional association and activities room has been provided for D wing and day-time association has been increased for other wings. Visits have been extended for 15 minutes to up to two hours.

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps have been taken in response to Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons' report on Brockhill remand centre, and in particular(a) what action is being

  3
  taken to reduce the proportion of prisoners who are unemployed and who spend 15 to 20 hours per day in their cells and (b) what plans exist to provide integral sanitation and to improve sanitary facilities on the landings.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The chief inspector made a total of 95 recommendations. Many of the deficiencies identified have been remedied. In particular, following the introduction of new working arrangements known as fresh start, the frequency of day-time association has been increased for inmates on all wings and an additional association and activities room has been provided for D wing. Those inmates not in employment are now offered education classes, on a roster basis. The length of visits has also been extended considerably. Remedial repairs have been carried out to existing sanitary facilities and a continuous programme of cleaning and repairs has been introduced. There are no plans to introduce integral sanitation in advance of the intended closure of the establishment in 1990 and its conversion to other use.

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, in the context of his response to Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons' report on Brockhill remand centre he will indicate whether(a) prisoners now receive one kit change per week, (b) any remand prisoners are still sharing accommodation with convicted prisoners and (c) there are now pillows in all cells and fire retardant covers for all mattresses.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The position is as follows :

  (a) it is now the normal practice for kit to be changed twice a week;

  (b) no;

  (c) yes.

  Immigration
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many immigration cases have been referred to the Minister of State responsible for immigration by right hon. and hon. Members for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Renton
  The available information relates to the number of immigration files created following representations by right hon. and hon. Members, and is as follows :

  Number

  1979

  10,395

  1980

  10,029

  1981

  8,945

  1982

  9,931

  1983

  11,456

  1984

  13,164

  1985

  16,024

  1986

  17,511

  1987

  11,842

  Notes:

  1.These figures include a number of letters dealing with general issues rather than individual cases.

  2.Representations made on behalf of a single family may be counted as more than one case where the immigration circumstances of more than one member of the family are under consideration.

  3.Further representations made after a reply has been sent are included separately in these figures.

  4.Representations received about the same case from more than one right hon. Member or hon. Member are counted separately.

  The figures include representations on all categories of immigration cases.
  4
  The great majority of these representations were handled by my office and that of my predecessors as Ministers of State.

  Entry Refusals
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the total number of arrivals in the United Kingdom refused entry at the port of entry for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Renton
  The numbers of persons removed from the United Kingdom, after being refused entry at a port, for the years 1979 to 1986 are given in table 4·2 of the Home Office publication "Immigration Nationality and Passports—A Report on the Work of the Departments; October 1987" a copy of which is in the Library. The corresponding figure for 1987 was 19,319.

  Arsenal Football Club
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis as to how many arrests there have been arising from incidents at Arsenal football ground since January 1987.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  There have been 424 such arrests since January 1987.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis as to the total number of police deployed per match since September 1987 in the vicinity of Arsenal football ground.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The number of police officers on duty at football matches depends on the teams involved, and the police assessment of the likelihood of disorder. I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that Arsenal has played 21 matches at Highbury since September 1987, and that the average number of police officers deployed per match was 332.

  Official Secrets Act (Police Officers)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will seek to amend the Official Secrets Act so as to provide that police officers investigating alleged breaches of the law or of police regulations shall be authorised persons for the purposes of the Act.

  Mr. John Patten
  We are in the course of preparing proposals for the reform of section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911 and are not yet in a position to announce detailed conclusions.

  Michael Ryan (Shootings)
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what date he received a full report of the shootings by Michael Ryan in Hungerford; whether he sought further information; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The chief constable's full report on the police handling of the Hungerford incident was received on 1 October 1987. My right hon. Friend did not ask for any further information. He did, however, arrange for Her Majesty's inspector of constabulary to discuss
  5
  some of the issues raised in the report with the chief constable and to identify any lessons which the police service as a whole might learn from the incident. Her Majesty's inspector's report is expected shortly.

  Recidivism
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what he estimates to be the size of the recidivist prison population; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  The readily available information shows the sentenced prison population analysed by the number of previous convictions (tables 3.11, 4.10, 5.10 of the latest issue of "Prison Statistics England and Wales", for 1986, Cm. 210, copies of which are in the Library). Table 8(a) provides the information also available on the proportion of prisoners who were reconvicted within two years of the discharge from their sentence.

  Rural Areas (Policing)
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received concerning the policing of rural areas; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  As I explained in answer to a Question from the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) on 21 January, at column 785, it is for chief officers of police to determine the most suitable methods of policing rural areas.

  Extradition (USA)
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many requests for extradition in respect of British citizens deserting from United States of America armed forces have been received from the United States Government in the past three years.

  Mr. John Patten
  Requests by the United States authorities for the return of deserters from the United States armed forces are dealt with in accordance with the provisions of the Visiting Forces Act 1952. I understand that there have been three requests in the last three years in respect of persons with dual British and United States citizenship.

  North Wales Police
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will increase the manpower levels of the North Wales police, in the light of the representations by the North Wales chief constable; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The North Wales police authority has applied for 40 additional police posts in 1988–89. The application is being considered, together with those from other police authorities, in the light of advice from Her Majesty's inspectors of constabulary.

  Crime Statistics
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the recently published crime statistics in north Wales.
  6
  Mr. John Patten
  In 1987 the increase in recorded crime in north Wales was greater than in England and Wales as a whole, but the number of offences per 100,000 population was well below the national average. The increase in the clear-up rate from 32 to 43 per cent. is encouraging. We also welcome the above-average fall in domestic burglaries, and the increase in the number of these offences cleared up following a growth in neighbourhood watch and other crime prevention activities.

  Trespass and Illegal Occupation
  Mr. John Browne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation to bring trespass and illegal occupation of land and buildings, including squatting, entirely within the terms of the criminal law so as to enable land and home owners to gain more rapid repossession of their land, building and homes.

  Mr. John Patten [holding answer 24 March 1988]The criminal law already applies to various circumstances in which trespassers enter or occupy land or buildings.

  For example, it is an offence under the Criminal Law Act 1977 to use or threaten to use violence against persons or property to secure entry to premises against the opposition of a person present there, to refuse to leave residential premises having entered as a trespasser when required to do so by a displaced occupier or intended occupier, to have a weapon of offence having entered premises as a trespasser or to obstruct or resist an officer of a court enforcing a civil judgment or order for recovery of the premises. Section 39 of the Public Order Act 1986 gives the police powers to direct trespassers to leave land in certain circumstances, and it is an offence to disobey such a direction.

  We have no plans at present for further legislation in this area.

  Racing (Drug Misuse)
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what information he has about the number of cases of drug misuse involving animals within the racing industry since 1979.

  (2) if he will introduce legislation to make it a criminal offence to misuse restricted drugs, particularly steroids, in the horse and dog racing industries; and if he will make a statement.

  (3) if he has received any request for funds from the horse and dog racing industries to help combat the misuse of drugs on either race horses or dogs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  [pursuant to his reply, 18 January, 1988, c. 564]If drugs are used on racing animals, in appropriate circumstances conspiracy to defraud could be charged. The Law Commission, in its working paper number 104, has asked for views on whether this law should be reformed and, in particular, whether gambling swindles involving drugs on animals should be covered by statutory offences. My right hon. Friend will consider its advice in due course. We do not have occasion to collect information about the incidence of positive tests for drugs in horses and dogs which are raced. But I understand such information is made available, respectively by the Jockey Club in its weekly "Calendar" and annual report, and by
  7
  the British Greyhound Racing Board in its fortnightly "Calendar." We have received no request to contribute to the relevant expenditure by the industries.

PRIME MINISTER

  Fiji
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Prime Minister on what basis she met the Head of Government of the regime in Fiji; what subjects were discussed at the meeting; what agreements were reached in relation to the resumption of training of Fijian military personnel in the United Kingdom and the selection of participants for such training; what assurances she was given regarding the return to elected conventional Government in Fiji; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  I met the Prime Minister of Fiji on 29 March for talks on all aspects of our relations. He told me of his efforts to return Fiji to parliamentary democracy and constitutional rule. These have the full support of Her Majesty's Government. We have offered to increase our technical assistance programme in Fiji. On military training, we shall resume the acceptance of a number of trainee officers from Fiji at staff colleges and other training establishments in the United Kingdom. Candidates will be selected by Fiji and approved by us in the normal way.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Prime Minister on what occasions since 1979 she has met the elected Head of Government of Fiji at 10 Downing street.

  The Prime Minister
  I met the Prime Minister of Fiji at 10 Downing street on 1 April 1981, 27 April 1983 and 29 March 1988.

  Illegal Regimes
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Prime Minister when she last met a Head of Government from an illegal regime.

  The Prime Minister
  The British Government recognise states, not Governments.

  Turkey (Visit)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Prime Minister whom she plans to meet during her visit to Turkey.

  The Prime Minister
  I visited Turkey between 6 and 8 April. I had talks with President Evren, Prime Minister Ozal and the Leader of the Opposition, Professor Inonu, and met a large number of others active in public life.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Prime Minister which Ministers from the Foreign Office accompanied her on her recent official visit to Turkey.

  The Prime Minister
  None.

  Chile (Ministerial Statement)
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Prime Minister if the statements made to the Chilean press by the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food concerning the conduct of the plebiscite, and expressing support by the United Kingdom, represent the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

  The Prime Minister
  During his visit to Chile in January my right hon. Friend the Minister of State made it clear,8
  both in public and private discussions, that the British Government remained concerned about human rights violations in Chile and wanted that country to return peacefully to its democratic tradition. He also met the Cardinal Archbishop and other Church leaders active in the field of human rights as well as a widely representative group of opposition leaders. He indicated that it was not for the British Government to comment on the rectitude or otherwise of a plebiscite.

  Education Reform
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has any plans to improve the co-ordination of the Government's information effort on the subject of schools opting out of local authority control in Scotland; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  No. The Government's position is clear. There are no plans to allow Scottish schools to opt out of education authority control in the School Boards (Scotland) Bill which is currently before Parliament. For the future, provision for opting out in Scotland remains a possibility.

  Regional Editors (Reception)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Prime Minister what was the cost per editor of the reception for editors of regional daily newspapers at 10 Downing street in the evening of 21 March; and what was its purpose.

  The Prime Minister
  The cost per person was £7·20. The purpose of the reception was to meet the editors of regional daily newspapers.

  British Citizenship Applications
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Prime Minister if, in the light of complaints about the processing of applications to register for British citizenship, she will dismiss the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton).

  The Prime Minister
  No.

  Engagements
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 12 April.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 12 April.

  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 12 April.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 12 April.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 12 April.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 12 April.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 12 April.

  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 12 April.

  Mr. Haynes
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 12 April.
  9
  The Prime Minister
  This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. I was also present at Windsor for the arrival of His Majesty The King of Norway. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I will be attending a state banquet in honour of His Majesty the King of Norway.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Sittings of the House
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will seek to amend Standing Order No. 10 to extend to all right. hon. and hon. Members the current power of a Minister to move that a sitting be suspended and be resumed at 10 am the next day.

  Mr. Wakeham
  No.

  Select Committee on Procedure
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what representations he has received seeking an early debate on each of the outstanding reports of the Procedure Committee; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wakeham
  A number of hon. Members have made representations to me. Motions relating to two of the outstanding recommendations of the Procedure Committee are now on the Order Paper. Discussions are continuing through the usual channels about the most appropriate way of handling the main body of the Committee's other recommendations.

  "Official Report" (Parliamentary Questions)
  Sir Geoffrey Finsberg
  To ask the Lord President of the Council why the issue of the Official Report, number 125 of volume 130, dated 29 March did not contain all the written answers to parliamentary questions; and when he expects each daily issue to be complete up to 10.30 pm with debates and answers to questions.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The volume of copy for written answers received on 28 and 29 March 1988 was considerably above the norm. It also included some intricate tabular matter which further extended production time scales. The carry over of written answers from the night of 28 March for inclusion in the issue referred to was such that the available capacity for printing written answers received on 29 March was severely reduced. It was, therefore, necessary to publish the remaining written answers in subsequent issues of the Official Report.

  Hansard Press regularly incorporates in the daily Official Report all proceedings of debates up to the cut-off time of 10.30 pm or even later. Written answers are generally produced the same night or within 24 hours, as agreed with the Editor.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Mozambique
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the extent to which the economic policies of Mozambique have responded to the World Bank's report of June 1985 on the Mozambican economy.
  10
  Mr. Chris Patten
  In the aftermath of the World Bank's. report of June 1985 the Mozambican Government held extensive consultations with the bank and the International Monetary Fund on economic policy. They then embarked on a radical programme of liberalisation and economic reform. This covered, inter alia, agricultural prices, controls on the prices of other goods and services, freedom to trade, the exchange rate and monetary and fiscal restraint. There have now been further steps to adjust the exchange rate, increase producer prices, reduce the bureaucracy, improve financial management in government and put enterprises and the banks on a more commercial footing. Foreign investment is welcomed.

  The economy of Mozambique has, within the limits imposed by constant guerrilla warfare, dislocation of communications and drought, responded positively to these measures. GNP growth in 1987 is estimated at 3 to 4 per cent., after years of stagnant or falling income.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his assessment of the extent to which Mozambique has benefited from joining the third Lomè convention (1984) and her improved access to European Community markets.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Over the five years to 1990 Mozambique will get 145 million ecu (about £100 million) in planned aid from the European development fund, in addition to benefiting from SADCC and other regional projects. Mozambique is also eligible for lending by the European Investment Bank, finance under the STABEX scheme, aid to heavily indebted poor ACP countries and emergency aid. Last year Mozambique received EDF emergency aid worth about £4 million.

  Mozambique has not so far benefited significantly from the trade arrangements of the Lomè convention, but under it her industrial products and the great majority of her agricultural products can enter the Community free of tariff or other restrictions.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement, on the role of the Southern Africa development co-ordination conference as an agency for diminishing Mozambique's economic dependence on the Republic of South Africa.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The Southern African Development Co-ordination Conference aims to enhance the economic prospects of its member states, and to give them greater freedom of choice in their economic relationships, by developing sectors of mutual economic benefit. The rehabilitation of transport routes through Mozambique under the auspices of SADCC will contribute to the country's development both through the foreign exchange they generate and indirectly through the establishment of ancillary economic activity. SADCC also aims to diversity the sources of goods and services in the region, to provide common research services in the natural resources sector and to encourage co-operation in attracting investment and tourism from outside the region. Mozambique should benefit from these activities as they develop.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list United Kingdom contributions to Mozambican development through national, Commonwealth and European Community action since 1983.
  11
  Mr. Chris Patten
  Gross bilateral aid and the estimated British share of European Community aid to Mozambique since 1983 have been as follows :

  £'000

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Gross bilateral aid

  1,805

  4,182

  8,366

  7,424

  Estimated UK share of EC aid

  2,280

  3,690

  4,560

  5,090

  Figures for 1987 are not yet available

  In addition, the United Kingdom's share of expenditure from the Commonwealth special fund for Mozambique set up in 1976 was £17,637 in the year ending 30 June 1983, and £2,619 in the year ending 30 June 1984.

  Saharawi Refugees
  Mr. Faulds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will now consider the provision of humanitarian aid to Saharawi refugees through the mediation of British non-governmental organisations.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs gave the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) on 14 July 1987, at column 431.

  We have no current requests for help from nongovernmental organisations, but are maintaining our assistance through existing multilateral channels.

  UNICEF
  Sir Bernard Braine
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office whether he will make a contribution towards the UNICEF programme for child immunisation and water supplies in Lebanon; and what additional support he is able to give to other UNICEF programmes for mother and child care elsewhere.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  I recently approved a grant of £1·093 million for UNICEF to help mothers and children in extremely difficult circumstances in the Lebanon. The money will be used for immunisation, essential drugs, water supply and education.

  I also made grants to UNICEF programmes in the following countries :
  Angola—£820,000 for support of water supply and sanitation, control of diarrhoeal diseases, growth monitoring and nutrition.
  Zambia—£820,000 to support the general child survival and development programme.
  Sudan— £1·640 million to provide support for nutritional surveillance, diarrhoeal diseases control, family health care, nutrition and children in difficult circumstances.
  Belize—£60,000 to cover the cost of the country's five year national plan for integrated rural development to develop a model and infrastructure for channelling Government and donor funds and technical support.

  Including these grants the total British Government contribution to UNICEF in the financial year 987–88 was £15.223 million.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Education Reform
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science, in relation to the Sheffield 12
  education authority area, how many responses he has received in support of the proposals contained in the Education Reform Bill from that area; and how many of these responses express concern or opposition to the proposals.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend has received representations from some 30 organisations in the Sheffield area and a substantial number from individual parents and teachers. Many of the responses commented in detail on our proposals and cannot be categorised in the form requested by the hon. Member. Copies of all responses, except those from individuals, are available in the Library of the House.

  Student Loans
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received from the National Union of Students concerning student loans.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Student Support Review Group has received written and oral evidence from the National Union of Students, and I have had informal discussions with representatives of the union about the review and the possibility of a loans scheme. Several hon. Members have also drawn my attention to a letter from the president of the NUS about student loans which they received last month.

  Universities and Polytechnics
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if, in the light of his policy that universities and polytechnics should enjoy parity of esteem, he will take steps to ensure that they enjoy similar staffing levels.

  Mr. Jackson
  Levels of staffing are matters for individual universities and polytechnics to decide having regard to the teaching and research they aim to provide and to available resources.

  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will consider allowing polytechnics to be renamed polytechnic universities to underline their parity with universities.

  Mr. Jackson
  Subject to the passage of the Education Reform Bill, it will fall to my right hon. Friend to reestablish the polytechnics and colleges now maintained by local education authorities under names to be given in a statutory order. He is not persuaded of the merit of the title "polytechnic university".

  GCSE
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the estimated cost of introducing the general certificate of secondary education both in aggregate and per capita terms; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The Government have made available some £250 million for the introduction of GCSE in England over the three financial years 1986–87 to 1988–89, including £40 million expenditure on GCSE-related in-service training. This is equivalent to some £145 per pupil in each of the first three GCSE cohorts.

  Mentally Handicapped Children
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will provide information on the numbers of mentally handicapped children leaving ESN(S) schools for each year from 1978–79 to 1986–87, and on the expected numbers leaving in each of the five years from 1987–88

  Mr. Dunn
  The information is not available. Pupils in special schools are not included in the Department's annual sample survey of school leavers. Moreover, since 1983 pupils in England and Wales have not been classified in accordance with categories of handicap. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is responsible for special education in that area.

  Stoke (School Reorganisation)
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what are the reasons for the delay in the decision on Stoke-on-Trent school reorganisation in Staffordshire; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dunn
  My right hon. Friend approved on 5 April Staffordshire's proposals to cease to maintain Burnwood and Chell high schools in Stoke-on-Trent and establish a new secondary school in the Chell premises, and to cease to maintain Chell and Fegg Hayes primary schools and establish a new primary school at Fegg Hayes. I am meeting representatives of the authority on 13 April regarding its proposals to cease to maintain Brookhouse and Willfield high schools and establish a new secondary school at Brookhouse and it is hoped that a decision will be announced very soon. The other proposals to rationalise provision in Stoke-on-Trent attracted no statutory objections and the LEA has therefore determined to implement them.

  Student Loans
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what estimates he has made of the cost of the creation and administration of a student loans scheme.

  School closures

  Approved

  Rejected

  Year

  Primary

  Secondary

  Total

  Primary

  Secondary

  Total

  1980

  83

  27

  110

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1981

  189

  36

  225

  4

  6

  10

  1982

  175

  72

  247

  9

  17

  26

  1983

  225

  70

  295

  15

  24

  39

  1984

  203

  56

  259

  13

  7

  20

  1985

  148

  61

  209

  2

  12

  14

  1986

  81

  53

  134

  3

  17

  20

  1987

  88

  43

  131

  11

  10

  21

  Totals

  1,192

  418

  1,610

  57

  93

  150

  n/a—Not available.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if, in the light of the proposed abolition of the Inner London education authority, he will obtain and publish the views of Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education concerning future optimum arrangements for the educational facilities within that area, in respect of
  14
  Mr. Jackson
  The costs would depend on the nature of the scheme and the arrangements for its administration. We are examining various models.

  Schools (Closures and Mergers)
  Mr. Wells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will give the number of local education authority-supported primary and secondary schools which have submitted proposals for school closures or mergers in each year under the provisions of the Education Act 1980; how many of these schools actually closed or merged; how many of these schools were not closed or merged; what was the average length of time from the submission of the proposal for closure or merger until he either approved, modified, or rejected the proposals; what was the shortest period and what was the longest period; and how many proposals have not yet received a reply.

  Mr. Dunn
  In the period from 1980 to 1987, 1,192 primary and 418 secondary schools were approved for closure as a result of proposals published by local education authorities under section 12 of the Education Act 1980 which were either approved by my right hon. Friend or his predecessors or determined by the local education authorities. In the same period my right hon. Friend or his predecessors rejected proposals which would have resulted in the closure of a further 57 primary and 93 secondary schools. Details are given in the table. Local education authorities have a statutory duty to implement all such proposals which have been approved or determined.

  Information on the average time taken to reach decisions on school closure proposals is not available in the form requested. In 1987 the average time taken to decide all proposals under sections 12 to 15 of the Education Act 1980 which came before my right hon. Friend was 7·1 months. My right hon. Friend is currently considering 84 proposals by local education authorities to cease to maintain schools.

  (a) provision for statemented pupils in special schools, (d) provision for statemented children in non-special schools, (c) provision and administration of facilities for pupils with learning difficulties, (d) use of boarding establishments of all types which serve the needs of children from more than one London borough, (e) the

  15
  use, funding and administration of all premises currently engaged in purchasing, preparation and holding of learning materials, books and other equipment, or their maintenance and distribution, and (f) a general and special Inspectorate of Schools.

  Mr. Dunn
  The Department will be issuing draft guidance on the preparation of development plans shortly. This will provide a basis for discussion with the inner London councils of subjects such as those mentioned by the hon. Member. Members of Her Majesty's inspectorate will be closely involved in these discussions.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will seek to obtain and publish the views of(a) the Sports Council, (b) the Greater London and South Eastern Sports Council, and (c) governing bodies or national representative bodies of all sports and recreational facilities presently available within the Inner London education authority area, on the retention of the standards and range of facilities for all such activities for school pupils and others after the proposed abolition of the Inner London education authority.

  Mr. Dunn
  This is one of the subjects the Department will wish to discuss with the inner London councils over the coming months as the councils draw up their development plans. Any representations by organisations such as those mentioned by the hon. Member would of course be taken into account in those discussions.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if, in the light of the proposed abolition of the Inner London education authority, he will seek to obtain and publish the views, in respect of the teaching, appreciation of, and opportunities for, performance of music, together with supply of instruments and specialist advice relating thereto, of(a) the boards or presidents of the Royal Academy and Royal College of Music, respectively, (b) the Council for Music Education and Training, (c) Her Majesty's Service Inspectors of Music in Schools and (d) the Master of the Queen's Music, as to the best means of retaining, or improving, the standards achieved and opportunities currently available.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Department will seek to discuss with the inner London councils and others with an interest in this subject the best arrangements for securing high quality music provision in inner London. Any representations by organisations and individuals such as those mentioned by the hon. Member would of course be taken into account in those discussions.

  Education Expenditure
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the per capita spending on primary and secondary education in each local education authority.

  Mr. Dunn
  The latest information available on actual expenditure is for the financial year 1986–87. The net institutional expenditure per pupil in primary and secondary schools in each local education authority is set out in the table. The figures include the cost of salaries and wages, premises and certain supplies and services. They do not include the cost of school meals, central administration and inspection, debt charges and revenue contributions to capital outlay.
  16

  Expenditure per pupil 1986–87

  LEA

  Primary schools

  Secondary schools

  £

  £

  Barking

  1,010

  1,470

  Barnet

  1,060

  1,510

  Bexley

  915

  1,370

  Brent

  1,105

  1,805

  Bromley

  925

  1,420

  Croydon

  935

  1,535

  Ealing

  1,135

  1,650

  Enfield

  890

  1,380

  Haringey1

  n/a

  n/a

  Harrow

  1,020

  1,600

  Havering

  905

  1,510

  Hillingdon

  1,000

  1,520

  Hounslow1

  n/a

  n/a

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  915

  1,530

  Merton

  950

  1,325

  Newham1

  n/a

  n/a

  Redbridge

  935

  1,465

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  1,000

  1,330

  Sutton

  855

  1,300

  Waltham Forest

  1,095

  1,915

  ILEA

  1,465

  2,350

  Birmingham

  835

  1,345

  Coventry

  910

  1,486

  Dudley

  830

  1,350

  Sand well

  960

  1,410

  Solihull

  845

  1,280

  Walsall

  970

  1,430

  Wolverhampton

  985

  1,395

  Knowsley

  960

  1,515

  Liverpool

  980

  1,445

  St. Helens

  860

  1,340

  Sefton

  800

  1,275

  Wirral

  815

  1,280

  Bolton

  780

  1,230

  Bury

  795

  1,340

  Manchester

  1,020

  1,660

  Oldham

  870

  1,255

  Rochdale

  850

  1,460

  Salford

  840

  1,385

  Stockport

  805

  1,270

  Tameside

  910

  1,325

  Trafford

  855

  1,315

  Wigan

  860

  1,460

  Barnsley

  925

  1,325

  Doncaster

  980

  1,325

  Rotherham

  890

  1,230

  Sheffield

  1,060

  1,490

  Bradford

  945

  1,235

  Calderdale

  895

  1,330

  Kirklees

  875

  1,250

  Leeds

  905

  1,230

  Wakefield

  955

  1,290

  Gateshead

  980

  1,360

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  1,020

  1,530

  North Tyneside

  995

  1,455

  South Tyneside

  965

  1,430

  Sunderland

  85

  1,305

  Avon

  850

  1,310

  Bedfordshire

  875

  1,250

  Berkshire

  845

  1,280

  Buckinghamshire

  845

  1,320

  Cambridgeshire

  815

  1,205

  Cheshire

  810

  1,235

  Cleveland

  895

  1,365

  Cornwall

  795

  1,175

  Cumbria

  915

  1,315

  Derbyshire

  875

  1,305

  Devon

  800

  1,225

  Dorset

  870

  1,190

  Durham

  920

  1,225

  East Sussex

  825

  1,235

  Essex

  820

  1,250

  Gloucestershire

  835

  1,260

  Hampshire

  825

  1,220

  17

  LEA

  Primary schools

  Secondary schools

  £

  £

  Hereford and Worcester

  815

  1,180

  Hertfordshire

  870

  1,350

  Humberside

  920

  1,270

  Isle of Wight

  785

  1,150

  Kent

  760

  1,145

  Lancashire

  780

  1,255

  Leicestershire

  885

  1,390

  Lincolnshire

  795

  1,185

  Norfolk

  850

  1,230

  North Yorkshire

  850

  1,240

  Northamptonshire

  815

  1,250

  Northumberland

  840

  1,230

  Nottinghamshire

  935

  1,365

  Oxfordshire

  905

  1,350

  Shropshire

  850

  1,285

  Somerset

  780

  1,195

  Staffordshire

  880

  1,255

  Suffolk

  830

  1,165

  Surrey

  820

  1,260

  Warwickshire

  845

  1,220

  West Sussex

  785

  1,220

  Wiltshire

  850

  1,230

  England

  895

  1,340

  1Expenditure returns have not been submitted by LEAs thus marked.

  School Trips
  Dr. Glyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if, when he receives the report from the Berkshire education committee on the deaths of four boys from Altwood school, Maidenhead, he will make it his policy to draw up guidelines defining the responsibilities at all times of teachers or those in charge of authorised school trips, both at home and abroad.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My Department expects shortly to receive a preliminary report on the accident from the Berkshire LEA and this will receive very careful consideration.

  Guidance from the Department on safety aspects of school visits is provided in the booklet "Safety in Outdoor Pursuits". A revised version of this is in preparation and any lessons emerging from the tragedy in Austria will be taken into account in this.

  The responsibilities for safety matters, both statutory and common law, of local authorities, schools and teachers were re-emphasised in a document the Department circulated last year on first aid.

  Higher Education (Contingency Reserves)
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether institutions in the new polytechnics and colleges sector will be able to hold contingency reserves and carry over unspent balances from one financial year to the next.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  Subject to the passage of the Education Reform Bill, the institutions in the new sector will be able to earn income from a variety of sources, to maintain balances in their accounts and to carry balances forward from year to year, subject to the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council's general oversight of the level of balances.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Shipbuilding
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what information is available regarding the level of subsidy or grant aid available from the relevant Government to those;(a) European shipbuilders in each EC country, (b) far east shipbuilders and (c) Brazilian shipbuilders who are perceived to be the main competitors of United Kingdom shipbuilders; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  There is no direct support to shipbuilders in Japan or South Korea. I shall write to the hon. Member about Brazil in the light of inquiries now in hand.

  All assistance to the shipbuilding industry within the EEC has to conform with the framework established by the Council directive of 26 January 1987 on aid to shipbuilding (87/167/EEC) (the sixth directive) which came into effect on 1 January 1987 and will last to 31 December 1990. This directive ensures that both direct and indirect aids are taken into account and, in addition, establishes a ceiling on aid which is based on the monitored gap between the costs of the most efficient European shipbuilders and the prices quoted by the far east market leaders. The ceiling on aid in 1988 has again been set at 28 per cent. of the cost of building a ship. Member states wishing to establish support schemes for their shipping industries have to submit their proposals for approval to the EC Commission before putting them into effect. The following countries have had their schemes approved:

  The United Kingdom

  1.

  (a) Small merchant ships

  (i) A maximum of 20 per cent. of cost for ships cosing less that £10 million reducing by three quarters of one percentage point for each £1 million reduction in the cost of build below £10 million;

  (ii) Shipbuilders' relief of 2 per cent. of contract price.

  (b) A maximum of 28 per cent. of cost, including shipbuilders' relief, for vessels costing more than £10 million.

  2. Credit terms, for both home and export orders, conforming with the OECD understanding on export credits for ships (ie eight and a half year loans at 7·5 per cent. interest per annum covering 80 per cent. of contract price).

  3. Loss of compensation in public sector yards.

  4. Regional development grants.

  Denmark

  1. A home credit scheme allowing for 14-year loans (four-year grace period) at 8 per cent. interest covering 80 per cent. of contract price.

  2. Alternatively an aid scheme for ship owners offering, until the end of 1988, for deliveries at latest by end 1990, credit facilities for 80 per cent. of contract price running for 14 years (four-year grace period) at either 2·5 per cent. or 4 per Cent. per annum combined with an inflation guarantee linked to the net consumer index beyond 3 per cent. per annum (for 2·5 per cent. bonds) or beyond 1·5 per cent. (for 4 per cent. bonds).

  3. State guarantee free of charge to cover second mortgages, typically 30 per cent. of contract price, for small cargo vessels.

  4. Specific tax concessions concerning the use of capital from tax relief funds for investment in shipbuilding or conversion for ships.

  5. Specific tax concessions provided for accelerated advance depreciation at 50 per cent. for the two-year period 1987 to 1988 by investment of ships against 30 per cent. for investments in other capital goods.

  19

  6. Exchange risk guarantee at 0-5 per cent. per annum for credit granted in foreign currencies.

  Federal Republic of Germany

  1. Grants to shipowners of up to 12·5 per cent. of procurement costs for new building and up to 20 per cent. of cost for conversions.

  2. Tax concessions in the form of accelerated depreciation.

  3. Home credit and export credit schemes in accordance with the OECD understanding on export credits for ships.

  4. Guarantees for new building and conversions for second mortgages on ships under construction.

  5. Competition aid in the form of grants of up to 20 per cent. of contract value to meet aided competition from other member states and third countries.

  Exporters (Sterling Exchange Rate)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what advice his Department is giving to export industries regarding the level of sterling.

  Mr. Atkins
  As with other market conditions, the Department can provide factual information but industry must form its own view of future developments. The Department also offers industry a range of practical assistance through the enterprise initiatives to help improve performance in both home and overseas markets.

  Data (Accuracy)
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) if he will make a statement on the failure of the sponsorship and assistance management information systems as uncovered by the National Audit Office; and what plans his Department has to remedy the loss of data through its inaccuracies on the reports of regional grants;

  (2) what was the total amount of pounds sterling in real terms wasted through the inaccuracies and poor quality control of the sponsorship and assistance management information systems, as uncovered by the National Audit Office;

  (3) what steps he will take to improve the accuracy of data which have been found to be deficient by the National Audit Office.

  Mr. Butcher
  The National Audit Office report on "Arrangements for Regional Industrial Incentives" (report no. 346) says (para 4·6) that the sponsorship and assistance management information systems was less useful for monitoring or evaluation than it might be because :

  (a) the expected timing of jobs to be created in projects approval for regional development grants was not stated; and

  (b) there were minor inaccuracies in 34 out of 80 cases examined, while total payments as recorded on SAMIS could not be reconciled with the Department's financial management information system: hence data were not wholly reliable.

  Concerning (a) the Department does not consider that the absence of information on the forecast timing of jobs to be created is a serious deficiency. Grant is only paid once jobs have actually been created, and data on actual job creation are available from payments records; moreover most projects are completed within two years.

  Concerning (b) the Department has accepted the need to improve the accuracy of data held on SAM IS. Officials have been instructed to update the entries for which they are responsible and to enter data promptly in future. A systematic programme of "data cleaning" to remove inaccuracies was instituted last year. Between September 1987 and February 1988 the identified error rate was halved. There has also been a substantial reduction in
  20
  discrepancies between SAMIS and FINMIS data on payments of regional selective assistance. The position on RDG payments is less good but this is the result of the increase in case load resulting from the Government's decision to terminate the scheme following a period of notice. The Department will continue its efforts to improve data quality. The NAO's reference to "minor inaccuracies" should however be seen in the context that each case may contain several hundred data items.

  There is no reason to think that any money has been lost as a result of the deficiencies in SAMIS noted by the NAO: the NAO report itself does not suggest that losses could have resulted from these weaknesses.

  Columbus Space Platform Programme
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representations he has received asking him to reconsider his decision not to contribute to the European Space Agency's Columbus space platform programme.

  Mr. Atkins
  Since 10 February, when my right hon. and learned Friend announced that the United Kingdom would not be joining the Columbus programme in the form then proposed, we have received representations on the subject from hon. and right hon. Members, interested parties and members of the public. In the meantime the European Space Agency has been re-assessing with NASA the polar platform requirement, and significant modifications to the target configuration are likely to result. Against the background of these developments, we are reconsidering our position in consultation with ESA, United Kingdom industry and users.

  Motor Cycles and Bicycles
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) what was the total output of motor cycles, the percentage exported and the proportion of the domestic market taken by imports in(a) the United Kingdom, (b) West Germany, (c) Italy, and (d) Japan and (e) France in 1958, 1960, 1965, 1970, 1975 and in each year from 1979 to 1987;

  (2) what was the total output of bicycles, the percentage exported and the proportion of the domestic market taken by imports in (a) the United Kingdom, (b) West Germany, (c) Italy, (d) Japan and (e) France, in 1958, 1960, 1965, 1970, 1975 and in each year from 1979 to 1987.

  Mr. Atkins
  For the United Kingdom and for years from 1975 onwards I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave him on 29 February 1988 in the Official Report columns 412-13 The information available for earlier years is shown in the table. Information on West Germany, Italy, Japan and France could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  £ million

  1965

  1970

  Motor Cycles

  Sales by United Kingdom manufacturers

  1·7

  1·6

  Exports

  8·3

  15·6

  Imports

  4·4

  4·4

  Bicycles

  Sales by United Kingdom manufacturers

  12·6

  17·4

  21

  1965

  1970

  Exports

  8·9

  10·6

  Imports

  —

  0·4

  Airbus
  Mr. Warren
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will investigate whether the French and German Governments are giving financial assistance to equipment subcontractors bidding for work on the A330 and A340 Airbus projects; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  I understand that financial support may be made available to French and German equipment companies by the Governments in those countries. It is too early to be more specific since the equipments for the A330 and A340 have not yet been selected.

  Launch Aid
  Mr. Warren
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list grants made under the relevant legislation to United Kingdom equipment suppliers seeking launch aid; what applications are outstanding; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  No launch aid has been provided to equipment suppliers under section 1 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982. An approach from the Dowty Group has been made, seeking launch aid to assist its bid for work on the A330'340 Airbus programme. It has been the Department's policy to provide launch aid only to airframe and aeroengine manufacturers, and while Dowty is free to submit a formal application, the Department has not been persuaded, by the arguments that have been made, to depart from this policy.

  Air Combat Manouevring System Platforms
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what consultations there have been between his Department and British Aerospace as regards the construction of air combat manouevring system platforms in the North sea; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  There have been no such consultations.

  EC Single Market
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether in the light of the Cecchini report published by the European Commission on 31 March, relating to the gains for the European Community as a whole from achieving the single market in 1992, he will take steps to assess the relative economic gains for the United Kingdom within this total, and to publish his conclusions.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Community member states have committed themselves to completing the single market by 1992 and it will provide major opportunities for the Community as a whole. The initial results of the recent study by the European Commission appear to confirm the potential benefits. We shall, of course, analyse carefully the findings of the full report when it is published, but we have no plans to commission any formal studies. The extent of the relative economic gains for the United Kingdom will depend crucially on how business responds to the opportunities that will arise.

  Footwear
  Mr. Fry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will give the number of pairs and the value of imports of footwear from Taiwan for the last 12 quarters for which figures are available.

  Mr. Atkins
  The information is given in the following table:

  United Kingdom imports of footwear from Taiwan 1985–87

  Pairs in million

  Value £ million

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1st quarter

  Number of pairs

  8·5

  7·1

  7·8

  Value

  £22·0

  £13·3

  £22·8

  2nd quarter

  Number of pairs

  4·2

  4·1

  7·4

  Value

  £15·7

  £13·3

  £23·9

  3rd quarter

  Number of pairs

  3·7

  4·6

  6·6

  Value

  £11·3

  £13·4

  £24·7

  4th quarter

  Number of pairs

  2·4

  4·0

  4·9

  Value

  £6·8

  £13·9

  £16·4

  Source: Overseas Trade Statistics.

  Notes:

  i. Footwear defined as SITC R2 Division 85.

  ii. Imports valued cif; Country of origin (COO basis).

  iii. All figures provisional.

  Mr. Fry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representations he has recently received on footwear imports from Taiwan; and if he intends to take any action in response to such imports.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  I have received representatives of the industry recently to discuss their concern about footwear imports from Taiwan. The industry is currently drawing together the facts in order that we can consider what action, if any, would be appropriate.

  Yorkshire and Humberside
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he has received any response from the Yorkshire and Humberside Regional Association to the recent White Paper from his Department; what action he intends to take to assist the Yorkshire and Humberside region; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  A copy of a paper by the Yorkshire and Humberside Regional Association, "Implications of the current Department of Trade and Industry White Paper for Yorkshire and Humberside", was sent to me last week.

  Firms in the Yorkshire and Humberside region can benefit from assistance offered under the enterprise initiative, which includes support for consultancy in the areas of design, marketing, quality, manufacturing technology, business planning and business information systems (available at a higher rate in assisted areas and urban programme areas), together with support for exports, research and technology and business education.

  In the assisted areas of the region regional selective assistance is also available to support projects which would not otherwise go ahead. In development areas small firms (with fewer than 25 employees) are eligible for regional enterprise grants for investment and innovation.

  Credit Cards (Report)
  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he expects the Monopolies and Mergers Commission to publish its report on the operations of Access and Barclaycard; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  The Monopolies and Mergers Commission is due to submit its report on the supply of credit card services in the United Kingdom to my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State by 26 May 1989.

  Consumer Credit Register
  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will introduce legislation to establish a national consumer credit register; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  I welcome current moves by some lending organisations to increase the effectiveness of the role played by the existing credit reference agencies by providing them with full and comprehensive information. The availability of such information should help to ensure responsible lending and minimise consumer over-indebtedness. I have no plans to introduce legislation to establish a national consumer credit register.

  Telecommunications (Competition)
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans he is considering to introduce further competition into United Kingdom based telecommunications following the expiry of the British Telecom/Mercury duopoly in November 1990; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Butcher
  The Government remain committed to the duopoly policy in telecommunications which was announced in November 1983. The duopoly is not due to be reviewed until at least November 1990 and it would not be appropriate to prejudge the outcome at this stage.

  North Peckham Task Force
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) when the north Peckham task force was first approached for assistance in respect of a co-operative shop on the Gloucester grove estate;

  (2) what ministerial involvement there was in the consideration of the application to the north Peckham task force for funds for a co-operative shop on the Gloucester grove estate.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I have been closedly involved in the progress of the proposal to establish a co-operative shop on the Gloucester grove estate since the north Peckham task force was first approached formally by the Gloucester grove co-operative in August 1986 for a £500 grant to carry out market research to determine the feasibility of establishing such a shop. I approved this grant on 1 September 1986. Following the completion of the feasibility study and the decision to locate the shop in part of derelict garages at Winchcombe court, I approved a further grant of £86,000 on 23 March 1987 to pay for conversion costs, together with a grant of £1,200 to pay for drawing up a business plan and temporary office costs. The grant of £86,000 for conversion was subject to Southwark council agreeing to fund revenue costs initially.
  24
  Despite many attempts by the task force to obtain the council's agreement it was not until February this year that the council agreed to make a grant of £20,000 to the cooperative for revenue costs.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the annual pay of the north Peckham task force leader Daniel Levy.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The leader of the north Peckham task force is a fee-paid consultant. It is not the practice to disclose the value of individual contracts between my Department and its consultants and advisers in order to preserve commercial confidentiality.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the total annual cost of the north Peckham task force, including travel, office, furniture, publicity and staff and including an estimate of the cost of administrative work carried out at his Department in respect of the task force, and the amount paid to outside organisations to monitor its work.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The administrative cost of the north Peckham task force during 1987–88 was around £125,000. It is not possible to estimate the cost of work carried out exclusively on behalf of the north Peckham task force by the headquarters unit, which is responsible among other matters for the operation of the Government's task forces. It is not the practice to disclose the value of individual contracts between the Department and outside consultants and advisers in order to protect commercial confidentiality.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the cost to the north Peckham task force of(a) the local link leaflet, and how many were produced and distributed, (b) the buffet lunch on the open day on 1 February and (c) any other costs of the open day on 1 February.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The information requested is as follows:

  £

  (a)

  Design, printing and distribution of 10,000 local link leaflets

  2,678

  (b)

  Buffet available throughout open day on 1 February 1988

  1,906

  (c)

  (i) Invitations for open day

  62

  (ii) Fees for plans and display in connection with the Spike community association's presentation of proposals for developing managed workspace in north Peckham

  200

  Departmental Television Advertisement Campaign
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the cost of his Department's current television advertisement campaign.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The cost of the Department's enterprise initiative television advertising campaign, which ended on 27 March 1988, was £5·6 million.

  Poppy Products and Derivatives
  Mr. Rathbone
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster from which countries Britain purchased poppy products or poppy derivatives, by amount, for each of the last 10 years.
  25
  Mr. Alan Clark
  These products are not separately identified in the overseas trade statistics.

  EC Mergers Directive
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he expects the Council of Ministers in the European Community to discuss and reach decisions on the proposed European Economic Community mergers directive: and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  A progress report on the draft EC regulation on the control of concentrations "merger control" regulation may he made for a meeting of the Council of Ministers in June this year. At the meeting of the Internal Market Council on 30 November 1987, when this proposal was last discussed at Council level, I reserved the United Kingdom's position on the principle of such a regulation, but said that Her Majesty's Government would continue to participate constructively in discussions. A number of working level discussions have since taken place, but the timing of any decision remains uncertain.

  Sub-Post Office, Southchurch Road, Southend-on-Sea
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if, in the light of the hardship caused to customers by the temporary closure of the sub-post office at the Strand, Southchurch road, Southend-on-Sea, he will take steps to ensure that the Post Office be obliged to limit the period of time for which sub-post offices may be closed temporarily.

  Mr. Butcher
  This is an operational responsibility of the Post Office Board. I have drawn my hon. Friend's observations to the attention of the chairman of the Post Office.

  Manufactures
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the latest estimate of the United Kingdom surplus or deficit in trade in manufactures with the European Economic Community, the United States of America, the European Free Trade Association, Japan and the rest of the world, respectively, during the last recent 12 months for which figures are available.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Because of the introduction in January 1988 of the new Standard International Trade Classification (SITC Rev 3) figures for trade in manufactures by country are not at present available on a consistent basis between 1987 and 1988.

  United Kingdom Crude Balance of Trade in Manufactures

  Overseas Trade Statistics basis3 £ billion

  19871

  19882

  Jan to Feb

  European Community

  -11·1

  -2·5

  USA

  +0·9

  —

  EFTA

  -3·1

  -0·7

  Japan

  -4·2

  -0·7

  Rest of World

  +7·5

  +1·0

  1 Standard International Trade Classification Revision 2.

  2 Standard International Trade Classification Revision 3.

  3 The figures on the OTS basis include insurance and freight
  26
  charges for imports, but not for exports, so surpluses are understated and deficits are overstated by comparison with Balance of Payments data, which are not available by partner country.

  Source: United Kingdom Overseas Trade Statistics.

  Industry (Nottingham, North)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will put forward proposals to regenerate industry in the Nottingham, North constituency.

  Mr. Atkins
  Firms in the Nottingham, North constituency, as in the rest of the country, can benefit from assistance offered under the enterprise initiative, which includes support for consultancy in the areas of design, marketing, quality, manufacturing technology, business planning and business information systems (available at a higher rate as Nottingham, North lies in an urban programme area), together with support for exports, research and technology and business education. The new Nottingham, Leicester and Derby city action team will also contribute to economic development in the constituency.

  Libya
  Mr. Ron Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the total value of goods and services exported to Libya during 1987; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  For the 12 months January to December 1987 the United Kingdom exported goods to the value of £220·6 million. Information on the value of services is not available.

  Turkey (Clothing Products)
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if, in view of the imbalance which exists in the association treaty between the European Economic Community and Turkey, he will ensure that in the renegotiation of the garment categories contained in the current VRAs, due to be held in the current year, any permitted growth in Turkish access reflects this imbalance.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  I am aware of the concern being expressed by the United Kingdom clothing and knitwear industry at the prospects for the terms of the renewal of voluntary restraint arrangements with Turkish exporters on clothing products. These concerns will be taken fully into account by my Department when the European Community's position is being prepared in Brussels and officials will be consulting the industries concerned as the negotiations draw nearer.

  Origin Marking
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) what steps he is taking to ensure in the successor regime to the Trade Descriptions Act 1972 that goods sold under a British brand name or one which purports to be will still be required to bear a clear indication of the country of origin, if those goods are not made in Britain;

  (2) if he will give a progress report on the successor regime to the Trade Descriptions Act 1972 relating to origin labelling.
  27
  Mr. Butcher
  My Department has consulted widely on a draft order under section 8 of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 to provide for a successor regime to the Trade Descriptions Act 1972. The responses to the consultations exercise are currently being analysed.

  The proposed order is intended to supplement the existing prohibition (under the Trade Descriptions Act 1968) of misleading indications of the place of manufacture of goods. It would require an indication of the place of production to be given where goods are presented in a way which would otherwise be likely to mislead prospective purchasers about where the goods were produced. Although as the proposed order currently stands the fact that a particular language or trade mark was used in the presentation of goods would not in itself require such origin marking, it would be required if the trade mark or use of language appeared to suggest that the goods were made in a particular place but they were not in fact made there.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he expects now to reply to the correspondence sent to him by the hon. Member for Gower regarding Kingrosia park, Clydach.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I explained to the hon. Member in my reply—Official Report 18 December column 754—why, most regrettably, his letter had not been answered, and I invited him to write again. I repeat this invitation. If the hon. Member cares to write to me, I shall take steps to ensure that he receives a speedy reply from the responsible Department.

  New Enterprise Consultancy Package
  Mr. Haynes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will reconsider the eligibility criteria of 500 employees contained in the new enterprise consultancy package, particularly in those industries such as the knitting industry which are comparatively labour-intensive and thus disadvantaged in comparison with firms in capital-intensive sectors.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  No. I am satisfied that the eligibility criteria we have adopted will ensure that the new enterprise initiative consultancy services will encourage greater use of outside expert advice by those firms which are most likely to benefit from such advice but which are less likely to use such advice without assistance from the Government. Larger firms are more likely to pay for their own outside advice as a matter of normal commercial policy.

  Textile and Clothing Exports
  Mr. Haynes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the barriers facing United Kingdom textiles and clothing exports to Turkey; and what is the extent of(a) Turkish, (b) British and (c) other European Community countries' Government aids and subsidies for their domestic textile, knitting and clothing industries.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  I shall write to the hon. Member.

  Leyland Bus Division
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what arrangements were made for the payment of the purchase price of the Leyland Bus Division from Austin Rover; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  This is a matter for the Rover Group plc, which was the vendor of the Leyland Bus business.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if Austin Rover has received the full amount of the purchase price of the sale of the Leyland Bus Division in January 1987; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  While this is strictly a matter for the Rover Group plc, I understand from the company that the due sum was paid.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on what dates payments of the purchase price of Leyland Bus Division were made to Austin Rover.

  Mr. Atkins
  The dates of payments to the Rover Group plc are a matter for the company.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if his Department was involved in negotiating the recent sale of the Leyland Bus Division to Volvo; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  My Department was not involved in negotiating the sale of Leyland Bus Ltd. to Volvo.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if his Department has any plans to recover its investment in Leyland Buses; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  No.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what has been the total level of state aid to Leyland Buses in each of the past five years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  In none of the past five years has the European Commission approved or rejected any specific proposals to state-aid the continuing Leyland Bus operations. Following the sale of Leyland Bus by the Rover Group plc the Government subscribed for £680 million of new capital in the Rover Group plc. This was to fund the write-off of the accumulated debts of Leyland Bus and Leyland Trucks left in the Rover Group plc, together with the restructuring costs arising from their sale.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Resistencia Nacional Mocambica
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if since 1983 he has had any meetings with, or made approaches to, or received approaches from representatives of the Resistencia Nacional Mocambica movement or intermediary spokesmen of that movement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  No direct meetings have taken place. A number of telephone contacts have occurred for humanitarian purposes over the capture of British citizens.
  29
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is her Majesty's Government's policy towards the Resistencia Nacional Mocambica.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We do not recognise RENAMO. We deplore RENAMO's terrorist activities in Mozambique and neighbouring countries, with whose Governments we have full diplomatic relations.

  Mozambique
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what status he accords the Nkomati agreement of 1984 in his dealings with Mozambique and the Republic of South Africa.

  Mrs. Chalker
  My right hon. and learned Friend has stressed on many occasions the importance of the two parties concerned abiding by the letter and spirit of the Nkomati accord.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his assessment of the extent to which the economy of Mozambique is dependent on the economy of the Republic of South Africa.

  Mrs. Chalker
  A degree of interdependence exists between the economies of Mozambique and South Africa.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on United Kingdom relations with Mozambique.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Our relations with the Government of Mozambique are close. We support President Chissano's efforts to restore peace and stability in Mozambique and more widely in the region. We also welcome and support his economic reform programme, agreed with the IMF.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the extent to which Commonwealth countries have implemented the Vancouver summit commitment to embark upon a process of consultations with a view to enabling those of its members in a position to do so to make appropriate contributions to the security needs of Mozambique.

  Mrs. Chalker
  General Obansanjo recently visited certain front-line states, including Mozambique, on a mandate from the Vancouver Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting to consider what support might be needed to assist with Mozambican security needs.

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Fry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many Hong Kong citizens have emigrated in each of the last eight quarters for which figures are available.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Hong Kong Government do not keep statistics on emigration from Hong Kong.

  Fiji
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the status of the representative of the Government of Fiji resident in London.
  30
  Mr. Eggar
  The representative of Fiji resident in London is at present charge d'affaires ad interim, pending the arrival of an ambassador, who is expected shortly.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the terms of Lord Salisbury's Dispatch, the treaty between the Governments of Fiji, India and the United Kingdom. are still in force; and what is his assessment of its validity in the current circumstances in Fiji.

  Mr. Eggar
  The dispatch from the Secretary of State for India to the Viceroy of India dated 24 March 1875 indicated principles by which British colonial Governments should be guided in their dealings with emigrants from India. The proposals in this dispatch were never formally accepted, however, although they were occasionally upheld by some colonial administrations in the British empire. The dispatch's only relevance to present circumstances in the modern Republic of Fiji is as an example of attempts to manage race relations in the past.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to initiate with other nuclear non-proliferation treaty member states an investigation into alleged collaboration between Israel and South Africa on nuclear weapons research and testing; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  We have no evidence of such collaboration. It is our long-standing policy to follow as closely as possible all developments which might lead to the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has received any reports from the British Antarctic Survey concerning nuclear weapons tests in the Norwegian section of Antarctica.

  Mr. Eggar
  We have received no such reports from the British Antarctic Survey.

  European Parliament
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consideration has been given by the Council of Ministers of the European Economic Community to attendance by Ministers or officials of the Governments of member states at any meeting of the European Parliament or its committees; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The Council has discussed the question of requests from the European Parliament for evidence from the Governments of member states, and has agreed that it is for each member state to decide how to reply. There is no legal obligation on member states to give evidence to the European Parliament or its committees.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what requests have been received by Her Majesty's Government from any organ of the European Parliament requesting or requiring evidence in writing or attendance of any Government Minister or civil servant; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We are aware of no such requests.

  Treaty of Rome
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects to publish as a Command Paper in the treaty series an amended version of the treaty of Rome incorporating the provisions of the Single European Act.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Her Majesty's Stationery Office is working on a Command Paper containing the treaties establishing the EEC, the EAEC and the ECSC as revised by the Single European Act. This is a major undertaking. It seems likely that it will be ready for publishing in early September.

  Western European Union (Co-location)
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to discuss the co-location of the Western European Union with other member states; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  The subject of co-location is on the agenda of the Western European Union ministerial meeting in The Hague on 18–19 April.

  NATO Headquarters (Arrested Britons)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what actions were taken by Her Majesty's Ambassador to Belgium in respect of British citizens arrested outside NATO headquarters on 2 March.

  Mr. Eggar
  I have nothing to add to the replies which I gave to the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) on 16 March, at column 576, and to the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) on 30 March, at column 518.

  Bangladesh
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what meetings Her Majesty's high commissioner in Bangladesh has had with(a) trade unions, (b) political parties and (c) human rights groups in Bangladesh.

  Mr. Eggar
  The British high commissioner in Dhaka and his staff regularly meet representatives of trade unions, political parties and human rights groups in Bangladesh.

  Turkey
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what meetings Her Majesty's ambassador to Turkey has had with(a) trade unions, (b) political parties, (c) human rights groups, (d) Kurdish groups and (e) Armenian groups in the last year.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Her Majesty's ambassador and his staff have regular contact with people of all backgrounds, views and political persuasions in Turkey.

  Munich Opera
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made by him to the Commission of the European 32
  Economic Community and the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany about the compatibility with the treaty of Rome and other international legal obligations of the refusal under German law of the orchestra of the Munich Opera to play Scott Joplin scores for a performance arranged by an English choreographer, on the alleged grounds of the composer's ethnic origins; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  None. Initial reports were inaccurate. There is no reason for us to intervene.

  "Cry Freedom"
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will arrange for the showing of the film "Cry Freedom" at the British embassy in South Africa; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  There are no plans to do so.

  Drugs
  Mr. Rathbone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what collaboration there has been within the Commonwealth in tackling national and international drug misuse and trafficking problems.

  Mr. Eggar
  Successive Commonwealth Heads of Government meetings have stressed the importance of cooperation in this field. Regular and effective co-operation takes place through established channels within the United Nations, Interpol and the Customs Co-operation Council; and through close bilateral links between individual countries. A scheme relating to mutual assistance in criminal matters within the Commonwealth was launched in 1986 which will provide a framework for co-operation for countering drug and other serious international crime trafficking. The Commonwealth Secretariat is assisting Commonwealth countries through the provision of training in a number of drug-related areas.

  Plutonium
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if any plutonium from unsafeguarded electricity board magnox reactors has been exported to the United States of America since May 1979 under bilateral or international Atomic Energy Agency safeguards.

  Mr. Mellor
  There are no unsafeguarded Electricity Board Magnox reactors.

  World Food Conference
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if Her Majesty's Government were represented at the recent world food conference in Brussels organised by the President of the Parliament of the European Economic Community; if he will place any documents circulated prior to, during, or subsequent to the conference in the Library; and what representations were made by Government Departments.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The world food conference, which was organised by Lord Plumb as a personal initiative, was attended by a senior Foreign Office official who delivered
  33
  a speech on my behalf and a message from my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Copies will he placed in the Library of the House.

  Morocco
  Mr. Faulds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations Her Majesty's Government intend to make to the Government of the Kingdom of Morocco, in view of that Government's refusal to implement United Nations resolution 42/78.

  Mr. Mellor
  None. Such representations would not be consistent with our own abstention on United Nations General Assembly resolution 42/78.

  Mr. Faulds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government will launch an initiative to bring about a negotiated settlement of the conflict in the western Sahara between the Polisario and the Government of the Kingdom of Morocco.

  Mr. Mellor
  No. We believe that the dispute is one for the people of the region to resolve. We support the mediation efforts of the United Nations Secretary General and have welcomed his initiative in sending a technical mission to the region.

  Mr. Faulds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs why, in the light of Her Majesty's Government's neutrality in the western Sahara, permission for the supply of military equipment for the armed forces of the Kingdom of Morocco continues to be given.

  Mr. Mellor
  Our policy of strict impartiality over the western Sahara dispute does not preclude the sale of conventional military equipment to friendly Governments in the region.

  UN African Peace Plan
  Mr. Faulds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs why Her Majesty's Government abstained from the vote on the United Nations Organisation for African Unity peace plan at the United Nations General Assembly in October 1987.

  Mr. Mellor
  We abstained on United Nations General Assembly resolution 42/78 on 4 December 1987 in accordance with our policy of strict impartiality over the western Sahara dispute.

  Mr. Faulds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the implications of Her Majesty's Government's acquiescence to the European Economic Community-Kingdom of Morocco fishing agreement of 1987 for Her Majesty's Government's policy towards Morocco's claim to the waters in dispute between the Polisario and the Government of the Kingdom of Morocco.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The European Community/Morocco fisheries agreement has no implications for our existing policy towards Morocco's claim to the disputed waters.

  WEU (Collaborative Equipment Projects)
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what collaborative equipment 34
  projects have been initiated within the countries of the Western European Union since 1983; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I have been asked to reply.

  The active part that WEU nations play in both intra-European and transatlantic collaborative defence equipment projects can be seen from table 8 in Volume 1 of the "Statement on the Defence Estimates, 1987". In addition to those listed as
  "In development of earlier study phases"
  the M483A1 and MLRS phase 1 were initiated after 1983.

  A further three projects have been launched since the statement was published:

  Modular Stand-Off Weapons (Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, UK, US)

  NATO Anti-Air Warfare System (Canada, Germany, Netherlands, Spain, UK, US)

  Family of Air Missiles (France, Italy, Spain, UK)

  Israel (Non-proliferation Treaty)
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy,Official Report, 25 March, columns 241–42, when he last made a specific representation to the Israeli Government to sign the non-proliferation treaty.

  Mr. Mellor
  [pursuant to his reply, 31 March 1988, c. 628]: My answer should have said :
  My right hon. and learned Friend has not had a recent opportunity to raise the non-proliferation treaty with the Israeli Government. But, at his request, the permanent undersecretary at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office did so on 22 October 1987 with the political director of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

DEFENCE

  Tucano
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when trials on the Tucano training aircraft commenced at the aircraft and armaments experiemental establishment, Boscombe Down.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Rhondda (M r. Rogers) on 11 January at column 65.

  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many hours have been flown by the Tucano training aircraft during its trials at the aircraft and armaments experimental establishment, Boscombe Down.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Some 36 hours.

  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he now expects the Tucano training aircraft to enter service with the Royal Air Force.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The first Tucano aircraft is expected to enter service shortly.

  Air Combat System
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consultations there have been between his Department and British Aerospace as regards the construction of air combat manouevring system platforms in the North sea; and if he will make a statement.
  35
  Mr. Sainsbury
  I have nothing to add to my reply of 31 March, at column 622.

  US Air Force Headquarters
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans there are to transfer the United States Air Force headquarters from Mildenhall to Greenham common.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  There are no current plans to move the headquarters of the United States Third Air Force from RAF Mildenhall.

  Military Mission (Bangladesh)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many British officers are currently stationed in Bangladesh as part of a military mission.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  The British military advisory team in Bangladesh consists of three officers seconded as instructors at the Bangladesh defence services command and staff college.

  Nimrod Project
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his latest estimate of the number of jobs lost or forgone as a result of the cancellation of the Nimrod project.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  It is a matter for the companies concerned to advise on the effect on jobs resulting from the cancellation of the Nimrod project. I would also refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to him on 29 March at column 365.

  Ammunition Transport (Caerwent)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proposals he has to improve security arrangements for the transport of ammunition from the Caerwent, Gwent, Royal Air Force base, following the conviction of a civilian driver for drunken driving at Chepstow magistrates' court on 29 March.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  RAF Caerwent is made available to the United States army which is responsible for the safety and security of the ammunition stored at the base and associated transport arrangements. The United States authorities are subject to the same regulations governing the storage and handling of ammunition as Her Majesty's forces.

  I am informed that the United States army at RAF Caerwent has contracted out the transport of ammunition to a commercial haulage firm. In the incident referred to the driver in question was detained by the Gwent constabulary before entering the secure ammunition storage area. Had he entered this area whilst under the influence of alcohol he would not have been permitted to load ammunition or remain in the secure area in accordance with standard United States army procedures.

  House Sales
  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy that married quarters declared surplus to requirements and offered for sale to civilian 36
  employees should attract the same rate of discount as his Department's civilian housing offered for sale in similar circumstances.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  No. When married quarters which are capable of individual sale are declared surplus to requirements they are normally offered for sale to service personnel at 30 per cent. discount under the services' discount scheme. However, if any of these quarters are occupied by civilian tenants these occupants may be permitted, as an exceptional measure, to purchase the properties, but it would be unfair to allow them a larger discount than that available to service personnel for similar properties.

  Low Flying
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) pursuant to the reply to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy on 20 January,Official Report, column 764, if the figure for the number of complaints received about low flying includes complaints from the vicinity of airfields about aircraft landing and taking off;

  (2) pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy of 20 January, Official Report, column 765, if low flying sorties by United States Navy, Army and Marine Corps aircraft are included in the United States Air Force category.

  Mr. Freeman
  No.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy of 20 January.Official Report, column 765, if the figure for low flying sorties over the United Kingdom in 1987 includes flights by Ministry of Defence (Procurement Executive) aircraft and company trials aircraft.

  Mr. Freeman
  Yes.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which counties are covered by low flying area 3.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 22 February 1988]: The only county covered by low flying area 3 is Cornwall.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which counties are covered by low flying area 2.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 22 February 1988]: Low flying area 2 covers Avon, Devon, Somerset, most of Dorset and parts of Gloucestershire and Wiltshire.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which counties are covered by low flying area 1.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 22 February 1988]: Low flying area I covers parts of Berkshire, Dorset, Hampshire and Wiltshire.

  Fighter Evasion Exercises
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what minimum separation distance was authorised for fixed wing aircraft participating in the fighter evasion exercise held in the vicinity of Llanwrtyd Wells, Powys, from 18 to 22 January;

  (2) what minimum separation distance was authorised for fixed wing aircraft participating in the fighter evasion exercise held in the vicinity of Llanwrtyd Wells, Powys, from 2 to 5 November 1987;
  37
  (3) what minimum separation distance was authorised for fixed wing aircraft participating in Exercise Border Baron and Regal Burst, held in Yorkshire in July 1986;

  (4) what minimum separation distance was authorised for fixed wing aircraft participating in the fighter evasion exercise held in the vicinity of Holsworthy, Devon, on 14 October 1987.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 22 February 1988]: The authorised minimum separation distance for fixed wing aircraft participating in all the exercises referred to was 250 ft.

EMPLOYMENT

  Wages Inspectorate
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list for 1986 and 1987 in relation to (i) all wages councils, (ii) the Clothing Manufacturing wages council, (iii) the Hat, Cap and Millinery wages council, (iv) the Made-Up Textiles wages council and (v) the Retail Bespoke wages council(a) the number of homewokers in respect of whom the wages inspectorate examined employers' records and who were shown as being aged under 21 years, (b) the number of homeworkers shown as being aged under 21 years who were visited, (c) the number of homeworkers who were found to be aged 21 years or over as a result of a visit, (d) the amount of arrears assessed as due to homeworkers found to be aged 21 years or over as a result of a visit and (e) the amount of arrears collected for them.

  Availability

  Restricted availability

  30 June 1987

  September 1987

  30 June 1987

  30 September 1987

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  Northern

  96·4

  96·4

  88·9

  88·9

  Eastern

  84·8

  84·4

  92·7

  85·4

  Southern

  86·2

  91·9

  90·8

  94·4

  Wales

  94·9

  93·9

  92·3

  96·3

  Midlands

  86·7

  79·0

  80·0

  78·2

  North West

  94·1

  100

  94·9

  100

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  97·4

  96·9

  94·5

  99·0

  South West

  95·5

  88·8

  94·9

  95·1

  Scotland

  No return

  89·9

  No return

  92·3

  The creation of the Employment Service on 26 October 1987 involved changes in the regional structure. These figures are not, in all instances, therefore, directly comparable with those given in the response to the previous question.

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) if he will publish(a) the total number of establishments on the wages inspectorate's register, (b) the number of establishments on the wages inspectorate's register classified to the Clothing Manufacturing wages council, (c) the number of establishments on the wages inspectorate's register classified to the Hat, Cap and Millinery wages council, (d the number of establishments on the wages inspectorate's register classified to the Linen and Cotton Handkerchief and Household Goods and Linen Piece Goods, wages council, (e) the number of establishments on the wages inspectorate's register classified to the Made-up Textiles wages council, and (f) the number of establishments on the wages inspectorate's register classified to the Retail Bespoke Tailoring wages council;
  38
  Mr. Nicholls
  Statistics relating to the ages of homeworkers are not compiled by the wages inspectorate.

  Adjudication Officers
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will provide details of the sample survey of delays in adjudication officers making decisions on availability for work, by regions, for each quarter from 31 December 1986.

  Mr. Lee
  Information is not available in the precise form requested. However, the speed with which adjudication officers make decisions (that is, the time between their receiving a referral and reaching a decision after making all necessary inquiries), is monitored in a 5 per cent. sample of cases. This sampling was instigated only from 1 April 1987 (from 1 July in Scotland), and therefore I am only able to provide details for three-month periods ending 30 June 1987 and 30 September 1987. For information on the three-month perod ending 31 December 1987, I refer the hon. Member to my reply in the Official Report on Friday 25 March at column 259. The samples show that, for the three-month periods ending 30 June 1987 and 30 September 1987, the percentage of all availability questions (on both new and existing claims and including decisions on availability during holidays) decided within four weeks of referral to an adjudication officer, for each employment service region, was as follows :-

  (2) if he will publish the best available estimate by his Department of (a) the total number of establishments covered by wages councils, (b) the number of establishments covered by the Clothing Manufacturing wages council, (c) the number of establishments covered by the Hat, Cap and Millinery wages council, (d) the number of establishments covered by the Linen and Cotton Handkerchief and Household goods and Linen Piece Goods wages council, (e) the number of establishments covered by the Made-up Textiles wages council, and (f) the number of establishments covered by the Retail Bespoke Tailoring wages council.

  Mr. Nicholls
  At December 1987, the figures requested were:
  39

  Number

  All wages councils

  379,253

  Clothing Manufacture

  6,964

  Hat, Cap and Millinery

  123

  Linen and Cotton Handkerchief etc.

  114

  Made-up Textiles

  292

  Retail Bespoke Tailoring

  509

  The above figures are updated annually and are regarded as sufficiently reliable for departmental needs. No other such figures or estimates are compiled for the numbers of establishments covered by wages councils.

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the number of occasions on which section 23 of the Wages Act 1986 has been used to bring civil or criminal prosecutions against individuals for offences by bodies corporate.

  Mr. Nicholls
  None.

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish the instructions issued to wages inspectors on the use of section 23 of the Wages Act 1986.

  Mr. Nicholls
  No specific instructions on the use of section 23 of the Act have been issued to inspectors.

  EC Single Market
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether, in the light of the findings of the Cecchini report, published by the European Community on 31 March relating to the benefits to the European Community as a whole from achieving a single market, he will assess the employment implications for the United Kingdom of realising this 1992 target.

  Mr. Cope
  This Department had undertaken a preliminary look at the employment implications of the completion of the single market before the Cecchini report was published. It is considering what work will be necessary to assess these implications further.

  Gas Appliance Installers
  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any plans to introduce the mandatory registration of installers of gas appliances; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Health and Safety Commission and the Council for the Confederation for the Registration of Gas Installers have been asked to develop proposals for an independent, broadly based, and representative body to promote safety in gas installation. Mandatory registration of gas installers with such a body is among the proposals currently being considered.

  Tourism
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a further statement on the development of tourism in the rural areas.

  Mr. Lee
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Devon, West and Torridge (Miss Nicholson),Official Report, Monday 7 December 1987, at column 30. The English tourist board's rural tourism strategy referred to in my reply will be published later this year.
  40
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a further statement on the development of tourism in the seaside resorts.

  Mr. Lee
  Seaside resorts play an important role in English tourism. But the quality of the accommodation and attractions they offer needs to be maintained and improved. The English tourist board is helping resorts through its marketing activities, tourism development action programmes, and the section 4 scheme of selective financial assistance.

  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many overseas tourists visited Suffolk and Norfolk in the last year for which figures are available; and how much he estimates they contributed to the local economy.

  Mr. Lee
  There were an estimated 120,000 overnight visits to Suffolk and 130,000 overnight visits to Norfolk by overseas visitors in 1986. Their expenditure is estimated to have been £19 million in Suffolk and £23 million in Norfolk.

  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the number of people employed in tourism and tourism-related industry in Suffolk and Norfolk.

  Mr. Lee
  The latest estimates of employees in employment in tourism-related industries, which relate to September 1984, are 12,900 for Suffolk and 16,200 for Norfolk. These estimates do not include the self-employed, for whom comparable estimates are not available.

  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is being done overseas to promote holidays in East Anglia.

  Mr. Lee
  The British Tourist Authority has, in conjunction with the East Anglia tourist board, developed a range of overseas promotional activities to encourage visitors to East Anglia. These include the publication and distribution of brochures on holidays in East Anglia, and special promotions aimed at overseas travel agents.

  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is being done in the United Kingdom to promote holidays in East Anglia.

  Mr. Lee
  The promotion of holidays in East Anglia is undertaken by individual operators and resorts in the area, complemented by the work of the English tourist board and the East Anglia tourist board.

  The prime objective of the East Anglia tourist board is to improve the region's share of the holiday market. In the 1987/88 financial year the East Anglia tourist board spent some £643,000 on promoting holidays in East Anglia. This represented an increase of some 23 per cent. on the previous financial year.

  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the development of the caravan, holiday park and water-based holiday industry in East Anglia.

  Mr. Lee
  These sectors of the holiday industry play a major role in East Anglian tourism. But continued investment and upgrading of facilities is essential to counter the increased competition from both this country and abroad.

  The tourism industry in the area will benefit from the English tourist board's recently launched tourism

  41
  development action programme for Norwich, South Norfolk and Broadland. The Center Pares holiday village near Thetford due to open in spring 1989 will also significantly increase the number of visitors to the area.

  The caravan and holiday park industry is benefiting from the efforts of the National Caravan Council and the British Holiday and Home Parks Association to raise standards and improve quality through their codes of practice and grading scheme.

  The Broads boating holiday industry will gain from initiatives by the English tourist board and British Tourist Authority to promote water-based holidays in England. The diversification into good quality riverside self-catering accommodation by some of the traditional boatyards should also help bring additional visitors and extend the season.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the total number of people aged 18 and 19 years who are unemployed in north Yorkshire.

  Mr. Lee
  The following information is in the Library. On the 14 January 1988, the number of unemployed claimants in the county of north Yorkshire aged 18 and 19 years, were 983, and 1,047 respectively.

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if, pursuant to his reply of 1 March,Official Report column 542, he will initiate inquiries into the reasons for the substantial differences in the level of unemployment in the European Free Trade Association and in the European Economic Community, respectively.

  Mr. Lee
  My Department has no plans to conduct an inquiry as specific as my hon. Friend suggests. However, my Department is continually reviewing the reasons for differing levels of unemployment in other industrial countries, including most of the European Free Trade Association and EC member states.

  Job Vacancies (Nottingham)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the number of notified job vacancies in each jobcentre covering the Nottingham, North constituency for each month since June 1979.

  Mr. Lee
  Following is the available information. The table shows the numbers of unfilled vacancies notified to each of the jobcentres which together cover an area most closely corresponding to the parliamentary constituency of Nottingham, North for each month from April 1983, the earliest date from which consistent local figures are available.

  Unfilled vacancies

  Bulwell Jobcentre

  Nottingham Jobcentre

  Ilkeston Jobcentre

  1983

  April

  128

  952

  62

  May

  132

  1,055

  48

  June

  113

  1,132

  64

  July

  125

  1,056

  69

  August

  128

  1,153

  59

  September

  159

  1,169

  68

  October

  143

  1,257

  96

  November

  134

  1,072

  100

  42

  Bulwell Jobcentre

  Nottingham Jobcentre

  Ilkeston Jobcentre

  December

  143

  849

  61

  1984

  January

  159

  758

  47

  February

  148

  820

  50

  March

  167

  672

  53

  April

  143

  661

  50

  May

  127

  637

  46

  June

  130

  687

  48

  July

  121

  760

  37

  August

  142

  1,036

  42

  September

  157

  1,291

  80

  October

  186

  1,251

  77

  November

  207

  1,026

  70

  December

  159

  904

  67

  1985

  January

  176

  761

  62

  February

  142

  687

  49

  March

  147

  667

  67

  April

  166

  732

  61

  May

  158

  806

  70

  June

  187

  1,135

  78

  July

  174

  1,059

  60

  August

  214

  1,017

  72

  September

  220

  1,182

  67

  October

  274

  1,321

  172

  November

  243

  1,182

  188

  December

  160

  953

  63

  1986

  January

  176

  919

  42

  February

  198

  839

  73

  March

  173

  891

  57

  April

  165

  767

  79

  May

  170

  902

  73

  June

  158

  981

  88

  July

  182

  1,053

  77

  August

  147

  1,205

  62

  September

  143

  1,179

  62

  October

  137

  1,075

  67

  November

  157

  1,024

  93

  December

  145

  856

  69

  1987

  January

  142

  763

  51

  February

  156

  679

  118

  March

  149

  726

  117

  April

  151

  796

  110

  May

  163

  1,033

  106

  June

  181

  1,126

  135

  July

  157

  921

  129

  August

  185

  907

  130

  September

  228

  1,046

  148

  October

  207

  1,142

  126

  November

  195

  1,077

  149

  December

  143

  910

  91

  1988

  January

  143

  899

  67

  February

  144

  896

  78

  Unemployment Benefit
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people had their unemployment benefit stopped because they were considered to be not available for work in the periods(a) January, five weeks, and (b) February, four weeks; and what percentage these were of the total number of decisions made by the adjudicating officers in the two periods.

  Mr. Lee
  Information is not readily available about the number of persons who have their entitlement to
  43
  unemployment benefit disallowed because they are considered not to be available for work in the periods January and February, and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  However, in the six-month period ending 31 December 1987 the total number of claims for unemployment benefit disallowed by the adjudication officer, on the grounds of not being available for work was 50,588. This totalled 8·3 per cent. of all the claims disallowed by the adjudication officers during the period.

  Adult Training Scheme
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether the differential benefits for under and over 25-year-olds were taken into account in planning the resources for the new adult training scheme; whether those who have their 25th birthday during their time on the course will automatically receive an increase in allowance in line with the Social Security Act 1986 differentials; and if he is prepared to reconsider such differentials in order to pay the same allowance to all participants of whatever age.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Payments to trainees in the new employment training programme will be those unanimously recommended by the Manpower Services Commission. The resources available for the new programme take into account the range of benefits that trainees may be receiving, including differential income support rates for people aged over and under 25. Those trainees who are in receipt of income support before joining employment training will continue to receive an element of income support while they train. Any change in circumstances—including reaching the age of 25—will therefore be reflected in the overall payment received by the individual. It is a basic principle of employment training that all participants should be better off while training than they would be if they remained unemployed and in receipt of benefit, and this will be ensured by the payment system we have adopted.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the number of jobless claimants referred from each jobcentre to benefit offices in each of the months January, February and March of this year.

  Mr. Lee
  This information is not available. Jobcentre staff do not keep a record of the numbers of jobless claimants referred to the unemployment benefit offices.

SCOTLAND

  Forestry
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he has any proposals to place consultations over new afforestation proposals on a more public footing;

  (2) if he has any proposals to widen the membership base of the Forestry Commission's regional advisory committees.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to my right hon. and learned Friend's reply of 10 December 1987, columns 251–54, to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro).

  Water Supplies
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he anticipates any increase in the demand for laboratory services by district councils, to analyse samples of water taken to comply with European Community directive 80/778/EEC;

  (2) how many private water suppliers there are in each district council area;

  (3) what research has been done by his Department into the costs to district councils of implementing European Community directive 80/778/EEC; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The distribution of private water supplies among districts is very uneven—the numbers vary from a single supply to more than 2,000—and the demand for laboratory services and the costs of implementing directive 80/778/EEC are likely to vary accordingly.

  My Department asked district councils in December 1987 to provide details of the number of private supplies in their areas, classified according to the size of supply. Most authorities have now given this information, but some returns are still awaited, and I cannot yet give total figures for these supplies.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how long he estimates it will take to complete a thorough programme of sampling of the water supplies in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Sampling of public and private water supplies to maintain up-to-date information on their quality is of its nature a continuing process.

  Rating Reform
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consideration he has given to the position of people, in the financial year 1989–90, who have their main residence in Scotland and are paying poll tax, but who live for some of the year in rented accommodation in England and so are also paying a rates element within their rental and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  It is right that visitors to England and Wales should in appropriate circumstances continue to contribute towards the cost of local authority services through the system of domestic rates until that system is abolished in April 1990.

  Departmental Correspondence (Confidentiality)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is now taking to safeguard the confidentiality of information in his Department, in the light of the unauthorised disclosure of correspondence on opting-out of the educational system between No. 10 Downing street and his office; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The measures taken in the Scottish Office to protect official information are in accordance with standards laid down for application throughout Government Departments. The circumstances of the unauthorised disclosure of recent correspondence between the Prime Minister's office and my own are being investigated.

  School Clothing Grants
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list in the Official Report, for each education authority in Scotland, the number of applications received for financial assistance for school clothing under the Education Acts, the number of grants

  £'000

  Financial year

  Education authority

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  Borders

  13

  18

  30

  37

  48

  Central

  248

  324

  393

  375

  369

  Dumfries and Galloway

  26

  32

  44

  —

  1

  Fife

  18

  33

  116

  128

  190

  Grampian

  4

  8

  11

  9

  32

  Highland

  32

  63

  93

  119

  116

  Lothian

  122

  180

  248

  126

  168

  Strathclyde

  1,937

  2,917

  3,034

  3,227

  3,294

  Tayside

  90

  139

  188

  224

  229

  Orkney

  4

  4

  5

  5

  7

  Shetland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Western Isles

  19

  37

  18

  20

  20

  Total

  2,513

  3,755

  4,180

  4,270

  4,474

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list in the Official Report the amounts budgeted for expenditure in the next financial year by each local education authority in Scotland to meet the demand for clothing grants under the education grants, shown separately as an amount per eligible pupil at school in each region.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  This information is not held centrally.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will consider making a specific grant to each education authority in Scotland to cope with increases in applications for financial assistance for clothing grants under the Education Acts.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no plans to direct resources into a specific grant for the purpose of supporting expenditure by local authorities on clothing grants made under the Education (Scotland) Act 1980. It is for authorities to determine the level of their spending for this purpose from within the resources available to them.

  Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations
  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) why he has cut the grant to the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations from £349,000 to £250,000; why only three weeks' notice was given; and why no prior consultation was held with the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations;

  (2) if he will reconsider the decision to reduce the grant to the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations; what assessment he has made of the implications of the proposed cut in grant for redundancies and for the level of service provided by the voluntary sector; and if he will make a statement;
  46
  awarded and the amount of money expended by the education authority for each of the last five most recent years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Details regarding the number of applications for clothing grants and the number of grants awarded under section 54 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 are not held centrally. Information on total expenditure is set out in the table:

  (3) what action has been taken in the light of the review of the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations carried out by John S. Gibson and presented to the Government in March 1987.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  After considering Mr. Gibson's report, together with a lengthy submission made by SCVO in response to my request for its views, I concluded that there was a strong case for providing additional funds for local councils of social service in rural areas. I also took the view that there was scope for a reduction in support for SCVO as a contribution to the additional funding for local initiatives. Accordingly, grant to local councils will be increased in total by £120,000 in 1988–89 and grant to SCVO will be reduced by £90,000. There is, of course, nothing to prevent local councils from purchasing services from SCVO. Additionally, I have authorised consultations with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities on the possibility of further joint action by central and local government in the longer term to promote the development of local voluntary initiatives in both rural and urban areas.

  Notwithstanding the reduction in grant, SCVO will receive substantial support from central Government funds in 1988–89 and I am confident that after re-assessing priorities it can continue to make a useful contribution to the promotion of voluntary sector interests. It is for the council to consider ways and means of assimilating the reduction in grant including the effect on staffing levels, but departmental officials are ready to offer advice and assistance. I wished to convey my decisions personally to SCVO and did so at the first opportunity in the course of a meeting with the vice-convenor and other representatives on 11 March.

  My right hon. and learned Friend and I see no grounds for reconsidering these decisions.

  Speech Therapy (Twechar)
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take steps to improve the provision of speech therapy to primary school children in Twechar; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The provision of speech therapy services in any particular area is a matter for the relevant health board to determine in the light of its own assessment of needs and its priorities within the available resources. I understand that the hon. Member recently met the chairman and senior officials of the Greater Glasgow health board to discuss speech therapy services.

  Inshore Fishing
  Sir Hector Monro
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he intends to review the operation of the Inshore Fishing (Prohibition of Fishing and Fishing Methods) (Scotland) Order 1985; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The current inshore fishing regime in Scottish waters has been in force since July 1985. We have indicated previously that we would review the regime once it had been in operation for about three years, and we have therefore today issued a consultation paper proposing a number of changes. A copy of the document has been placed in the Library. The paper is being circulated widely and responses have been requested by 3 June. Thereafter, officials of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland will meet interested parties to discuss any contentious issues. If changes in the current inshore fishing regime are thought to be needed, a new order under the Inshore Fishing (Scotland) Act 1984 will be required.

  South of Scotland Electricity Board
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will issue a direction to the South of Scotland Electricity Board to rescind its recent contract with Shell for the supply of 20,000 tonnes of South African coal per month.

  Mr. Lang
  Contracts for the purchase of coal are a matter for the commercial judgment of the board. As regards the board's recent contracts for the purchase of foreign coal, I understand that no contract for South African supplies has been concluded by the board.

  Private Medical Schemes
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the private medical schemes which the Scottish Development Agency has discussed with Scottish Homes and Health Department.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 28 March 1988]: The Scottish Development Agency ensures that the appropriate health board or social work department registration requirements have been met.

  In the case of Health Care International there was a statutory requirement for the company to make application to my right hon. and learned Friend for approval. In that context, discussions took place involving officials of the Scottish Home and Health Department and agency staff.

WALES

  Spastics Society
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received from the Spastics Society in Wales seeking a meeting to discuss initiatives for people with physical handicaps; when the need for such a meeting was first discussed; and when it is now expected to take place.

  Mr. Grist
  A meeting was held with the regional manager of the society on 17 March, at which a number of matters were discussed. My understanding is that the society, in conjunction with the Wales Council for the Disabled, is currently preparing a report outlining its proposals for a strategy for those in Wales with physical handicaps. Further discussions can be arranged when this report is ready.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assistance his Department will give to the Spastics Society in Wales towards providing a computer facility to the society's work in Wales; and whether any assistance can be funded out of underspending on his Department's votes for 1987–88.

  Mr. Grist
  Our Department is still considering the request which has been made by the society although it was not possible to make any assistance available in 1987–88.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he intends to reply to the correspondence of 23 February from the hon. Member for Caerphilly addressed to the Secretary of State for Social Services concerning cyclo progynova, which has been forwarded to his Department.

  Mr. Grist
  I wrote on 8 April 1988.

ENERGY

  Eastcrop District Heating, Nottingham
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will take steps to encourage the Eastcrop district heating schemes in Nottingham; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  My Department encourages the promotion of combined heat and power technology where it is economic, whether in conjunction with district heating schemes or not. It is for the promoters of CHP/DH schemes to ensure successful implementation.

  Air Combat System
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what consultations there have been between his Department and British Aerospace as regards the construction of air combat manouevring system platforms in the North sea; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  In September 1987 an official from my Department attended a presentation by BAe on its proposal, at which the company was advised of the statutory consents which would be needed before any
  49
  platforms could be emplaced and the conditions likely to be imposed to ensure that they would be removed when disused. My Offshore Supplies Office subsequently brought to BAe's attention the considerable capability of the United Kingdom fabrication industry and asked that, if the project went ahead, British fabrication companies be given every opportunity to bid for the contracts.

  Plutonium
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will publish the specific current location and use to which all of the plutonium produced in(a) each United Kingdom electricity board advanced gas-cooled reactor and Magnox reactor and (b) each United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority reactor at Dounreay and Winfrith is put.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  No irradiated fuel from the United Kingdom generating boards' advanced gas-cooled reactors has yet been reprocessed. For details of the plutonium produced in the boards' magnox reactors and its uses, I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas) on 24 July 1987, at columns 515–16 and to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) on 16 December 1987, at column 516.

  Plutonium in the spent fuel from the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority's prototype fast reactor is recovered at Dounreay and reused in the manufacture of fresh fuel. As the prototype is a net consumer of plutonium, the balance has to be made up from thermal reactors and this is supplied at Sellafield. All these processes are subject to safeguards.

  The spent fuel from the UKAEA's steam generating heavy water reactor at Winfrith is stored under safeguards pending reprocessing in the THORP plant at Sellafield.

  Nuclear Fuel
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether, after the co-processing of safeguarded and unsafeguarded spent nuclear fuel at BNFL Sellafield since May 1979, the nuclear materials have been deemed to be civil or military according to a pro rata system.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I have nothing to add to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member on 11 March 1988, at column 362.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if, in the light of his reply to the hon. Member for Chiselhurst (Mr. Sims),Official Report, 14 March, column 429, on the increased cost limit to reply to parliamentary questions, he is now in a position to answer the questions put by the hon. Member for Newport, West on 26 November 1987, Official Report, column 279, on safeguards.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  No.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas),Official Report, 16 March, column 593, he will explain more fully the specific safeguards agreement covering the import of uranium from Durban on 28 February 1987.
  50
  Mr. Michael Spicer
  All uranium imported into the United Kingdom for civil use is subject to Euratom safeguards and to the terms of the UK/Euratom/IAEA safeguards agreement.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether the European Commission has fully informed(a) the United Kingdom Government and (b) other Governments of the partner countries in supply and cooperation agreements or contracts of the safeguards conventions applied to the accountancy of nuclear materials subject to these agreements in mixed civil-military installations.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 29 February 1988, at column 481.

  River Aire (Flooding)
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what information he has about recent flooding of the River Aire and its effects on a large opencast site in Yorkshire; what assessment is available to him of the danger of further flooding from the Aire and Calder canal if the banks continue to be eroded; if he will take action to ensure that the river and canal banks are secured; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I am advised by the British Coal Corporation that on Saturday 19 March the River Aire in West Yorkshire entered the St. Aidans opencast coal site through a breach in the river bank. A large volume of water remains within the site, which has temporarily ceased production, at a loss of 15,000 tonnes of coal per week output. No lives or property were lost during the incident.

  Some erosion occurred on the river bank adjacent to the canal during the flooding. The position has now been stabilised and remedial work to the river bank is now substantially complete. There is now no danger of flooding from the canal.

  British Coal is currently examining proposals with the relevant authorities which will permanently repair the breached river bank and enable work to be resumed on the site.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  ACE Funding
  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he has any plans to reinstate the ACE funding withdrawn from Twinbrook tenants and community association; and what interim arrangements have now been made for the provision of comparable services to the local community.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  My hon. Friend with responsibilities for such matters has no plans to reinstate ACE funding withdrawn from Twinbrook tenants and community Association. Forty-two ACE places are presently allocated for the provision of community services in the Twinbrook area.

  Terrorists (Sentence Remission)
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many convicted terrorists have been granted remission of part of their sentence since 1980; arid how many committed subsequent crimes.
  51
  Mr. Stanley
  During the period 1980 to 1987 a total of 5,109 inmates serving fixed sentences for scheduled offences were released with remission. Complete information on how many of these committed subsequent crimes is not readily available. However, a recent survey of a sample of former prisioners shows that some 40 per cent. of those released in 1984 from serving a sentence for a scheduled offence were subsequently convicted of either a scheduled or a non-scheduled offence committed within two years of their release.

  Electricity Generation
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when a decision will be taken on the next phase of generating capacity in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Viggers
  As the decision on the next phase of generating capacity to be provided in the Province will determine the future shape and scale of Northern Ireland Electricity's business, meaningful discussions on privatisation cannot be held until after that decision has been taken.

  Lecturers
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the cost to public funds in each of the past five years of the investigation of all complaints by the Commissioner for Complaints, the Fair Employment Agency and the Equal Opportunities Commission regarding the selection or promotion of lecturing staff in further education colleges.

  Mr. Viggers
  Information in the form requested is not readily available and could be compiled only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many complaints relating to the selection or promotion of lecturing staff in further education colleges were investigated by(a) the Commissioner for Complaints, (b) the Fair Employment Agency and (c) the Equal Opportunities Commission, in each of the past five years; and how many of these complaints were upheld.

  Mr. Viggers
  The available information is as follows

  Northern Ireland commissioner for complaints

  Fair employment agency

  Investigated

  Upheld

  Investigated

  Upheld

  1983

  2

  1

  3

  1

  1984

  11

  0

  4

  3

  1985

  3

  0

  3

  2

  1986

  8

  0

  0

  0

  1987

  1

  1

  24

  0

  1 This information is not available in advance of the laying before Parliament of the 1987 annual report of the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Complaints. The report is due to be laid in May 1988.

  2 Two pending.

  The Equal Opportunities Commission does not segregate or record complaints by the complainant's occupation and would be unable to produce the information requested without disproportionate cost.

  Prison Population
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish a table in the Official Report showing figures for the Northern Ireland prison population broken down into(a) male, (b) female and (c) juvenile, and showing each category the number of (i) Roman Catholics, (ii) Protestants and (iii) others.

  Mr. Stanley
  The information requested is as follows:

  Northern Ireland prison population as at 31 March 1988 showing religious denominations as slated at time of committal to prison

  Roman Catholic

  Protestant

  Others

  Totals

  Male

  799

  933

  5

  1,737

  Female

  17

  9

  —

  26

  Juvenile

  119

  104

  1

  224

  Totals

  935

  1,046

  6

  1,987

  Juveniles are those inmates detained in young offenders centres and do not include young persons held on remand or under sentence in prison.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish a table in the Official Report to show the names of the members of each of(a) the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights, (b) the Fair Employment Agency, (c) the Equal Opportunities Commission, (d) the Police Authority, and (e) the Police Complaints Board, indicating the date and term of appointment, and the sections of society or interest groups from which they were each drawn or represent.

  Mr. Tom King
  [holding answer 29 March 1988: I shall write to the hon. Gentleman.

  Sinn Fein
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions has he had with the Government of the Republic of Ireland about proscribing Sinn Fein; what was the view of the Government of the Republic on this matter; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Tom King
  [holding answer 29 March 1988]: Discussions with the Irish Government are generally confidential, in conformity with the usual international practice. The Government keep the question of proscription of a number of organisations under review.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Green Rates
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the gap between the United Kingdom green rates and the market rate; and how in real terms this gap compares with those of the other European Economic Community member states.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The real monetary gap (RMG) is the difference between a currency's green and market rates of exchange calculated as a percentage of the former. In sectors where monetary compensatory amounts (MCAs) apply, they are derived from the RMG by the subtraction of a "franchise". The real monetary gaps applying in the Community in the week commencing 11 April 1988 were:
  53

  Member state/Sector

  Real monetary gap (per cent.)

  United Kingdom

  Beef

  -5·1

  Crops

  -13·8

  Pigmeat

  -7·6

  Sheep

  -14·4

  Others

  -12·2

  Belgium

  Sheep

  -2·0

  Luxembourg

  All others

  -0·5

  Denmark

  Pigmeat

  -0·5

  Sheep

  -4·1

  Others

  -2·0

  France

  Beef

  -2·0

  Eggs and poultry

  -5·3

  Pigmeat

  -1·5

  Sheep

  -4·1

  Wine

  -5·6

  Others

  -5·0

  Germany

  Beef, sheep

  +0·9

  Cereals

  +2·4

  Others

  +1·9

  Greece

  Beef, milk

  -49·5

  Cereals

  -39·1

  Pigmeat

  -39·0

  Sheep

  -24·2

  Others

  -45·4

  Ireland

  Crops

  -5·1

  Milk, eggs and poultry

  -5·0

  Pigmeat

  -3·6

  Sheep

  -6·9

  Others

  -3·5

  Italy

  Cereals

  -8·0

  Fruit and vegetables

  -5·9

  Pigmeat

  -3·1

  Sheep

  -11·0

  Wine

  -7·6

  Others

  -7·0

  Netherlands

  Beef

  +0·3

  Cereals

  +1·9

  Milk

  +1·4

  Others

  +1·3

  Portugal

  Sheep, structures

  -4·7

  Fishery products

  -9·7

  Others

  -10·9

  Spain

  Crops

  -1·8

  Sheep

  -3·4

  Others

  -0·8

  Monetary Compensatory Amounts
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he is taking to consult 54
  other European Economic Community members both on a formal and informal basis as to the removal of monetary compensatory amounts to help the pig farming industry.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I raised this issue in the opening discussions on the Commission's price proposals which took place at the meeting of the Agricultural Council on 28/29 March. I stressed the acute problems faced by United Kingdom pig producers and that pigmeat MCAs were producing distortions in competition. I urged an immediate complete devaluation for the green pound in this sector, as part of the price-fixing proposals.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has as to the attitude of other European Economic Community countries to monetary compensatory amounts.

  Mr. MacGregor
  A number of member states are seeking MCA changes.

  Farming Industry (Assistance)
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is being done to revive the farming industry in the light of current levels of production.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The agriculture industry requires a. stable framework of policy against which to plan its business decisions. This was lacking while CAP spending was not subject to proper budgetary control and while exhaustion of CAP funds, notably on storage and disposal of surpluses, threatened the collapse of the system. The decisions reached on CAP reform at the recent European Council have averted that threat and provided a clearer framework within which farmers can now plan ahead.

  Radioactivity
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is investigating the possibility of having aerial monitoring for measuring radioactivity on agricultural land; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  This possibility is being actively investigated, in the light of relevant information on technical performance and cost effectiveness of current proposals.

  Bass
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the representations he has had about his proposals for bass fishing; how many fishery protection offices are responsible for the Channel; and if he will list the number of prosecutions for undersize bass and the level of fines imposed.

  Mr. Gummer
  We have received over 100 representations on the proposals for the management of the bass fishery published on 29 February.

  The Ministry's Sea Fisheries Inspectorate, which undertakes a wide range of duties, has 25 officers operating from nine offices situated along the Channel coast. Since the introduction of the Community minimum landing size of 32cm. in January 1987 there have been no prosecutions by the Ministry for landing undersize bass, but one case is pending.

  Food Surpluses
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the amount to be expended per week in disposing of food surpluses following the decisions of the European Council; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The 1988 draft budget provides for Community expenditure on export refunds and internal disposal subsidies (including stock depreciation and loss on sale out of intervention) for commodities in structural surplus (cereals, sugar, olive oil, wine, beef, milk and milk products) of £221 million per week. This figure is not comparable with earlier years because systematic stock depreciation of new stocks is now included for the first time.

  Production Subsidies
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his latest estimate of the sum to be expected by his Department on the financing of agricultural production and export of produce in the current financial year, in the light of the decisions at the European Council.

  Mr. MacGregor
  Expenditure in the United Kingdom on production subsidies and export refunds (net of MCAs) is expected to be £950 million in 1988–89.

  Agricultural Production
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) by what date the United Kingdom will be required to introduce the scheme for set-aside for agricultural land agreed at the European Council on 11 to 13 February;

  (2) by what date the United Kingdom is required to introduce a scheme for (a) set-aside and (b) extensification of the production of surplus products; and when these decisions were taken in the European Council;

  (3) if he has yet introduced an aid scheme designed to encourage the extensification of production, as required by European Council regulation A60/87.

  Mr. MacGregor
  In accordance with the decisions of the European Council, regulation 1760/87 is being superseded by a new regulation providing both for set-aside of arable land and for extensification by reduction of production. The Council of Agriculture Ministers agreed on 8–9 March that set-aside schemes should be introduced by member states within two months of the adoption of the Commission implementing rules, decisions on which are to be taken by 30 April 1988. Extensification is to be implemented by 1 January 1989, but until 31 December 1989 member states may restrict this to beef and veal and to wine.

  EAGGF and Set-aside Scheme
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will estimate the annual cost to(a) the European agricultural guarantee and guidance fund, and (b) the United Kingdom of the set-aside scheme agreed at the European Council meeting held on 11–13 February.

  Mr. MacGregor
  No estimate of the annual cost to EAGGF has been released by the Commission. For the 56
  United Kingdom, public expenditure planning totals were increased in the last survey by £16 million for 1989–90 and £22 million for 1990–91 to cover the cost of set-aside and extensification.

  Food Aid
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if when planning the distribution of surplus European Community beef and butter, he will make it his policy to have regard to the problems experienced at the previous distribution; and what steps he will take to improve the arrangements;

  (2) what steps he is taking to ensure that organisations which will be authorised to distribute European Community surplus beef and butter are better equipped than they were last time to carry out the task; and what additional help he is making available to that end.

  Mr. Gummer
  [holding answer 31 March 1988: The free food scheme, which was the subject of my right hon. Friend's announcement on 12 January, is more limited than the 1987 scheme and different in form. In particular, we shall be designating organisations which are willing and capable to handling butter and beef withdrawn from intervention stores and of arranging for its distribution exclusively to eligible recipients with due safeguards against abuse or risks to health. Designated organisations will be eligible to receive contributions from Community funds for costs of administration and transport.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he is planning to distribute surplus European Community beef and butter to retirement pensioners and others in need; through which organisations he is planning to do this in Devon; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  [holding answer 31 March 1988: I shall be announcing the list of designated organisations as soon as possible : once designated, organisations will be entitled to withdraw butter and beef from intervention stores for distribution.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much European Community surplus beef and butter is available for distribution in the United Kingdom; and what steps he is taking to see that it is fairly distributed.

  Mr. Gummer
  [holding answer 31 March 1988]: The quantities to be distributed will depend on the allocation from the Commission, on which I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given on 31 March at column 638, to the hon. Member for Newcastle-Upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins). As for distribution arrangements, my right hon. Friend announced on 12 January that butter and beef would be made available on response to specific applications from suitable organisations. I shall have regard to the coverage of distribution and other factors in deciding which organisations should be designated under the scheme.

  Food and Environment Protection Act 1985
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many notices have been issued under sections 19(5) and 19(6), respectively, of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 since the Act came into force.
  57
  Mr. Nicholls
  I have been asked to reply as under an agency agreement, the Health and Safety Executive became the enforcing authority for part III of the Act and its regulations on 27 June 1987.

  Between that date and 31 December 1987 32 enforcement notices were served, 29 under section 19(5) and three under section 19(6).

THE ARTS

  Arts Council
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what the total grant from the Arts Council to the 12 English regional arts associations is for 1988–89; and what percentage increase this represents over 1987–88.

  Mr. Luce
  The total of basic allocations for 1988–89 is £28,946,840, which represents a 2·7 percentage increase over the total of total allocations for 1987–88. Additional development moneys have not yet been allocated by the Arts Council to individual RAAs, but once this is done the increase will be of the order of 3 per cent.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will publish a table showing(a) his office's grant to the Arts

  National Theatre

  Royal Shakespeare Company

  English National Opera

  Royal Opera House

  1979–80

  100·0

  100·0

  100·0

  100·0

  1980–81

  107·9

  119·8

  114·1

  111·5

  1981–82

  120·0

  136·0

  95·2

  128·9

  1982–83

  136·3

  192·5

  113·3

  148·3

  1983–84

  142·9

  220·1

  124·8

  165·5

  1984–85

  145·8

  249·7

  123·3

  177·0

  1985–86

  144·7

  254·7

  125·7

  192·5

  1986–87

  162·5

  245·5

  137·0

  187·1

  1987–88

  162·5

  245·5

  140·6

  189·0

  1988–89

  162·5

  251·6

  144·1

  192·7

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Minister for the Arts whether he will publish a table which shows the Arts Council grants to(a) the National Theatre, (b) the Royal Shakespeare Company, (c) the English National Opera, and (d) the Royal Opera House, in each year from 1979–80 to 1988–89.

  Mr. Luce
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) on 16 February 1988 at column 570.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what additional sum would be required to restore the real value of the Office of Arts and Libraries' grant to the Arts Council to the level of 1979–80.

  Mr. Luce
  None. If the Arts Council's grant had remained constant in real terms, it would have been about £112 million in 1988–89. In fact, it will be £127 million excluding post-abolition funding.

  Mr. Fisher: To ask the Minister for the Arts what additional sum would be required to restore the real value
  58
  Council in cash terms in each year since 1979–80 up to and including 1988–89 and (b) each of those years' grant as a percentage of 1979–80.

  Mr. Luce
  The information requested is follows:

  Arts council grant

  Percentage of 1979–80

  £

  1979–80

  61,476,000

  100

  1980–81

  70,470,000

  114·6

  1981–82

  80,361,000

  130·7

  1982–83

  90,850,000

  147·8

  1983–84

  94,580,000

  153·8

  1984–85

  100,000,000

  162·7

  1985–86

  105,000,000

  170·8

  1986–87

  135,600,000

  220·6

  1987–88

  138,400,000

  225·1

  1988–89

  150,000,000

  244·0

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Minister for the Arts whether he will publish a table which expresses the Arts Council grant to(a) the National Theatre, (b) the Royal Shakespeare Company, (c) the English National Opera and (d) the Royal Opera House in each year from 1979–80 to 1988–89 as a percentage of 1979–80.

  Mr. Richard Luce
  The information requested is as follows:

  of the Arts Council grant to the level of 1979–80 for (a) the National Theatre, (b) the Royal Shakespeare Company, (c) the English National Opera and (d) the Royal Opera House.

  Mr. Luce
  The National Theatre and English National Opera would need cash increases of £954,418 and £1,836,964 respectively.

  The Royal Shakespeare Company and the Royal Opera House already receive more than the 1979–80 level in real terms.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what additional sum would be required to restore the real value of the Arts Council grant to each of the 12 English regional arts associations to the level of 1979–80.

  Mr. Luce
  I have excluded abolition money from the answer, but in every case, the 1988–89 grant is well above the real-terms equivalent of the 1979–80 grant, as the following table shows:
  59

  RAA

  1979–80 Total Grant

  1988–89 Real Term Equivalent

  1988–89 Basic Grant (Abolition money excluded)

  Eastern

  419,398

  768,024

  1,942,560

  East Midlands

  428,033

  783,837

  1,976,625

  Greater London

  652,301

  1,194,528

  2,916,397

  Lincs/Humberside

  335,893

  615,105

  955,920

  Merseyside

  338,147

  619,233

  735,907

  Northern

  1,088,960

  1,994,161

  2,285,515

  North West

  578,474

  1,059,332

  1,768,557

  Southern

  525,050

  961,499

  1,647,615

  South East

  318,807

  583,816

  1,380,330

  South West

  535,794

  981,174

  1,765,500

  West Midlands

  696,735

  1,275,898

  2,064,108

  Yorkshire

  444,425

  813,854

  1,521,769

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will publish in the Official Report tables showing (a) the Arts Council's grant to each of the 12 regional arts associations

  Eastern

  East Midlands

  Greater London

  £

  Percentage

  £

  Percentage

  £

  Percentage

  1979–80

  419,398

  100·0

  428,033

  100·0

  652,301

  100·0

  1980–81

  481,180

  114·7

  579,874

  135·5

  932,101

  142·9

  1981–82

  541,045

  129·0

  699,754

  163·5

  1,209,972

  185·5

  1982–83

  690,483

  164·6

  824,944

  192·7

  1,464,087

  224·4

  1983–84

  728,305

  173·7

  927,160

  216·6

  1,487,240

  228·0

  1984–85

  889,775

  212·2

  1,061,119

  247·9

  1,583,722

  242·8

  1985–86

  1,144,871

  273·0

  1,627,406

  380·2

  1,791,430

  274·6

  1986–87

  1,715,344

  409·0

  1,809,737

  422·8

  8,427,313

  1,292·0

  1987–88

  1,774,026

  423·0

  1,873,783

  437·8

  8,127,248

  1,245·9

  1988–89

  1,942,560

  463·2

  1,976,625

  461·8

  7,903,175

  1,211·6

  Lincolnshire and Humberside

  Merseyside

  Northern

  £

  Percentage

  £

  Percentage

  £

  Percentage

  1979–80

  335,893

  100·0

  338,147

  100·0

  1,088,960

  100·0

  1980–81

  390,747

  116·3

  386,083

  114·2

  1,306,630

  120·0

  1981–82

  460,691

  137·2

  444,877

  131·6

  1,456,051

  133·7

  1982–83

  523,048

  155·7

  497,419

  147·1

  1,733,236

  159·2

  1983–84

  556,740

  165·7

  535,158

  158·3

  1,819,020

  167·0

  1984–85

  591,050

  176·0

  583,903

  172·7

  1,938,659

  178·0

  1985–86

  782,836

  233·0

  656,000

  194·0

  2,086,802

  191·6

  1986–87

  904,490

  269·3

  1,096,830

  324·4

  3,543,845

  325·4

  1987–88

  962,235

  286·5

  1,094,270

  323·6

  3,556,920

  326·6

  1988–89

  955,920

  284·6

  1,102,155

  326·0

  3,526,910

  323·9

  North West

  Southern

  South East

  £

  percentage

  £

  percentage

  £

  percentage

  1979–80

  578,474

  100·0

  525,050

  100·0

  318,807

  100·0

  1980–81

  662,483

  114·6

  618,638

  117·8

  367,495

  115·3

  1981–82

  751,055

  129·8

  708,620

  135·0

  431,274

  135·3

  1982–83

  864,849

  149·5

  850,418

  162·0

  540,353

  169·5

  1983–84

  932,393

  161·2

  884,447

  168·4

  581,659

  182·4

  1984–85

  1,031,953

  178·4

  995,088

  189·5

  628,991

  197·3

  1985–86

  1,493,749

  258·2

  1,172,470

  223·3

  1,085,773

  340·6

  1986–87

  1,982,320

  342·7

  1,298,559

  247·3

  1,231,962

  386·4

  1987–88

  1,996,480

  345·1

  1,369,191

  260·8

  1,303,970

  409·0

  1988–89

  2,144,570

  370·7

  1,647,615

  313·8

  1,380,330

  433·0

  South West

  West Midlands

  Yorkshire

  £

  percentage

  £

  percentage

  £

  percentage

  1979–80

  535,794

  100·0

  696,735

  100·0

  444,425

  100·0

  1980–81

  637,082

  118·9

  803,105

  115·3

  520,779

  117·2

  1981–82

  702,175

  131·1

  896,095

  128·6

  586,900

  132·1

  1982–83

  876,133

  163·5

  1,034,811

  148·5

  717,002

  161·3

  1983–84

  883,678

  164·9

  1,100,434

  157·9

  737,914

  166·0

  1984–85

  970,894

  181·2

  1,221,727

  175·4

  841,602

  189·4

  1985–86

  1,225,052

  228·6

  1,558,134

  223·6

  1,338,899

  301·3

  60
  in cash terms in each year since 1979–80 up to and including 1988–89 and (b) each of those years' grants as a percentage of 1979–80.

  Mr. Luce
  The information requested is as follows:
  61

  South West

  West Midlands

  Yorkshire

  £

  percentage

  £

  percentage

  £

  percentage

  1986–87

  1,555,765

  290·4

  2,291,310

  328·9

  2,084,900

  469·1

  1987–88

  1,685,317

  314·5

  2,315,020

  332·9

  2,117,070

  476·4

  1988–89

  1,765,500

  329·5

  2,451,180

  351·8

  2,150,300

  483·8

  Figures for 1979–80 to 1987–88 are total allocations; the figures for 1988–89, however, are basic allocations as total allocations for 1988–89 have not yet been made by the Arts Council who will allocate some development money to some regions. The 1979–80 to 1987–88 grant figures have already been given in my reply to the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) on 16 February 1988 at columns 571–72.

  Museums (Storage Space)
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Minister of the Arts what is his estimate, in the light of the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General on the management of museums and galleries, HC 394, of the cost of providing adequate storage space at(a) the Victoria and Albert museum and (b) the British museum.

  Mr. Luce
  It is for the trustees of these two museums, and of the other national museums and galleries, to assess their institutions' storage needs and the cost of satisfying them, and to determine the priority that should be given to this purpose in their strategic plans.

  I have provided a major new storage facility of 32,000 m2 at Blyth road, Hammersmith for the use in particular of the British museum, the Victoria and Albert and the science museum. A total of some £11 million has so far been spent from the arts programme on the acquisition and refurbishment of this facility, in which further investment is planned for the future.

  British Museum
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what he estimates will be the cost of restoring(a) the Greek and Roman antiquities, (b) the drawings in the Satin collection; and (c) the letters, fragments and objects in the cuneiform table collection in the British museum.

  Mr. Luce
  The keeping of the British museum's collections is the responsibility of the museum's board of trustees. It is for them to assess the cost of restoring part of those collections. I will make inquiries and write to the hon. Member, and place a copy of the letter in the Library.

CIVIL SERVICE

  Agencies
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service which Civil Service units, presently housed at the Chalfont drive Government buildings in Nottingham, are under consideration for the agency proposals recently announced.

  Mr. Luce
  Of the civil servants who currently work at Chalfont drive, Nottingham, I understand that only those from Her Majesty's Stationery Office and the Department of Employment are involved in the list of the first candidates for agencies announced on 18 February this year.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Tax Allowances
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many women currently receive both the wife's earned income allowance and the married man's tax allowance.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  It is estimated that in 1988–89 about half a million married women will have both the wife's earned income allowance and the married man's tax allowance set against their earnings.

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give for 1987–88 the number of tax units claiming(a) the dependent relative allowance, (b) the housekeeper allowance, and (c) the son's or daughter's services allowance; and if he will give for each of these the cost of the allowance to the Exchequer in 1987–88, and the projected cost for 1988–89 had the allowances been retained.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The information is given in the table :

  Cost of the allowance

  Number of tax units claiming the allowance (thousands)

  1987–88 (£ million)

  1988–89 (£ million)

  Dependent relative allowance

  360

  10

  10

  Housekeeper allowance

  5

  under ¼

  under ¼

  Son's or daughter's services allowance

  2

  negligible

  negligible

  Estimates are based on a projection of the 1985–86 survey of personal income and are therefore provisional.

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many separated or divorced parents at present opt to claim two separate additional personal allowances; and if he will give the cost to the Exchequer of these claimants in 1987–88 and the projected cost had the allowance continued to be allowed to both parents in 1989–90.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Information about the numbers of separated or divorced parents claiming the additional personal allowance is not available. Under the Budget proposals, separated or divorced parents who are eligible will both continue to be able to claim the additional personal allowance in 1989–90 except where the parent making the claim is one of an unmarried couple living together as husband and wife and that couple have more than one child between them.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the cost of reducing the basic rate of income tax to 20 per cent.; and if he will make a statement.
  63
  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The cost of reducing the basic rate of income tax from 25 per cent. to 20 per cent. in 1988–89 is estimated to be £6·4 billion in 1988–89 and £8 billion in 1989–90. These estimates include the costs of the consequential reduction in the rate of advance corporation tax.

  Credit Card Companies
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the implications of the rates of interest charged by the major credit companies for his policy of reducing inflation.

  Mr. Lilley
  Credit card borrowing represents less than 5 per cent. of total personal debt. So the impact of credit card interest rates both as a cost and as restraint on the growth of total liquidity is correspondingly small. However, credit card services have been referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission by the Director General of Fair Trading.

  Exchange Rate
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received on the present level of exchange rate and its effects on the economy.

  Mr. Lilley
  My right hon. Friend receives representations on the exchange rate and its effects on the economy whatever its level.

  Freeports
  Mr. Rathbone
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the present position of his review of existing freeport operations; and what plans he is considering for the expansion of freeport status to other ports.

  Mr. Lilley
  On 17 December 1987, at columns 651–52, I gave my considered response to the report by Customs and Excise of its review of VAT and other aspects of free zones.

  Credit Controls
  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has any plans to reintroduce credit controls; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lilley
  No.

  Mortgage Repayments
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from individual taxpayers about the extent to which recently announced increases in mortgage repayments counteract the effects on their real disposable income of the tax reductions announced in his Budget Statement.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  None.

  Queen's Warehousekeeper
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the salary of the Queen's warehousekeeper; and how many staff are employed at his office.

  Mr. Lilley
  One or more Queen's warehouses is located in each of the 21 regional collections of Customs and Excise according to the nature and volume of local 64
  passenger and freight traffic. Day-to-day responsibility is normally laid to staff at executive or higher executive officer level, who currently receive a maximum salary of £10,292 or £12,878 a year respectively outside London. They may be supported by up to three other staff according to the needs of the work.

  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many goods, and to what approximate value, presently remain unclaimed at the office of the Queen's warehousekeeper; and what happens to these goods after six months.

  Mr. Lilley
  Records are not kept centrally of goods seized and detained that remain unclaimed at individual Queen's warehouses. Where goods are detained pending the production of an import licence they are liable to be seized and disposed of if a licence is not produced within a reasonable time. Since the circumstances of particular importations can vary significantly, no single period is set for disposal.

  Loxodonta Africana
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many items of loxodonta Africana were detained by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise in 1987 and subsequently given approval for importation by the endangered species branch of the Department of the Environment.

  Mr. Lilley
  Records of such detentions are not maintained centrally and the information sought could be obtained only at disproportionate expense.

  EC (UK Contribution)
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate of the net contribution which the United Kingdom will require to make to the European Economic Community in the financial year 1987–88, in the light of the decisions taken at the European Council.

  Mr. Brooke
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave him on 31 March at column 601.

  Taxation Statistics
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give(a) the percentage of average wages paid in tax of all kinds for each year since 1979, (b) the percentage paid in income tax and (c) the percentage paid in indirect taxes for each of those years.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The figures in the table refer to a married man on average male earnings. It is assumed that his wife has no earnings, that he is not contracted out of SERPS and that they have no children. The figures do not include domestic rates.

  Taxes as a percentage of gross earnings for a married man on average earnings

  Income tax NIC and indirect taxes

  Income tax

  Indirect taxes

  1978–79

  39·6

  21·3

  11·8

  1979–80

  39·1

  19·8

  12·8

  1980–81

  40·0

  20·6

  12·7

  65

  Income tax NIC and indirect taxes

  Income tax

  Indirect taxes

  1981–82

  42·4

  21·5

  13·1

  1982–83

  42·4

  21·0

  12·6

  1983–84

  42·4

  20·6

  12·8

  1984–85

  42·5

  20·2

  13·3

  1985–86

  42·3

  20·0

  13·3

  1986–87

  41·7

  19·4

  13·3

  1987–88

  40·5

  18·4

  13·1

  1988–89

  39·3

  17·0

  13·3

  EC Intergovernmental Agreement
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what sum he expects will be raised by the proposed intergovernmental agreement described in European Commission document COM (88) 81; what is the purpose of the proposal; what is the part of the draft budget to which it relates, expressing those sums in both European currency units and pound sterling, together with the terms of any reimbursement; and what is the method by which Her Majesty's Government propose to seek parliamentary approval for this draft agreement.

  Mr. Brooke
  As I said in reply to my hon. Friends the Members for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson) on 24 February, at columns 194–96, and for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) on 9 March, at columns 208–9, respectively, the Intergovernmental agreement (IGA) was provided for in the conclusions of the Brussels European Council on 11–12 February. Its purpose is to cover the Community's 1988 budget requirements in excess of the existing own resources ceiling pending entry into force of the new own resources decision. The amount which member states would contribute under the IGA depends on the level at which the 1988 budget is eventually adopted. The provisional and indicative amount in respect of the draft budget established at the Economic and Finance Council on 7 March is 7·647 billion ecu (around £5·304 billion), with a United Kingdom contribution of 1·263 billion ecu (around £0·876 billion). The IGA would not be related to any particular part of the budget. It would take the form of non-repayable advances corresponding to the new fourth resource.

  Parliament's approval for the IGA will be sought before the money is paid to the Community, probably by means of a special Estimate or by a Bill—following the precedent of the 1984 or 1985 IGAs respectively. The method chosen will depend mainly on the timing of the necessary formal agreements between member states.

  Shares of income tax payers' total income before tax

  Financial year

  1978–79

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–861

  1986–871

  1987–881

  Top 1 per cent.

  Amount £ billion

  5·1

  9·7

  10·9

  13·6

  14·6

  16·1

  Share per cent.

  5

  5

  5

  6

  6

  6

  Top 5 per cent.

  Amount £ billion

  15·0

  28·3

  31·4

  36·4

  39·4

  43·3

  Share per cent.

  15

  16

  16

  16

  16

  17

  Top 10 per cent.

  Amount £ billion

  24·3

  45·0

  49·6

  56·7

  61·4

  67·4

  Share per cent.

  24

  25

  25

  25

  26

  26

  Policy Work (Financial Management Initiative)
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has been made in applying the financial management initiative to policy work.

  Mr. Major
  Since my predecessor's announcement of 10 June 1985, at column 294, Departments have made considerable improvements, particularly in evaluation. The Treasury has today published "Policy Evaluation : A Guide for Managers", which builds on the work which has been done in Departments and which sets out the approach which has been found most useful. I am arranging for copies of this guide, and of the accompanying press release which describes the background, to be sent to the hon. Member and to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Staff Productivity and Efficiency
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he has taken to assess the effect on the productivity and efficiency of staff in his own Department of the tax cuts announced in his Budget Statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  The reductions in income tax rates proposed in the Budget will improve incentives for all taxpayers, including the staff in my Department, and will encourage individual effort generally by allowing people to keep more of what they earn.

  Personal Incomes
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give for each of the top(a) 1 per cent., (b) 5 per cent., (c) 10 per cent., and (d) the remaining 90 per cent. of taxpayers (i) the total amount of income before tax and (ii) the total amount of income after tax for each of the years 1978–79 to 1987–88.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 10 March 1988] : Estimates are given in the tables for 1978–79 and 1983–84 to 1987–88. Information for other years could be provided only at disproportionate cost. All estimates are based on information reported to tax offices and collected through the annual surveys of personal incomes. For years before 1985–86, estimates exclude employees' contributions to occupational pension schemes and some investment income on which tax is deducted at source.
  67

  Financial year

  1978–79

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–861

  1986–871

  1987–881

  Remaining 90 per cent.

  Amount £ billion

  78·5

  136·0

  147·0

  166·0

  178·0

  192·0

  Share per cent.

  76

  75

  75

  75

  74

  74

  All taxpayers

  Amount £ billion

  102·8

  181·0

  197·0

  223·0

  239·0

  259·0

  Share per cent.

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  Shares of income tax payers' total income after tax

  Financial year

  1978–79

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–861

  1986–871

  1987–881

  Top 1 per cent.

  Amount £ billion

  2·7

  5·9

  6·7

  8·1

  8·7

  9·5

  Share per cent.

  3

  4

  4

  4

  4

  4

  Top 5 per cent.

  Amount £ billion

  10·1

  19·8

  22·0

  25·2

  27·3

  30·0

  Share per cent.

  12

  13

  14

  14

  14

  14

  Top 10 per cent.

  Amount £ billion

  17·3

  32·9

  36·2

  41·2

  44·8

  49·6

  Share per cent.

  21

  22

  22

  23

  23

  23

  Remaining 90 per cent.

  Amount £ billion

  65·2

  115·0

  125·0

  142·0

  152·0

  166·0

  Share per cent.

  79

  78

  78

  77

  77

  77

  All taxpayers

  Amount £ billion

  82·6

  147·0

  162·0

  183·0

  197·0

  215·0

  Share per cent.

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  1 Provisional; includes estimates of occupational pension contributions and investment income not reported to tax offices.

  Seabed Mooring Rentals
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information he has on the increases in sea bed mooring rentals recently proposed by the Crown Estate Commissioners.

  Mr. Lawson
  [holding answer 29 March 1988] : Mooring charges around the United Kingdom generally are reviewed at regular intervals in fulfilment of the Crown Estate Commissioners' statutory responsibilities. I am informed by the Crown Estate Commissioners that mooring rates applicable to the Clyde estuary within the jurisdiction of the Clyde moorings committee have recently been revised from 1 January 1988. (The previous review took effect in January 1981). The new rates are :

  £ per annum per mooring

  1 January 1988

  1 January 1990

  Single mooring

  37

  42

  2–5 moorings

  25

  30

  6–9 moorings

  20

  25

  10 or more moorings

  18

  23

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what revenues were yielded to the Crown Estate Commissioners in each of the past 10 years from seabed mooring rentals; and what information he has on the formula on which such rentals are assessed.

  Mr. Lawson
  [holding answer 29 March 1988]Information on revenues is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The Crown 68
  Estate is now computerising its accounting systems in a way which will enable information of this type to be provided in the future.

  The Crown Estate's charges for seabed used for mooring purposes are recommended by the district valuers of the Inland revenue valuation office in pursuance of section 3(1) of the Crown Estate Act 1961 and undertakings given to Parliament during the passage of that Act.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many boat owners in each coastal area around the United Kingdom pay seabed moorings rentals to the Crown Estate Commissioners(a) individually and (b) through moorings associations formed for the purpose.

  Mr. Lawson
  [holding answer 29 March 1988]The information on the number of boat owners who pay a licence fee or rental direct to the Crown Estate is not readily available and could be obtained only at a disproportionate cost.

  The Crown Estate does not hold information on the number of boat owners who may currently have moorings within all areas of Crown seabed leased to mooring associations or fairway committees. There are also many other forms of letting arrangements which regulate the placing of moorings including leases to yacht clubs, harbour and port authorities, commercial boatyards and others.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information he has on the steps being taken by the Crown Estate Commissioners to identify seabed moorings on which no rental is currently being paid and on the sanctions being proposed.
  69
  Mr. Lawson
  [holding answer 29 March 1988]: Visits are made as frequently as necessary to all parts of the estate by agents and officials of the Crown Estate. This does result in the identification of unauthorised uses of Crown Estate interests including moorings. Amicable arrangements are always sought to regularise the situation with the user of the moorings concerned either individually or by suitable group arrangements but civil remedies are available should they prove necessary.

  Mortgage Interest Tax Relief
  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a table showing(a) the total cost of mortgage interest tax relief in 1988–89, (b) the average value of relief per mortgagor, (c) the numbers receiving mortgage relief broken down into the following income ranges: under £4,000, £4,000 to £5,000, £5,000 to £6,000, £6,000 to
  £7,000, £7,000 to £8,000, £ £8,000 to £9,000, £9,000 to £10,000, £10,000 to £12,000, £12,000 to £15,000, £15,000
  to £20,000, £20,000 to £25,000, £25,000 to £30,000, over £30,000.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 30 March 1988]: Provisional estimates based on the proposed rates of ax for 1988–89 are given in the table. They are derived from projections of data from the 1985–86 survey of personal incomes and the 1985 family expenditure survey. The estimates include mortgages formerly under the option mortgage scheme, which are now subsumed within MIRAS.

  Income tax thresholds, tax free income and break-even points

  Tax Year

  Threshold at current prices

  Threshold at 1949–50 prices

  Threshold as percentage of average manual earnings1

  Tax free income2 at current prices

  Tax free income at 1949–50 prices

  Tax free income as percentage of average manual earnings1

  Break-even point3 at current prices

  Break-even point3 at 1949–50 prices

  Break-even point3 as percentage of average manual earning1

  £

  £

  per cent.

  £

  £

  per cent

  £

  £

  per cent.

  Single person

  1978–79

  985

  171

  22·0

  985

  171

  22·0

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  1988–894

  2,605

  216

  24·2

  2,605

  216

  24·2

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  Married man—no children

  1978–79

  1,535

  266

  34·3

  1,535

  266

  34·4

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  1988–894

  4,095

  399

  38·0

  4,095

  339

  38·0

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  Married man—with two children5

  1978–79

  1,735

  300

  38·8

  2,002

  346

  44·7

  2,727

  472

  61·0

  1988–894

  4,095

  339

  38·0

  4,849

  402

  45·0

  7,111

  589

  65·9

  Married man—with four children6

  1978–79

  2,035

  352

  45·5

  2,570

  445

  57·5

  3,836

  664

  85·8

  1988–894

  4,095

  339

  38·0

  5,603

  464

  52·0

  10,127

  839

  93·9

  1 Average manual earnings are for full-time males aged over 21 working a full week.

  2 Tax-free income is defined as the tax threshold plus child benefit.

  3 Break-even point is the level of income at which income tax liability is equal to the money received through child benefit. It therefore gives the level of income above which the family pays more income tax than it obtains in benefits for children.

  4 On the basis of the 1988 Budget proposals. Estimates of thresholds and break-even points as a percentage of earnings are provisional.

  5 Both children aged under 11.

  6 Two children aged under 11, one aged between 11 and 15 and one aged 16 or over.

ENVIRONMENT

  Property Services Agency (Doncaster)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many buildings the Property Services Agency rents for Government Departments in the Doncaster metropolitan borough council area; and what is the annual cost and the rent per square metre.
  70

  Tax units1 receiving mortgage interest relief by range of total income for 1988–89

  Range of total income

  Number receiving mortgage interest relief

  Average value of relief per mortgagor

  Total cost of relief

  (£'000)

  (thousands)

  (£)

  (£ million)

  Under 4

  550

  320

  180

  4 to 5

  140

  340

  50

  5 to 6

  130

  370

  50

  6 to 7

  210

  380

  80

  7 to 8

  280

  390

  110

  8 to 9

  330

  420

  140

  9 to 10

  350

  440

  150

  10 to 12

  1,000

  480

  480

  12 to 15

  1,440

  510

  730

  15 to 20

  1,880

  520

  980

  20 to 25

  1,120

  530

  590

  25 to 30

  470

  680

  320

  Over 30

  700

  910

  640

  Total

  8,600

  520

  4,500

  1 Single persons and married couples.

  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a table showing(a) the tax threshold, (b) tax free income, and (c) break-even points at current prices, at 1949–50 prices, and as a percentage of average manual earnings for a single person, married man without children, married man with two children and married man with four children in 1978–79 and 1988–89.

  Mr. Lamont
  [holding answer 30 March 1988]: The information is in the table.

  Mr. Chope
  The Property Services Agency rents 21 buildings in the Doncaster metropolitan borough council area. The average rent is £27·82 per sq m and the annual costs are as follows:

  £

  Rents

  394,825

  Rates

  314,441

  71

  £

  Landlords service charges

  33,961

  Insurance

  3,657

  Maintenance

  132,502

  Utilities

  87,442

  966,828

  Tourism
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the impact on the environment of Suffolk and Norfolk caused by tourists.

  Mrs. Roe
  The Government support the policies of local authorities and other bodies in promoting and providing for the tourist industry while preventing unacceptable effects upon the environment. So far as Norfolk and Suffolk are concerned, the structure plans for those counties, both recently approved by the Secretary of State, contain appropriate policies for controlling tourism development.

  Pollution
  Mr. Allan Roberts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will make a statement on the Government's policy regarding staged percentage reductions in emissions of sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and dust from large combustion plants in the United Kingdom within the context of the proposed European directive on large combustion plants and as to the dates by which the proposed percentage reductions will be achieved in the United Kingdom;

  (2) if he will make a statement on the reason for the rejection by Her Majesty's Government of the compromise proposals put forward by the Federal Republic of Germany, at the meeting of the Council of Environment Ministers on 21 March, on emissions of sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and dust from large combustion plants.

  Mr. Moynihan
  On 30 March the Department submitted a memorandum on the large combustion plants directive, which addresses the issues raised by the hon. Member, to the Environment Select Committee which is currently conducting an inquiry on air pollution. Copies of the memorandum are available in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Allan Roberts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what estimates he had of the total cost to the United Kingdom car industry of meeting emission limits of HC + NOx = 8g/test and CO= 30g/test for the second stage of regulations affecting small cars, below 1·4 litre engine capacity, within the terms of the European directive on emissions of air pollution from petrol-engined vehicles; what would be the increase in the average cost of manufacture of each vehicle; and what percentage of the extra cost of production would be passed on to the consumer;

  (2) what estimates he had of the additional cost to the United Kingdom car industry of meeting emission limits of HC + NOx = 5g/test and CO = 20g/test, proposed by the European Commission for the second stage of regulation affecting small cars, below 1·4 litre engine capacity, within the terms of the European directive on emissions of air
  72
  pollution from petrol-engined vehicles, compared with meeting the emission standards of HC + NOx = 8g/test and CO = 30g/test;

  (3) if he will make a statement on the reasons for the rejection by Her Majesty's Government at the Council of Environment Ministers on 21 March, of the compromise proposals put forward by the European Commission on emissions of nitrogen oxides, hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide from new cars with petrol engines smaller than 1·4 litres.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The European Directive 88/76/EEC on gaseous emissions from cars, gave limit values for three vehicle categories. It recognised that the market for small cars, below 1·4 litre engine capacity, was the most sensitive to cost and fuel consumption. Accordingly the limits set for small cars were less stringent than those for medium and large cars. The recent proposal put forward by the European Commission for the second stage limits for small cars, as part of the Luxembourg agreement, was 30g/test for CO and 8g/test for HCs + NOx. These are also the limits for medium cars in 88/76/EEC. The United Kingdom Government, in common with several other member states, believes that the limits would place disproportionate costs on small cars. We remain to be convinced that the proposed limits would not entail an increase in motoring costs out of proportion to the benefits obtained.

  The average increase in costs to meet the Commission's proposals are estimated to be £100/vehicle. The annual costs to the car industry are estimated to be £100 million. It is a matter for the motor industry to decide what percentage of the extra cost is to be passed on to the motorist.

  Some member states are seeking limits of 20g/test for CO and 5g/test for HCs + NOx. To meet these limits the estimated annual increase in manufacturers' costs compared to the Commission proposal is a further £150 million.

  Canals and Waterways
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what requests he has received for assistance from organisations whose interests are to develop canals and waterways throughout the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Applications have been received from five canal societies concerned with waterway restoration for funding under the Department's special grants programme 1988–89. Decisions on these will be given shortly. The Department has also had notice of a proposed application for assistance from the European regional development fund in respect of the upper reaches of the Manchester ship canal.

  Shopping Developments
  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what guidance has been issued to planning authorities in respect of the criteria to be applied in consideration of applications for regional shopping developments and their effect on existing shopping facilities; and if he will make a statement.
  73
  Mrs. Roe
  Guidance on these issues is given in a planning policy guidance note on major retail development (PPG6) issued jointly by my Department and the Welsh Office on 20 January this year. Copies are in the Library.

  Merseyside Development Corporation
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Birkenhead of 17 March, if he will appoint women to the Merseyside development corporation board.

  Mr. Trippier
  Board members are appointed on the basis of their ability to do the job. Members include people 74
  with a special knowledge of the locality and appropriate business or professional experience. My right hon. Friend will appoint suitable people, women or men, as appropriate.

  Greenham Common
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to review the common land designation of Greenham common; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has no powers to review common land designations.

  Local Authorities (Rating and Capital Expenditure)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consultations he had with local authorities in Cornwall before his statement on the subject on 9 March concerning his plan to outlaw a number of kinds of leaseback and other accounting arrangements.

  Mr. Chope
  The measures announced by my right hon. Friend on 9 March were not preceded by any consultation because, as he explained in his statement, prior consultation would have rendered the measures ineffective. But the amending regulations made on 9 March are temporary and my right hon. Friend is now consulting local government about whether any changes or clarification are required before permanent regulations are made.

  Nuclear Materials (Mislabelling)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will initiate an investigation into the links between(a) Rio Tinto Zinc (UK) Ltd., (b) Imperial Smelting Corporation (UK) Ltd., (c) Nuclear Transport Ltd., and (d) British Nuclear Fuels plc ad Transnuklear and Nukem in the Federal Republic of Germany, currently under investigation for corrupt practices and mislabelling of nuclear materials by the European Commission and the European Parliament.

  Mr. Moynihan
  No. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no responsibility for links between, or the commercial operations of, these companies.

  Unity Houses (Southend)
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment why his Department advised Southend borough council on 8 March (ref: ENV/PS/HAS) that its request for a higher expenditure limit for reinstating 17 Unity homes should be rejected; and what steps he has taken to satisfy himself that the work involved can be completed satisfactorily within the limits set by his Department.

  Mrs. Roe
  Although each individual limit approved was considerably higher than the national eligible expenditure limit for Unity houses (currently £20,000), the basic repair costs requested by the council were higher than we would have expected, having regard to the extent of the works and the level of building costs in the area. However, following the council's reapplications for two of these properties, containing additional information about unusual works, we were able to issue decisions on 5 April, approving higher figures. If the council wishes to reapply, with further information, for the other 15 properties we shall consider each case again carefully on its merits.

  We are currently consulting on proposed revisions to the national expenditure limits for all designated types.

  Caravan Sites
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take steps to repeal the legislation making it the duty of local authorities to provide caravan sites for gipsies.

  Mrs. Roe
  No. My right hon. Friend informed the House, in a written reply to my hon. Friend the Member 76
  for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) on 6
  February last year,—Official Report, Vol. 109, columns 856–58—that a review had been completed and that there was to be no amendment of the present law.

  Stud Farms (Rates)
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take steps to revert stud farms and other facilities for the breeding and keeping of horses to their former status of not being liable for rates; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  The decision of the House of Lords in the case of Hemens (VO) v. Whitsbury Farm and Stud Ltd. has confirmed that the breeding of horses is not an agricultural activity for the purposes of rating. We are now considering representations that the law should be changed so as to extend the benefits of agricultural derating to stud farms.

  Mobile Homes
  Mr. Grylls
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether planning permission is required(a) to site a mobile home in a private garden and (b) to connect a mobile home sited in a private garden to the main drainage; and if he will list the regulations which apply to such cases.

  Mrs. Roe
  It is for local planning authorities to decide in each case whether a development or use of land requires planning permission. Siting a mobile home in a private garden of a dwellinghouse is not development as defined in section 22 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 and so would not require planning permission provided the use of the mobile home was confined to a purpose incidental to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse. Connecting a mobile home sited on a private garden to mains drainage would not require planning permission, but making such a connection, particularly if associated with providing other mains services, may indicate use for purposes not incidental to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse.

  Ozone Layer
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has received concerning Government action to protect the ozone layer; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  In the first three months of 1988 the Department received approximately 300 letters about the ozone layer, either directly from members of the public or forwarded by right hon. and hon. Members.

  Conservation
  Mr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last met his counterparts from the other European Community states; and what issues relating to co-ordinated measures to protect the environment were discussed.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) on 24 March, at column 186.

  Council House Sales
  Mr. Gerald Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has as to the reason for the delay in the purchase by Mr. John Kellers of his home at 16 Gylcote Close, Denmark Hill, SE5 8EU; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Roe
  According to Southwark council, shortage of staff and high volume of work.

  Rating Reform
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will explain the calculations behind the statement in "Paying for Local Government, Questions and Answers", published in December 1987, that businesses in the north and the midlands stand to be better off by £700 million every year as a result of the introduction of the national non-domestic rate and revaluation; and if he will provide comparable figures for each standard region in England.

  Mr. Ridley
  The figure is based on exemplifications of the effect if a uniform national non-domestic rate had been in force in 1987–88. That would have produced a gain to the north and midlands of £490 million. The best forecasts available of the likely effects of a concurrent non-domestic revaluation suggest a further reduction in business rates in the north and midlands in excess of £200 million. Estimates of the effect of the revaluation in 1990 disaggregated for different areas and classes of property are not yet available.

TRANSPORT

  British Railways (Luffenham) Level Crossing Order
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received from Rutland district council regarding the British Railways (Luffenham) Level Crossing Order; what reply he has sent; and on how many occasions in the last five years he or his predecessors have(a) confirmed such orders and (b) withdrawn them, following a critical submission from the local authority covering the area in question.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  I have received no representations to date from Rutland district council regarding the British Railways (Luffenham) Level Crossing Order. The British Railways Board circulated the draft order on 2 February and the period within which representations may he made ended on 2 April.

  A total of 751 statutory orders have been issued in the last five years authorising changes in the protection arrangements at level crossings. The precise number of orders that have been rejected is not readily available but it is not thought that there have been more than six such cases.

  Fishing Vessels (Radio Batteries)
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to ensure an adequate supply of batteries for radios on fishing vessels using 2182 kilocycles for marine distress frequencies, in the light of the requirements of the Safety at Sea Act.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  When a major supplier withdrew from the market, the Department initiated the approval of 78
  an alternative supply of batteries for the portable radio equipment operating on 2182 KHz required to be carried on fishing vessels. In addition where owners are experiencing problems with the supply of batteries for such equipment, the Department is prepared to grant exemptions from the requirements for annual replacement in appropriate circumstances as a temporary measure.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the number of British-registered fishing vessels using 2182 kilocycle marine dishes frequency radios; and if he will list in the Official Report those companies which manufacture batteries for such radios.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  All United Kingdom fishing vessels of 17m in length and above (approximately 1,100) are required to carry portable radio equipment operating on 2182 KHz. Crompton Parkinson Ltd. manufacture the specialised batteries required for the available type-approved equipment.

  Fishing Vessels (Approval)
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list in the Official Report how many British-registered fishing vessels have sought approval under the Safety at Sea Act; how many have not met requirements; and for what reasons.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  Detailed requirements to implement the life-saving equipment provisions for fishing vessels in the Safety at Sea Act 1986 have now been introduced by the Fishing Vessels (Life-Saving Appliances) Regulations 1988. The requirement to carry lifejackets on smaller fishing vessels came into force on 15 February 1988. Those relating to the carriage of emergency position indicating radio beacons and automatic release of liferafts will be phased in from 15 April 1988 to 15 January 1989. The Act does not require specific approval of fishing vessels.

  Crewe Bus Station
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State For Transport if he has received any guarantees from Carlton PSV Ltd. or the National Bus Company, concerning the maintenance of the Crewe bus station following Carlton PSV's purchase of Crosville Motors; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  No. The hon. Lady will know from the answers given on 1 February that it has not been the National Bus Company's policy to seek to prevent rationalisation or replacement of particular assets.

  Higham and Strood Tunnels (Flooding)
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what evidence he has on the connection between the recent flooding in the Higham and Strood tunnels and the concreting over of nearby drainage channels.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  I am advised that British Railways has no knowledge of any concreting over of drainage channels and that it is unlikely that any such action without its knowledge would have significantly contributed to the recent flooding at Higham and Strood tunnels. The flooding occurred at the end of January this
  79
  year after a period of unusually prolonged and heavy rainfall, which caused a rise in the level of the local water table, up to the level of the bottom of the electric conductor rail, causing the suspension of electric-hauled services. Additional pumping combined with a general lowering of the local water table enabled normal services to be resumed on 23 February. However, high water table levels persist and pumping is continuing.

  Clotton Bypass
  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has for constructing a bypass round Clotton on the A51.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  None. We are currently considering whether there is a case for including a Clotton bypass as a candidate for future addition to our forward programme.

  Coastguards (Equipment)
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will consider granting a consultation period to interested parties before withdrawing the 41mm pistol and rockets and light line and floating head attachments from the coastguards and beach rescue services; what is he annual cost of maintenance for this equipment for the last five years; and how often this equipment has been used in the last five years to effect a rescue or to place a light line aboard a small craft.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  This is an operational matter and not one on which wider consultation is appropriate. The equipment, which is obsolete, is being withdrawn as from 31 March.

  The floating head attachments were withdrawn from use in 1979. They caused an imbalance in the rocket projectile leading to an erratic and dangerous trajectory. The total cost of maintaining the line throwing equipment over the last five years was £170,143.

  Using the present statistical system it is not possible to determine how many times the equipment was used to effect a rescue or place a light line aboard a small craft.

  North Review
  Sir Antony Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to publish the report of the North review; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Channon
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department and I have today published the report of the road traffic law review which has been carried out under the chairmanship of Dr. Peter North, the Principal of Jesus College, Oxford. Dr. North's terms of reference asked him to examine ways of making the law simpler, more effective and more acceptable. The Government are grateful for the wide range of constructive proposals which the report contains and welcome its concentration on ways to reduce the number of accidents and the casualties, damage and misery which they cause. The many organisations consulted during the review will wish to study its recommendations in their final form. Meanwhile, we shall press on with our own consideration of the report, and will report to the House on our progress before the summer recess.

  Copies of the report have been placed in the Library.

  Aircraft Safety
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will obtain a definitive statement from the Civil Aviation Authority of the time scale for(a) equipping all newly constructed aircraft used by British carriers with water-based fire-suppression systems and (b) the completion on a retro-fit basis of existing aircraft used by British carriers with water-based fire-suppression systems;

  (2) if he will obtain an estimate from the Civil Aviation Authority of the cost of retro-fitting B747 aircraft with a water-based fire-suppression system; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) if the Civil Aviation Authority will ensure that the case for providing passengers in British-registered aircraft with protection from toxic fumes and gases together with irritant smoke in aviation fire-related accidents will not be influenced or delayed by the desire to gain international agreement on this subject; and if he will make a statement;

  (4) if he will ascertain from the Civil Aviation Authority why the authority's "Smokehoods : Net Safety Benefit Analysis" gives credit for floor-level lighting in circumstances of heavy irritant smoke, in the light of research undertaken by the Federal Aviation Authority purporting to show its ineffectiveness in such situations.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  I have drawn the hon. Member's questions to the attention of the chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority and I have asked the chairman to write to him.

  Drivers (Licence Requirements)
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether, in relation to the EEC directive on drivers' licence requirements, any exemptions or dispensations will be made in requirements for volunteers driving community service vans with more than eight seats.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  At present drivers of these vehicles need to have an ordinary driving licence. The licence requirements in the new system will not be known until the second EC Directive on driver licensing is published. The rights of existing licence holders to drive minibuses should not be affected by the new arrangements.

  The responses to the Department's consultation paper on proposals to bring the driver licensing system into line with the EC licence category system have clearly indicated that tighter controls on new minibus drivers would cause serious problems for voluntary and community service operations.

  We shall be pressing the EC to preserve the existing arrangements for these vehicles in the negotiations on the forthcoming directive.

  Crossbush, West Sussex
  Mr. Michael Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when was the last official visit by a Minister in his Department to Crossbush in West Sussex; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  During my visit to West Sussex on 2 March this year, 1 had a useful meeting in Crossbush village with my hon. Friend and the chairman of Lyminster parish council. I shall make an announcement as soon as I can on the possibility of building the Crossbush section of the Arundel bypass in advance.

SOCIAL SERVICES

  NHS Building Programme
  Mr. Hayward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many hospital building schemes costed at more than £1 million were completed in 1974 to 1979; and how many have been completed since 1979.

  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many building schemes costed at more than £1 million were completed in 1974 to 1979; and how many have been completed since 1979.

  Mr. Newton
  Information held centrally on health building schemes, each costing over £1 million, shows that 120 schemes were completed between April 1974 and March 1979 and 300 more have been completed from April 1979 to date.

  Mr. Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list the National Health Service capital expenditure projects, costing more than £1 million, which have been completed in the Staffordshire, Moorlands parliamentary constituency during the past 14 years and those projected in the next five years.

  Mrs. Currie
  The information is as follows:

  Completed Schemes:
  New Cheadle Geriatric Unit—completed July 1987—cost £5 million.

  Projected Schemes:
  Leek Moorlands Hospital redevelopment—estimated completion date 1989—cost £2·079 million.

  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the progress of the Health Service building programme.

  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the progress of the Health Service building programme.

  Table 1 Resident mental illness in-patients1 by estimated duration of stay

  England

  Year

  All durations

  Less than 1 year

  per cent.

  1 year-5 years

  per cent

  More than 5 years

  per cent.

  1981

  73,170

  27,150

  37

  17,190

  23

  28,830

  39

  1982

  70,880

  26,740

  38

  17,130

  24

  27,010

  38

  1983

  69,030

  26,350

  38

  17,060

  25

  25,620

  37

  1984

  66,050

  26,380

  40

  15,870

  24

  23,800

  36

  1985

  63,970

  27,400

  43

  14,950

  23

  21,620

  34

  1986

  60,280

  25,790

  43

  14,780

  25

  19,710

  33

  All columns are expressed as a percentage of total resident in-patients. Percentages may not add up to 100 per cent, because of rounding.

  The reducing numbers of in-patients with duration of stay exceeding five years have been divided between:

  Discharges

  Deaths

  1981

  818

  2,657

  1982

  733

  2,551

  1983

  821

  2,417

  1984

  981

  2,397

  1985

  986

  2,346

  1986

  1,082

  2,194

  1 Excludes patients in the four special hospitals.

  82
  Mrs. Currie
  The largest ever building programme in the history of the National Health Service is still under way. Information held centrally shows that there are currently over 500 health building schemes, each costing over £l million, at various stages of planning, design and construction. The total value of the programme is estimated at over £3·5 billion, and the total capital expenditure this year (1988–89) is expected to exceed £1 billion.

  These building schemes, which are located throughout the country, are providing a better health care environment for National Health Service patients and more attractive working conditions for staff. They are helping to improve productivity and value for money. Newer designs have been generally very well received by patients and the public and are being completed on time and to budget.

  Mr. Hanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many capital schemes in the Health Service are under construction; and how many have been completed since 1979.

  Mr. Newton
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) earlier today.

  Psychiatric Patients
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many people are currently patients in psychiatric institutions compared with each of the past five years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  Since 1981 there has been a welcome reduction of nearly 20 per cent. (to just over 60,000) in the number of in-patients in mental illness hospitals. The figures are as follows :

  Table 2 Mental illness services—other than in-patient provision

  England

  1981

  1986

  Day hospital places

  15,300

  18,660

  Day centre places1

  7,600

  9,220

  Local authority, private and voluntary residential accommodation2

  6,040

  8,270

  Community psychiatric nurses (whole-time equivalents)

  1,080

  2,530

  1 Including an estimate of places in mixed centres.

  2 The great majority of mentally ill people in the community live in ordinary family homes. Others have their home in

  83
  accommodation (including group homes) provided by eg housing associations and local authority housing departments. These figures are not identified in central statistics.

  Benefits (Proof of Need)
  Sir Brandon Rhys Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is his latest estimate of the number of claimants and their dependants who are eligible for benefits payable on proof of need; what proportion are currently in receipt of benefit; and if he will take steps to reduce the number of people obliged to depend on benefit payable on proof of need.

  Mr. Portillo
  The latest available estimates suggest that around 7·5 million to 8 million claimants are likely to be in receipt of income-related benefits following the introduction of the new structure, but a corresponding figure for dependants is not available. Falling unemployment, rising earnings, higher pensioner incomes from savings and occupational schemes and tax reductions will all tend to reduce the numbers who need to turn to such help.

  Disabled People (Assistance)
  Ms. Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services by what criteria applications for assistance from the special fund to help the severely disabled are to be judged; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  I announced the eligibility criteria for the independent living fund in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander) on 31 March. The fund will be primarily to make payments to very severely disabled people on low income who receive attendance allowance and need to employ domestic help to enable them to live independently in the community.

  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether there will be any mechanism for the review of or appeal against a refusal of assistance from the special fund set up to help the severely disabled.

  Mr. Scott
  It will be for the trustees of the independent living fund to determine how to deal with cases which have been turned down by the fund. I am sure that they will wish to give very careful consideration to any cases which give rise to dissatisfaction.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects the special fund set up to help the severely disabled to be in operation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects the special fund set up to help the severely disabled to be in operation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer the hon. Members to my reply to the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Mackay) earlier today.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether there will be any mechanism for the review of or appeal against a refusal of assistance from the special fund set up to help the severely disabled.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Members for Derbyshire North-East (Mr. Barnes) and Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) earlier today.

  Community Care
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received following the publication of the report "Community Care: Agenda for Action", and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received about the implications for Government policy of the Griffiths report on community care; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  We have received a number of comments on Sir Roy Griffiths' report and will take account of them in framing our own proposals.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects to be able to make a definite statement on the Government's response to the recommendation of the Griffiths report.

  Mr. Newton
  Sir Roy Griffiths' recommendations raise issues of far-reaching significance which need careful consideration. We intend to bring forward our own proposals as soon as possible.

  Social Security Reform
  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many claimants he expects to be better off(a) in cash terms, and (b) in terms of their real disposable income, following on the changes in social security in April.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's reply to the hon. Members for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) and Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) earlier today.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether, in view of the inclusion of loans within the new social security system, he will make it his policy to help to expand independent debt counselling and advice services by providing financial support in addition to that currently provided by the Department of Trade and Industry.

  Mr. Portillo
  Money advice for supplementary benefit recipients who have serious financial difficulties has been provided in this Department by special case officers for several years. Social fund officers have been trained to undertake these duties in future.

  Mr. Day
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received about the number of families with children who will gain financially, and the numbers who will be unaffected, following implementation of social security reforms.

  Mr. Scott
  Many commentators have noted favourably that 90 per cent. of all families with children in receipt of benefit will gain or experience no change in cash terms.

  Firemen
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how the transitional protection arrangements will operate in the case of part-time firemen transferring from supplementary benefit to income support on 11 April; and how their benefit entitlement will be affected by any subsequent fluctuations in their earnings.
  85
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how the transitional protection arrangements will operate in the case of part-time firemen transferring from supplementary benefit to income support on 11 April; and how their benefit entitlement will be affected by any subsequent fluctuations in their earnings.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how the transitional protection arrangements will operate in the case of part-time firemen transferring from supplementary benefit to income support on 11 April; and how their benefit entitlement will be affected by any subsequent fluctuation in their earnings.

  Mr. Scott
  Part-time firemen working fewer than 24 hours a week will receive transitional protection at the point of change if their benefit income under income support is lower than that under supplementary benefit. This includes protection against a reduction in entitlement arising from the change in the disregard of earnings. For those entitled to income support and a transitional addition, the amount of the addition will not be affected by fluctuating earnings. Those receiving only a transitional addition will have that addition reduced by any increase in income.

  Social Fund
  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received regarding the allocations to his Department's offices to cover social fund payments during 1988–89; and if he will review these allocations.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received regarding the allocations to his Department's offices to cover social fund payments during 1988–89; and if he will review these allocations.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received regarding the allocations to his Department's offices to cover social fund payments during 1988–89; and if he will review these allocations.

  Mr. Portillo
  We have received letters from about 45 hon. Members and from about 10 members of the public. In addition, about 25 local offices have raised operational questions relating to their budget allocation. Allocations will be reviewed only in exceptional circumstances; for example, if a boundary change between offices occurs, or if there is a sudden unforeseen and unforeseeable call on a local office's budgets arising, for example, from a local disaster or emergency such as a flood.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will define the term "poor risk" in connection with his Department's local offices refusing loans under the new social security arrangements; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  The term "poor risk" is not one which is used in the directions and guidance issued to social fund officers to enable them to decide applications for loans made to the social fund. The directions and guidance issued for this purpose are contained in parts 3 and 4 of the "Social Fund Manual", a copy of which is in the Library.

  Child Benefit
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if any decision has yet been taken about the future uprating of child benefit; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  The level of child benefit is reviewed each year as part of the annual review of benefits.

  Hospitals (Nucleus System)
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the use being made of the nucleus system of hospital design.

  Mr. Newton
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Carrington) earlier today.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many hospitals halve been built to the nucleus design since its inception.

  Mrs. Currie
  So far 43 hospital building schemes, each costing over £1 million, have been completed using the nucleus standard design and briefing system; a further 22 nucleus schemes are under construction. We estimate that a total of at least £30 million has been saved by the use of this standardised approach in comparison with the conventional construction.

  1991 Census
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how widely he has consulted on arrangements for the 1991 census.

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how widely he has consulted on arrangements for the 1991 census.

  Mrs. Edwina Currie
  The Office of Population Censuses and Surveys is formally consulting Government Departments, local authorities and health authorities. The consultation process is described in "Census Newsletter No. 2", a copy of which is in the Library. Additionally, the Registrar General has written to a number of other organisations, inviting views. When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 2 November 1987, at column 573, that a census is to be taken in 1991 he stated that submissions to the Registrar General from any source would be welcome.

  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Mrs. Rosie Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what plans he has to promote the flow of up-to-date information on waiting times for each speciality between health authorities by means of a computer network; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  We have no present plans to set up a national computerised database of waiting times for hospital treatment. However, as part of the waiting list initiative we are encouraging health authorities to provide general practitioners with regularly updated information about waiting times in their own and neighbouring districts. Some authorities are using computer systems for this purpose.

  Births, Marriages and Deaths (Registration)
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services to what extent the unit cost of registration of births, marriages and deaths has changed, in real terms(a) since 1979 and (b) since the efficiency scrutiny in 1985.

  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services to what extent the unit cost of registration of births, marriages and deaths has changed in real terms(a) since 1979 and (b) since the efficiency scrutiny in 1985.

  Mrs. Currie
  Firm local figures are available to 1985–86, current figures will be available later this year. From 1979–80 to 1985–86 the aggregate unit cost of registering births, civil marriages and deaths rose in real terms by 4·2 per cent. when compared against the retail prices index. This was, however, significantly less than the average salary increase of those administering the local registration service over the same period.

  Health and Personal Social Services
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will provide an updated version of table 3·16 from "Health and Personal Social Services Statistics 1987", giving data for 1986 and 1987 whenever possible.

  Mr. Newton
  The information for September 1986 is shown in the table. Similar information for September 1987 is not yet available.

  Nursing and Midwifery staff Analysis by Area of work and Grade in England at 30 September 1986

  Whole-time equivalents

  All Nursing and midwifery1

  Total

  397,240

  Administrative nursing

  2,340

  Nursing staff in centrally based services

  1,775

  Blood Transfusion Service

  1,151

  Administrative midwifery

  179

  Hospital nursing:

  Total

  330,830

  Qualified:

  Total

  182,319

  Senior Nurse 1–5

  440

  Senior Nurse 6–8

  5,458

  Tutorial nursing

  4,935

  Other registered nurses

  104,613

  Enrolled nurses

  66,875

  Learners:

  Total

  62,524

  Post-registration student nurses

  2,169

  Post-enrolment student nurses

  1,648

  Pre-registration student nurses

  48,350

  Pupil nurses

  10,358

  Unqualified:2

  Total

  85,987

  Other nursing staff

  85,981

  Nursing cadets

  6

  Hospital midwifery:

  Total

  18,722

  Qualified:

  14,543

  Senior Nurses 1–5

  28

  Senior Nurses 6–8

  579

  Tutorial midwifery

  534

  Other state certified midwives

  13,403

  Learners: Student midwives

  4,179

  88

  Whole-time equivalents

  Primary health care nursing:

  Total

  38,116

  Senior nurse 1–5 and above

  91

  Senior nurse 6–8

  1,254

  Health visiting

  Health visitors3

  10,393

  Other registered

  460

  Other enrolled

  93

  Student health visitors

  832

  Other nursing staff

  224

  District nursing

  District nurses4

  9,119

  District nursing tutorial

  43

  Other registered

  1,315

  Other enrolled5

  4,296

  Student district nurses

  680

  Other nursing staff

  3,203

  School nursing service

  Registered nurses6

  2,485

  Enrolled nurses

  182

  Dual/triple duty posts:

  Health visitor/district nurse/midwife (and health visitor/midwife)

  37

  District nurse/Midwife (and SRN/midwife)

  457

  Enrolled nurse/Midwife

  —

  Other registered nurses

  1,207

  Other enrolled nurses

  368

  Other unqualified staff

  1,378

  Community health midwifery:

  Senior nurses 1–5 and above

  —

  Senior nurses 6–8

  117

  Other midwifery staff

  4,011

  Agency nurses (Hospital)7

  4,866

  Agency midwives (Hospital)7

  268

  Agency nurses (PHC)7

  282

  Agency midwives (PHC)7

  35

  Source: DHSS Annual Census of NHS non-medical manpower.

  1 Excludes agency staff.

  2 Includes nursing auxiliaries and nursery nurses.

  3 Includes Health Visitor Fieldwork Teachers, HV School Nurses, TB visitors with HV certificates and Bank HVs.

  4 Includes District Nurse Practical Work Teachers and Bank District Nurses.

  5 Includes enrolled nurses with District Nurse Training.

  6 Includes School nurses and other registered nurses working in the school health services and Bank School Nurses.

  7 Not included in the totals.

  NHS Staff
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list(a) total staff in Great Britain, full-time and part-time, for the National Health Service, (b) the number of occupied beds, (c) the waiting lists and (d) the ratio of staff to occupied beds for the years 1960, 1982 and 1987.

  Mr. Newton
  The available figures for England are given in the tables. Staffing figures for 1960 are not available on a basis consistent with those for later years.

  Staff in the National Health Service cover a wide range of Health Service activities, not simply those related to hospital beds. Moreover, staff-in-post figures are a "snapshot" relating to a particular day (the main census being on 30 September), whereas numbers of occupied

  89
  beds are based on a daily count averaged over a full calendar year. For those reasons any ratios of staff-in-post to occupied beds would be meaningless and have not, therefore, been provided.

  Over the period in question, the number of in-patient cases treated rose by over 63 per cent. from 3,931,938 in 1960 to 6,413,789 in 1987. Data on day cases are not available for 1960 but between 1982 and 1987 the number of day cases treated rose by over 48 per cent. from 706,495 to 1,050,158.

  The figures for the rest of Great Britain are matters for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Numbers of staff directly employed1 by the National Health Service at 30 September: England

  Numbers and whole-time equivalent2

  Whole-time number

  Part-time WTE3

  Total WTE34

  1982

  619,500

  211,000

  830,600

  1986

  595,500

  206,000

  801,600

  Sources: DHSS annual censuses of National Health Service medical and non-medical manpower.

  1 Includes nursing and midwifery agency staff and medical and dental locum staff.

  2 Figures are independently rounded to the nearest one hundred (100).

  3 Includes honorary medical and dental staff.

  4 Community Health Service locums, for whom a breakdown by nature of contract is not available, are included in the totals.

  Average number of beds occupied and number of patients on the National Health Service waiting list for England at 31 December

  Average number of beds occupied

  Number of patients on the in-patient waiting list

  1960

  387,229·0

  437,988

  1982

  279,833·0

  746,086

  11986

  254,597·2

  676,475

  National Health Service directly employed hospital and community health service staff—selected main staff groups at 30 September

  Whole time equivalents1

  England

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Nursing and Midwifery (including agency)2

  358,400

  370,100

  391,800

  397,100

  397,100

  397,500

  401,200

  402,700

  Medical and Dental (including locums)3

  39,000

  40,200

  41,000

  41,500

  42,300

  42,300

  43,000

  43,200

  Professional and Technical (excluding works)4

  60,100

  61,900

  65,200

  67,200

  68,700

  72,700

  74,300

  76,100

  Administrative and Clerical

  103,000

  105,400

  108,800

  108,800

  110,000

  110,300

  111,000

  111,400

  Ancillary4

  171,900

  172,000

  172,200

  170,500

  166,200

  152,200

  139,400

  124,300

  Others5

  42,900

  44,200

  45,400

  45,500

  45,100

  44,300

  44,000

  43,900

  Total Directly Employed (including agency and locums)

  775,300

  793,800

  824,400

  830,600

  829,400

  819,300

  812,900

  801,600

  Source: DHSS Annual censuses of National Health Service medical and non-medical manpower.

  1 Figures are independently rounded to nearest one hundred (100) whole time equivalents.

  2 Not adjusted for the reduction in nurses' contractual hours-from 40 to 37-5 per week during 1980/81.

  3 Includes all permanent paid, honorary and locum staff.

  4 On 1 April 1984 Operating Department Assistants transferred from Ancillary to Professional and Technical Staff Group. Figures not adjusted to take account of change.

  5 Includes works, maintenance and ambulance staff.

  National Health Service directly employed hospital staff at 30 September

  Whole time equivalents1

  England

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Hospital Nursing and Midwifery2

  319,300

  330,200

  347,700

  351,900

  350,500

  350,200

  352,500

  354,700

  Hospital Medical and Dental3

  34,700

  35,800

  36,600

  37,100

  37,800

  38,800

  38,600

  38,800

  90
  1 Latest data available are for 1986.

  Dr. Owen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list for each year since 1979 the total number, and the number per occupied bed, in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, of(a) all hospital staff, (b) hospital administrators and clerks, (c) nurses, (d) hospital doctors, (e) professional and technical workers and (f) ancillary staff.

  Mr. Newton
  Such information as is available for England is shown in the tables.

  Staffing figures have been given (a) for all hospital and community staff and (b) for hospital nursing and midwifery staff and medical and dental staff. (These are the only two staff groups that can be split between those working in the community and in hospitals).

  Individual staff groups with the NHS cover a wide range of health service activity, not just that related to hospital bed provision. Staff-in-post figures are a "snapshot" on a particular day (the census date being 30 September), whereas occupied beds are a daily count averaged over a full calendar year.

  For these reasons, and taking account of the variations in case load and patient dependency, staff-in-post/ occupied beds ratios are crude and not meaningful. Staff and occupied bed statistics are therefore shown in separate tables.

  Figures for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales and Northern Ireland.
  91
  Source: DHSS (SR7) Annual censuses of NHS medical and non-medical manpower.

  1 Figures are independently rounded to the nearest one hundred (100) whole-time equivalents.

  2 Includes agency staff. Not adjusted for reducation in nurses' contractual hours during 1980/81 (from 40 to 37·5 hours per week). Includes permanent paid, honorary and locum staff.

  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) on 15 December 1987,Official Report, columns 493–96, why costs incurred in respect of clerical and secretarial support employed in departments at hospitals and unit levels are considered operational rather than administrative.

  Mr. Newton
  Administrative, clerical and secretarial staff at hospital and unit level are operational in that they are an essential part of the day-to-day delivery of patient care services. They would include medical secretaries, ward clerks, interpreters and sometimes care assistants, who provide direct support to clinical staff. Administrative staff employed at regional and district headquarters are mainly concerned with the co-ordination of services between hospitals, planning and policy matters, and the maintenance of centralised services such as finance, supplies, personnel, procurement and computing.

  Eye Operations (Newcastle)
  Mr. Ted Garrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the average waiting time for patients awaiting eye operations in Newcastle-upon-Tyne; and what was the number five years ago.

  Mr. Newton
  The estimated median waiting interval between the time an in-patient was placed on the waiting list and admission to a National Health Service hospital in the Newcastle district health authority area for an eye operation was three weeks in 1980 and 12 weeks in 1985, the latest year for which information in this form is available. The number of eye patients treated in Newcastle over the same period rose from 3,608 in 1980 to 3,737 in 1985.

  Urgent Cases
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what estimate he has of the cost of treating all non-urgent cases waiting for more than one year and all urgent cases waiting more than one month, so that no one was in either position by July.

  Mr. Newton
  It is not possible to make a reliable estimate of the cost of reducing waiting time in the way suggested. The cost would depend on a range of factors, including the types of treatment needed, the extent to which extra staff, beds, equipment, operating theatre sessions and other facilities would be required and the number of new patients who would join the list between now and July.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if all districts will reach the target of all urgent cases being admitted within one month and all non-urgent cases within one year by March.

  Mr. Newton
  Targets of this kind, set in 1975, would no longer be appropriate in relation to the waiting list statistics now being collected, since these do not maintain the distinction between urgent and non-urgent cases, which is widely recognised to be too subjective to give reliable figures. However, as part of the waiting list 92
  initiative, we are encouraging health authorities to draw up local statements of policy on achievable in and out-patient waiting times.

  Waiting Lists (Eye Treatment)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if, pursuant to the answer,Official Report, 8 March, column 178, he is yet in a position to announce the distribution of a further £30 million for reducing waiting lists; and what proportion is for reducing waiting lists for eye treatment.

  Mr. Newton
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) on 10 March at columns 341–42. Regional health authorities are currently finalising their programmes to tackle waiting lists and times in 1988–89. They have so far put forward over 350 projects for funding from within their allocations from the £30 million waiting list fund; 44 of these are in the specialty of ophthalmology.

  Benefit System
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what recent representations he has received regarding the changes in the benefit system.

  Mr. Scott
  Many.

  Training Schemes
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether individuals with transitional protection of benefit will retain their transitional benefit if they take a place on the community programme and leave when the adult training scheme is introduced in September.

  Mr. Scott
  Earnings from work done on the community programme will reduce or remove transitional additions in the same way as any other earnings. People not in full-time work who remain entitled to income support and transitional protection while they are on the community programme will not lose the protection as a result of leaving the community programme and joining employment training.

  Mental Patients
  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many long-term mental patients he estimates there will be in each health authority in England and Wales in each of the next seven years.

  Mrs. Currie
  We have no centrally collected information on which to base estimates.

  Leukaemia
  Sir Trevor Skeet
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what evidence he has of connection between the electromagnetic field attending high voltage transmission lines and the occurrence of leukaemia.

  Mrs. Currie
  There have been a number of studies published over the years on the possible health effects of exposure to the electro-magnetic fields produced from
  93
  high voltage power lines. Although some studies have indicated the possibility of a small increased risk of leukaemia, these studies have been limited and far from conclusive, and others have failed to find such evidence.

  I am aware that the authors of one recent study done in the United States of America reported a possible association of magnetic fields with incidence of leukaemia and certain childhood cancers but that they did not regard their results as conclusive and recommended further study.

  Further studies are under way or planned, including an independent survey of childhood cancer cases in England and Wales using new techniques for measuring magnetic fields in homes. The United Kingdom electricity supply industry expects to spend in the order of £1 million on supporting research in this area in 1988. The Department will continue to keep the evidence under review.

  "Charities Digest"
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many copies of the "Charities Digest" his Department has purchased for distribution.

  Mr. Portillo
  A total of 1,100 copies of the "Charities Digest" were purchased in December 1987 and two copies distributed to each local office of the Department.

  National Childbirth Trust
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects to be able to announce the Department's response to the grant application of the National Childbirth Trust.

  Mrs. Currie
  We expect to respond shortly.

  Regional Health Authorities (Civil Defence)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list what financial allocations for civil defence planning have been made to each of the regional health authorities in England and Wales for each of the last five years.

  Mrs. Currie
  Allocations to regional health authorities in 1981–82 included £38,000 provided to meet the costs of creating posts with responsibility for home defence planning and co-ordination. Since 1982–83 this funding has been built into authorities' baseline cash limits and has not been allocated separately.

  Information relating to Wales is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Poverty Trap
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received about the Government's measures, implemented in April, to help eliminate the poverty trap.

  Mr. Scott
  We have received numerous representations welcoming our measures to end the worst aspect of the poverty trap.

  Women's National Cancer Control Campaign
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if his Department has considered an application for an exhibition relating to the women's national cancer control campaign to be displayed in the Upper Waiting Hall.
  94
  Mrs. Currie
  I understand that, under procedures agreed by the Services Committee, arrangements have been made with the authorities of the House for the exhibition to be held in the Upper Waiting Hall from 13 June to 17 June.

  City Hospital, Nottingham
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what saving has been made by the closure of a geriatric ward in the City hospital, Nottingham; and what further saving is anticipated from continued closure.

  Mrs. Currie
  Responsibility for the management of local health services rests with the district health authority (in this case Nottingham). I suggest the hon. Member contacts the chairman of that authority for the information he seeks.

  Consultants
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) if he will provide for 1986–87, or the latest figures available, a breakdown of the reasons for the absence of consultants from National Health Service hospitals with regard to(a) study leave, (b) holidays, (c) sick leave and (d) other;

  (2) what is the latest cost of providing locums for National Health Service consultants; how much of this is to cover the cost of study leave; and if he will provide comparable figures for previous years.

  Mr. Newton
  I regret that this information is not collected centrally.

  Drugs and Therapies (Licences)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the policy of his Department and appropriate committees on the granting of licences or provisional licences for drugs and therapies when full licences have already been granted by well-recognised national organisations, such as the United States Food and Drugs Authority; what priority the Committee on Safety of Medicines gives to consideration of such drugs and therapies when there are no known alternative cures; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  Under the Medicines Act 1968 and EC directives the United Kingdom licensing authority must be satisfied as to the safety, quality and efficacy of a medicinal product for human use before granting a product licence. In making a decision, the licensing authority must consider for itself the evidence which the directives require the applicant to submit, and also takes account of other relevant information which may include licensing decisions by other national regulatory agencies.

  Licence applications are normally assessed in strict chronological order of receipt. Exceptionally, a product licence application may be fast-tracked when there are compelling reasons for believing that the product would provide a major therapeutic breakthrough in the treatment of patients for indicated conditions. "Fast tracking" means that the application is considered out of turn; it does not mean that normal standards are lowered.

  Hospital Beds
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the current number of National Health
  95
  Service beds per 1,000 of the population; and if he will give comparable figures for previous years at 10-yearly intervals, including the earliest year available.

  Mrs. Currie
  The available information is given in the table.

  National Health Service hospital beds per thousand population, England

  Year

  Average daily available beds

  2 Population (thousands)

  Beds per thousand population

  1949

  1428,314

  40,529·2

  10·57

  1956

  1450,240

  42,059·5

  10·70

  1966

  434,846

  45,264·5

  9·61

  1976

  383,132

  46,659·9

  8·21

  1986

  315,714

  47,254·5

  6·68

  1 Estimate.

  2 Mid year population estimates.

  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will provide the latest figures available on the number of National Health Service hospital beds per 1,000 of the population in the United Kingdom and in other European countries.

  Mrs. Currie
  The table gives the available information published by the OECD in 1985. It does not, however, distinguish between private and state provision of hospital beds.

  Table 27

  In-patient medical care beds per 1,000 population, 1980s

  (Actual year in brackets)

  Country

  1980s

  Austria

  10·8 (1983)

  Belgium

  9·5 (1982)

  Denmark

  7·4 (1983)

  Finland

  15·5 (1982)

  France

  11·6 (1983)

  Germany

  11·1 (1982)

  Greece

  6·2 (1981)

  Iceland

  11·1 (1982)

  Ireland

  9·7 (1980)

  Italy

  7·7(1983)

  Luxembourg

  13·0 (1983)

  Netherlands

  12·0 (1983)

  Norway

  6·5 (1983)

  Portugal

  5·1 (1982)

  Spain

  5·4 (1981)

  Sweden

  14·0 (1983)

  Switzerland

  11·5(1982)

  Turkey

  2·1 (1982)

  United Kingdom

  8·1 (1981)

  Note: Data for Ireland in this table include long·term hospitals.

  Source: Measuring Health Care 1960–1983, OECD, Paris, 1985, Table D.4.

  Griffiths Report
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what steps his Department has taken to initiate a formal policy of consultation on the Griffiths report.

  Mr. Newton
  We are not undertaking a formal process of consultation, but have indicated our intention to take account of any views put to us by interested groups or organisations as part of our consideration of Sir Roy Griffiths' recommendations.

  Europe Against Cancer Campaign
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has discussed the Europe against cancer campaign with the European Commission; and what response he has had to proposals he has made.

  Mrs. Currie
  The European Commission's proposed plan of action for Europe against cancer was discussed by the Council of Health Ministers in May 1987, and progress will be reviewed at the next Council of Health Ministers in May 1988. Discussion of a number of detailed aspects has continued with officials of the Commission, whose responses have generally been constructive.

  Tobacco Products
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) what is his policy towards the proposals made by the European Commission to harmonise the regulation of all tobacco products in the EEC;

  (2) if he proposes to take any action on the regulation of tobacco products in the light of the opinion of the European Parliament of 11 February.

  Mrs. Currie
  Current action by the EC regarding the regulation of tobacco products arises from the Commission's Europe against cancer proposals, which have been endorsed by the European Parliament. The United Kingdom is participating in a working group considering two draft directives concerned with harmonising the labelling of tobacco products and reducing the tar yields of cigarettes.

  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what consideration was given to the definition of tobacco products adopted by the European Commission and European Parliament in deciding to ban Skoal Bandits.

  Mrs. Currie
  The Government were aware of a number of definitions of tobacco products, including those by the European Commission and European Parliament when proposals were made to make safety regulations under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 in respect of certain oral tobacco products.

  Cancer Prevention
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will modify his policy on cancer prevention to take account of the European Commission's recent conclusion on the contributory role of diet, alcohol and tobacco in causing cancer.

  Mrs. Currie
  Recommendations on smoking, alcohol and diet in the European code against cancer are entirely consistent with our own preventive strategies. The European code, together with information on cancer prevention, will be widely publicised during European cancer week, 1–7 May 1988, and European cancer year in 1989.

  AIDS
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what information he has about the proportion of United Kingdom employers who have some employees with AIDS; and if he has any equivalent information about the United States of America.
  97
  Mr. Newton
  The Government have no such information for United Kingdom employers. I am aware of the Alexander and Alexander Consulting Group 1987 AIDS survey on AIDS and employment undertaken in the United Slates of America, in which 17·8 per cent. of the 11,300 employers approached replied to a questionnaire; 10·1 per cent. of those employers indicated that they had, or had had, one or more employees with AIDS, 18·8 per cent. indicated that they had not and the remainder stated that they did not know.

  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he is now in a position to forecast the number of new cases of AIDS in 1989.

  Mr. Newton
  The Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre estimates that a total of 1,450 new cases of AIDS will be reported in 1988. A group of experts under the chairmanship of Sir David Cox is now considering the issues involved in forecasting numbers of cases for future years.

  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many people, excluding haemophiliacs, have now been infected with the AIDS virus as a result of blood transfusions in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Newton
  The latest statistics on cases of HIV infection, and AIDS, broken down by patient characteristic, were published on 11 April. Copies are in the Library.

  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give the latest figures for the probability of contracting the HIV virus and AIDS in the United Kingdom of the following groups(a) needle sharing drug abusers, (b) male homosexuals, (c) haemophiliacs and (d) heterosexuals having casual sexual contact.

  Mr. Newton
  It is not possible to assess the probability of people in the groups listed acquiring HIV infection in the United Kingdom, except in the case of haemophiliacs, for whom blood products are now made entirely from screened donations and are heat-treated to inactivate HIV. The figures on the latest numbers of reports of cases of AIDS and HIV infection were published on 11 April and copies are in the Library.

  Mr. Rathbone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what screening for AIDS is being carried out in order to ensure the future proper operation of the national organ donor programme.

  Mr. Newton
  On 2 March 1987 the Department's chief medical officer wrote to all doctors to remind them of the precautions needed to prevent the transmission of HIV through the transplant of infected tissue or organs. He made it clear that it was essential that blood from the donor is tested and found negative for HIV antibodies before the organ or tissue is transplanted and that inquiries should also be made to exclude donors most likely to have been exposed to the AIDS virus.

  Mr. Bendall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will take steps to ensure that AIDS patients are not treated at the Royal Free hospital, Hampstead, in the same wards as haemophiliacs.

  Mr. Newton
  It is for individual health authorities to determine how best to provide in-patient care for those people with AIDS who require it, taking into account the guidance issued by the Department on control of infection 98
  procedures. My hon. Friend may wish to write to the chairman of Hampstead health authority, which is responsible for services at the Royal Free hospital, about the arrangements it is making.

  Teaching Hospitals
  Mr. Tom Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list the teaching hospitals in England.

  Mrs. Currie
  The main university teaching hospitals of each of the 19 English medical schools are as follows. All the medical schools use, in addition, other NHS hospitals to meet their requirements for clinical facilities for undergraduate medical education. Such use is subject to change. Information about current usage can be obtained from individual medical schools.

  Medical school

  Main university teaching hospital(s)

  Birmingham

  Queen Elizabeth Hospital

  Cambridge

  Addenbrooke's Hospital

  Leeds

  The General Infirmary St. James' University Hospital

  Leicester

  Leicester Royal Infirmary

  Liverpool

  Liverpool Royal Infirmary

  London Charing Cross and Westminster

  Charing Cross Hospital

  Westminster Hospital

  King's College

  King's College Hospital

  The London

  The London Hospital,

  Whitechapel

  The Royal Free

  The Royal Free Hospital

  St. Bartholomew's

  St. Bartholomew's Hospital

  St. George's

  St. George's Hospital

  United Medical Schools of Guy's/

  Guy's Hospital

  St. Thomas

  St. Thomas' Hospital

  University College and Middlesex

  University College Hospital

  The Middlsex Hospital

  Manchester

  Manchester Royal

  Infirmary

  Hope Hospital

  University Hospital of

  South Manchester

  Newcastle Upon Tyne

  The Royal Victoria

  Infirmary

  Nottingham

  The University Hospital,

  Nottingham

  Oxford

  The John Radcliffe

  Hospital

  Sheffield

  The Royal Hallamshire

  Hospital

  Southampton

  The Southampton Genera]

  Hospital

  Regional Health Authorities
  Mr. Tom Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has recently received calling for the abolition of regional health authorities.

  Mr. Newton
  We have received a number of representations about the organisation of the NHS. We shall be considering these carefully alongside other proposals for reforms as part of the review of the NHS.

  Mentally Handicapped People
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services, pursuant to his answer to the hon.
  99
  Member for Monklands, West of 15 March, Official Report, column 553, what steps he takes to ensure that the provision of day care and adult training places is sufficient, in the absence of central information on the numbers of mentally handicapped people either leaving full-time education or being discharged from hospitals and needing such care.

  Mrs. Currie
  It is for local and health authorities to cooperate in the planning and provision of appropriate day services for mentally handicapped people in the light of their assessed needs and the authorities' knowledge of local requirements and resources.

  Personal Social Services
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Monklands, West of 15 March,Official Report, columns 558–59, if he will list those local authorities which did, and those which did not, experience real expenditure increases on the personal social services, as indicated by the national personal social services current expenditure revaluation factor, of 3·5 per cent. or more, and by how much, during 1987–88.

  Mr. Newton
  The information is given in the tables. Table 1 lists those local authorities whose budgeted personal social services expenditure for 1987–88 exceeded their estimated expenditure for 1986–87, uprated by the national personal social services current expenditure revaluation factor, by more than 3·5 per cent. and indicates the difference in cash terms. Table 2 lists those authorities whose expenditure increased by less than 3·5 per cent. on the same terms as table 1.

  Table 1

  Amount by which budgetted expenditure for 1987–88 exceeded 3·5 per cent, increase over 1986–87 estimated expenditure uprated for PSS pay and prices

  Local authority

  £000s

  Barking and Dagenham

  928

  Barnet

  774

  Barnsley

  463

  Bedfordshire

  325

  Birmingham

  1,159

  Bolton

  130

  Buckinghamshire

  419

  Bury

  149

  Calderdale

  713

  Cambridgeshire

  269

  Cheshire

  1,597

  City of London

  126

  Cleveland

  13

  Cornwall

  67

  Croydon

  1,250

  Cumbria

  1,167

  Derbyshire

  1,314

  Doncaster

  650

  Dorset

  843

  Dudley

  535

  Durham

  158

  Ealing

  2,198

  Enfield

  293

  Gloucestershire

  611

  Hackney

  8,684

  Haringey

  1,036

  Havering

  929

  Hertfordshire

  1,806

  Hillingdon

  1,590

  Hounslow

  617

  Islington

  5,313

  100

  Local authority

  £000s

  Kirklees

  17

  Leeds

  3,454

  Leicestershire

  1,079

  Lewisham

  1,414

  Liverpool

  1,156

  Manchester

  766

  Merton

  69

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  803

  Newham

  514

  North Tyneside

  1,117

  Northamptonshire

  75

  Northumberland

  227

  Oxfordshire

  888

  Rochdale

  268

  Rotherham

  281

  Salford

  325

  Sandwell

  1,784

  Sefton

  1,483

  Shropshire

  587

  Solihull

  133

  Somerset

  106

  South Tyneside

  619

  Suffolk

  1,519

  Surrey

  1,728

  Sutton

  396

  Tameside

  143

  Tower Hamlets

  233

  Trafford

  889

  Wakefield

  964

  Walsall

  718

  Waltham Forest

  3,230

  Warwickshire

  352

  West Sussex

  561

  Wigan

  210

  Wiltshire

  505

  Wirral

  2,624

  Wolverhampton

  1,051

  Table 2

  Amount by which budgetted expenditure for 1987–88 fell short of 3·5 per cent, increase over 1986–87 estimated expenditure uprated for PSS pay and prices.

  Local authority

  £000s

  Avon

  2,589

  Berkshire

  21

  Bexley

  156

  Bradford

  401

  Brent

  1,353

  Bromley

  642

  Camden

  2,104

  Coventry

  1,507

  Devon

  781

  East Sussex

  384

  Essex

  930

  Gateshead

  1,384

  Greenwhich

  1,937

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  624

  Hampshire

  182

  Harrow

  1,494

  Hereford and Worcester

  637

  Humberside

  201

  Isle of Wight

  75

  Isles of Scilly

  13

  Kensington and Chelsea

  91

  Kent

  1,428

  Kingston upon Thames

  124

  Knowsley

  456

  Lambeth

  8,109

  Lancashire

  498

  Lincolnshire

  868

  Norfolk

  1,599

  North Yorkshire

  126

  Nottinghamshire

  2,401

  Oldham

  155

  Redbridge

  372

  101

  Local authority

  £000s

  Richmond upon Thames

  549

  Sheffield

  1,729

  Southwark

  4,586

  St. Helens

  714

  Staffordshire

  356

  Stockport

  406

  Sunderland

  54

  Wandsworth

  1,864

  Westminster

  1,971

  HIV Screening
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) if he will make it his policy to encourage the general public to come forward for HIV screening;

  (2) if he will make it his policy to encourage all those who suspect they may be HIV-positive to come forward for HIV testing.

  Mr. Newton
  It is for individuals to decide whether to have an HIV antibody test in the light of their particular circumstances. Free and confidential counselling and testing are available through general practitioners and genito-urinary medicine clinics to everyone who wishes to have them.

  Hospital Development Programmes
  Sir Barney Hayhoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the average time between the submission of plans for a major hospital redevelopment or development programme to his Department and Her Majesty's Treasury and their formal approval in part or whole, based upon the last 20 such cases.

  Mrs. Currie
  Departmental approval in principle is required for all schemes with works costs of over £5 million. Treasury approval is required for schemes in excess of £10 million and for those which start a cycle of development of over £25 million in total.

  Each scheme needs to be considered on its merits. Fourteen of the 21 schemes given approval in principle in the last two financial years were cleared within 12 months. Seven of these were cleared within about six months. The longest took approximately 21 months. The time taken can be greatly affected by the quality of the initial submission, the complexity of the scheme and the issues raised. In most cases the process involves detailed discussion with the health authority and revisions to the submissions.

  Hounslow and Spelthorne DHA
  Sir Barney Hayhoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what assessment he has made of the effect on the hospital and community health services of the Hounslow and Spelthorne district health authority of the level of financial resources allocated for the financial year 1988–89.

  Mrs. Currie
  Allocations to district health authorities are the responsibility of the regional health authority. My right hon. Friend may wish to ask the chairman of the North West Thames regional health authority for his assessment.

  Abortion
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what information he has as to in how many cases an abortion performed at 18 weeks or more gestation has been on the grounds that a mother had been in contact with the AIDS virus or had contracted AIDS.

  Mr. Newton
  Of the notifications received for the period 1 January 1983 to 30 September 1987 (the 1987 data being provisional), there have been two at 18 completed weeks and over gestation where AIDS has been given as the principal medical condition on the notification form.

  Technical Guides
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services when the new social security technical guides will be available to the public.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will publish an income support and family credit handbook comparable with the supplementary benefit handbook.

  Mr. Portillo
  The technical guides dealing with the major reformed benefits, income support, social fund, family credit and housing benefit are available this week. Others will be produced shortly. These guides replace the existing priced handbooks on supplementary benefit and non-contributory benefits for disabled people, and are free of charge. They are primarily aimed at those who give professional advice to the public, such as citizens advice bureaux staff, but they will be available to members of the public who can obtain copies from social security offices.

  Independent Living Fund
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services when he will lay before the House draft regulations providing for payments from the independent living fund to be disregarded in the calculation of entitlement to income support and other means-tested benefits.

  Mr. Scott
  Regulations will be laid as soon as possible after the fund is formally constituted.

  Pathology Services
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) what representations he has received following a recent London Weekend Television programme on the standards of testing by private sector pathology companies; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what representations he as received with regard to the General Medical Services Committee's position on accepting a pathology service which cannot be certain to produce accurate test results; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  No such representations have been received.

  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received and from what organisations, regarding any privatisation of the National Health Service pathology services, since 1 January; and if he will make a statement on his present policy towards privatisation of pathology services.
  103
  Mrs. Currie
  Since 1 January the only representation received regarding privatisation of the NHS pathology services is that from the Royal College of Pathologists.

  We have no plans for a central initiative involving privatisation of pathology services.

  NHS Cleaning Contracts
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received regarding contracts awarded to the private sector for laundry and ward cleaning in National Health Service hospitals which have had to be cancelled as a result of inadequate performance; and if he will give the number of such contracts cancelled for each year since 1982.

  Mrs. Currie
  None; nine in total.

  Unemployed Councillors
  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is his Department's practice with regard to asking an unemployed person who serves as a councillor whether he would be prepared to give up his duties as a local councillor in order to establish his availability for work; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  Unemployed people serving as councillors are subject to the same requirement as all other claimants who are required to be available for work in employed earner's employment as a condition for receiving unemployment benefits. They are expected to demonstrate that they are available for work in keeping with their skills but they are not required to give up their council duties in order to satisfy the availability condition. However, days on which they are engaged in approved council duties and which attract an attendance allowance are treated as days worked and the allowance is treated as earnings to be taken into account in determining entitlement to benefit.

  Retirement Pensions
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the value in real terms of the basic retirement pension with effect from 11 April, taking November 1978 as the base and calculated according to the rise in average earnings since that date.

  Mr. Scott
  It will not be possible to compare the level of basic pension from April 1988 with that in November 1978 against the rise in average earnings over that period until earnings figures for April become available in mid-June.

  Dental Charges
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what were the receipts from patient charges for treatment in the general dental service, in England, in each of the years 1979–87; what are the estimated receipts for 1987–88; and what is his estimate of receipts in 1988–89 and 1989–90, taking account of the changes in dental charges proposed in the White Paper on primary health care and of the likely movement in dentists' fees in those years.

  Mr. Newton
  Receipts from patient charges in the general dental service in England in the years 1979–80 to 1987–88 have been :104

  General dental service: England receipts from patient charges

  £ million

  1979–80

  70

  1980–81

  92

  1981–82

  115

  1982–83

  141

  1983–84

  155

  1984–85

  171

  1985–86

  196

  1986–87

  221

  11987–88

  240

  1Estimated.

  The Government's current expenditure plans for England which reflect the changes proposed in the White Paper on primary health care, show estimated receipts from dental charges of £285 million in 1988–89, which includes estimated income from the proposed introduction of dental examination charges together with an increased income of £15 million (out of £17 million for Great Britain as a whole) from dental treatment charges compared with what was assumed for that year in the previous public expenditure White Paper. For 1989–90 the expenditure plans for England show estimated receipts of £334 million.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) what is his estimate of receipts from patient charges in England in 1988–89 and 1989–90, based on the system of charges introduced in April 1985, with a ceiling charge of £115 maintained, and taking account of the likely movement in dentists' fees in those years;

  (2) what percentage charge rate, applied to all currently charged treatment and maintaining all current exemptions, would raise the receipts expected in 1988–89 and 1989–90 under the April 1985 charge system; and what would be the effect on that percentage charge rate of (a) raising the ceiling charge to £150, (b) maintaining the ceiling charge at £115 and extending charges to dental examinations and (c) raising the ceiling charge to £150 and introducing an examination charge.

  Mr. Newton
  Had no changes of any kind been made, for example to take account of inflation, to maintain receipts as a proportion of the gross costs of the general dental service, to move to proportionate charging for treatment currently charged at 100 per cent. or for items whose cost is currently fixed, or to introduce charges for dental examinations, receipts from patient charges would probably have been about £250 million in 1988–89 and about £260 million in 1989–90. To raise this amount, the following are estimates of the percentage charge rate which would be required, on the assumption that the charges illustrated and had been brought into effect from 1 April 1988:

  1988–89

  1989–90

  (a) with present maximum of £115

  68

  65

  (b) with maximum of £150

  66

  62

  (c) with present maximum of £115 and with a charge for dental examination

  61

  56

  (d) with maximum of £150 and a charge for dental examination

  60

  53

  NHS Charges (Income Generation)
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what was the income for (i) pharmacists, (ii) dentists and (iii) opticians from National Health Service charges for each year from 1978–79.

  Mr. Newton
  The income from prescription charges collected by pharmacists and from patients' charges for general ophthalmic services for each year from 1978–79 is given in the table. There have been no charges to patients under the general ophthalmic service since National Health Service spectacles were discontinued from 1 July 1986.

  For the income received from dental charges paid by patients in recent years I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) today.

  Year

  Income from prescription charges England £million

  Income from ophthalmic charges England £ million

  1978–79

  23·2

  25·5

  1979–80

  36·9

  27·6

  1980–81

  67·6

  28·9

  1981–82

  82·7

  32·3

  1982–83

  97·9

  38·1

  1983–84

  104·7

  43·8

  1984–85

  114·8

  44·1

  1985–86

  120·7

  11·8

  1986–87

  140·2

  0·8

  Social Security Offices (Birmingham)
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether all supplementary benefit payments were converted to income support at the social security offices at Kingsbury road and St. Margaret's road in Birmingham by 11 April.

  Mr. Portillo
  I can confirm that both local offices completed the conversion of supplementary benefit payments to income support by 11 April.

  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many claims for single payments were outstanding at the social security offices at Kingsbury road and St. Margaret's road in Birmingham on 31 March and 11 April.

  Mr. Portillo
  The offices at Kingsbury road (Erdington ILO) and St. Margaret's road (Washwood Heath ILO) had single payments outstanding as at 31 March 1988, and 11 April 1988 as shown in the following table :

  Number of Single Payments Outstanding

  Office

  31 March 1988

  11 April 1988

  Kingsbury Road

  1,113

  1,029

  St. Margaret's Road

  1,056

  1,251

  NHS (Injury Costs)
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the estimated annual cost to the National Health Service of treating injuries arising in shops, offices, factories, railways, roads, mines and quarries affecting employees covered by those activities; and if he will make a statement.
  106
  Mrs. Currie
  The cost to the National Health Service of treating injuries which arise from accidents at work is not separately recorded and cannot be estimated.

  Nurses (Mortgages)
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services, pursuant to his reply of 15 December 1987,Official Report, columns 495–6, what arrangements have been made to monitor the take up of the low cost 100 per cent. mortgage scheme being run by the Nationwide building society for nurses; and how many applications have been received from (a) single buyers, (b) dual buyers and (c) multiple buyers.

  Mr. Newton
  The recently launched low-cost mortgage scheme involves direct arrangements between Nationwide Anglia and individual members of NHS staff. The Department keeps in touch with the building society over the broad state of developments, but does not monitor the details of numbers of applications. It is for the society to decide when and in what manner to publicise these. The society's last public statement quoted in the Health Service Journal on 7 April, reported that there had been 3,000 expressions of interest in the scheme and of those about 300 applications had been made.

  Heating Addition
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many supplementary benefit claimants received the estate rate heating addition(a) at the lower rate and (b) at the higher rate in each year since 1984.

  Mr. Portillo
  The information requested is not available for all of the years requested. Figures from the annual statistical inquiry for 1984 and 1986 are as follows. There was no statistical inquiry in 1985 and the 1987 figures a re not yet available.

  Estate rate heating additions

  Numbers 000s

  December 1984

  February 1986

  Lower rate

  39

  51

  Higher rate

  10

  13

  Performance-related Additions (Yorkshire)
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services which district and unit general managers within health districts in the Yorkshire region received performance-related additions to their basic salaries in 1987–88; and if he will indicate the basis on which these payments were made.

  Mr. Newton
  The criteria for awarding performance-related pay to general managers were set out in a m:morandum (PM (86)11) issued by the Department to health authorities in 1986. The scheme is designed to reward both short-term achievements and a sustained long-term contribution to the management of the authority. The payments made to individual managers are confidential between them and their employing authority.

  Staff (Assaults)
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) when he expects his Department's committee on violence against social services staff to publish its report; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will issue guidance to local authorities regarding the collation of statistics concerning assaults on social services staff; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what guidance he has issued to local authorities regarding measures to improve the working environments of social services staff in an effort to reduce the number of assaults to which such staff are subject;

  (4) what guidance he has issued to local authorities concerning the training of social services staff in dealing with potentially violent situations; and if he will make a statement;

  (5) if he has issued any guidance to local authorities on the provision of adequate insurance cover for social services staff who may be subjected to assault during the course of their duties; and if he will make a statement;

  (6) what guidelines he has issued to local authorities regarding the provision of appropriate counselling and support to social services staff who have been subject to assault; and if he will make a statement;

  (7) if he will make additional resources available to local authorities to enable them to take steps to reduce the number of assaults upon social services staff; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  The Department's advisory committee on violence to staff which is looking at staff in the health services and social security as well as in the personal social services is expected to report soon to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The issues that it has been looking at include monitoring incidents, staff training, environmental conditions, staff support and counselling. In 1987 the Association of Directors of Social Services published "Guidelines and Recommendations to Employers on Violence Against Employees", which give local authorities advice on the same issues plus insurance cover. The British Association of Social Workers has also published "Social Workers at Risk : The Prevention and Management of Violence" (1986) and is currently drawing up further guidance. Regarding resources each year, as part of the process of consultation leading to the rate support grant settlement, local and central Government officials discuss pressures on the social services in the PSS expenditure group. The problem of violence to social services staff has been among the subjects discussed in recent years. It is expected that this subject will again be covered in this year's expenditure group discussions which will lead to the 1989–90 rate support grant settlement, but I cannot at this stage anticipate the outcome of these discussions.

  Old-age Pensioners (Kidney Dialysis)
  Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if an old-age pensioner receiving kidney dialysis will be financially worse off when the social security changes come into force in April; and if he will list the payments which will be made under the new scheme.

  Mr. Scott
  Pensioners whose benefit entitlement on the introduction of the income support scheme would be less than their existing supplementary benefit entitlement will have their total benefit income maintained in cash terms.
  108
  This protection will be enhanced by an average amount for those who will have to pay a 20 per cent. contribution towards the general domestic rate.

  The payments for which a pensioner receiving kidney dialysis under the income support scheme may qualify are as follows :
  The personal allowance—

  £33·40 for a single person, or

  £51·45 for a couple;

  The severe disability premium—

  £24·75 for a single person, or

  £49·50 for a couple where both members qualify;

  The pensioner premium—

  £10·65 for a single person, or

  £16·25 for a couple;

  The higher pensioner premium—

  £13·05 for a single person or

  £18·60 for a couple.

  Pensioners
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if pensioners who receive benefit on Thursday or Friday will receive one payment at the old rate on 7 April and 51 payments at the new rate, following the increase in the state retirement pension in the week commencing 11 April; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  Payments of retirement pension in the week commencing Monday 6 April will be at 1987–88 rates, whether the pay day is Monday, Thursday or Friday. Pensions will be paid at 1988–89 rates during the 52 benefit weeks from the week commencing Monday 11 April 1988 to that commencing Monday 6 April 1989, inclusive.

  Nuclear Installations (Cancer)
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list data on the incidences of cancer among(a) workers in the nuclear industry and (b) citizens residing in the locality of nuclear plants; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  The incidence of disease among specific groups of workers is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment.

  In respect of persons residing in the vicinity of nuclear installations, a report entitled "Cancer Incidence and Mortality in the vicinity of nuclear installations, England and Wales 1959–80, (HMSO 1987)" was presented by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys in the series "Studies on Medical and Population Subjects", (No. 51). The report was published on 27 March 1987; copies were placed in the Library.

  Nurses (Recruitment)
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether there are any plans for a television advertising campaign to recruit nurses; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  We are currently revising our strategy for national recruitment publicity for nursing; the use of television is being considered.

  Cervical Cancer Screening
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services in which health authorities the implementation of call and recall cervical cancer screening has been delayed by concern about(a) the capacity of pathology laboratories to cope with the additional smears and (b) surgical capacity to deal with the cases which need treatment.

  Mrs. Currie
  We are not aware of any.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services with which district health authorities he has had discussions about the adequacy of the Exeter software used in the computerised call and recall cervical cancer screening programme; and what was the outcome of the discussions.

  Mrs. Currie
  The computer software for cervical cancer screening call and recall systems has been discussed with a number of users of that software, including district health authorities. Account is taken of those discussions as additions and amendments to the software are made.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list those district health authorities who did not start to implement a computerised call and recall cervical cancer screening programme by 31 March; and if he will give the reasons for the delays.

  Mrs. Currie
  In my reply to the hon. Member on 10 March at column 344 I stated that after 31 March we would publish a full list of district health authorities which had implemented computerised call and recall systems for cervical cancer screening. This information is being provided by health authorities and we shall publish a list when the information has been collected.

  Generic Medicines
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether interested parties will be able to submit evidence to the study into the market for generic medicines in Britain to be carried out by Touche Ross management consultants; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  Yes. The consultants are making their own inquiries, but, in addition, anybody who has information which they think is relevant may write either directly to the consultants or to the Department, which will pass on any such correspondence to them.

  Homoeopathic Medicine
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will make a statement on his policy towards the use of homoeopathic medicine within the National Health Service; and what resources have been made available for(a) the current and (b) the forthcoming financial year to the regional health authorities for allocation to homoeopathic hospitals.

  Mrs. Currie
  Homoeopathic medicine is currently available within the National Health Service and this treatment will continue to be provided for as long as there are patients wishing to receive such treatment and doctors willing to provide it.

  Information on the resources allocated to homoeopathic hospitals is not held centrally. Health authorities
  110
  locally are responsible for determining priorities in all forms of care provided by the NHS and are in the best position to allocate resources accordingly.

  Family Income Supplement
  Mr. Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will publish a table showing how many claimants of family income supplement pay rent only, rent and rates and rates only, broken down into two-parent and one-parent families at the latest date available.

  Mr. Scott
  Claimants for family income supplement are not required to provide details of their housing costs or tenure type, and information of the type requested cannot therefore be derived from data extracted from administrative records. However, it is possible to make some estimates from the family expenditure survey, although because of the small number of sample cases available it is necessary to combine several years' data. On the basis of the FES data for 1983–86 inclusive, 66 per cent. Of family income supplement recipients appear to be tenants, 28 per cent. owner-occupiers and 6 per cent. non-householders. These proportions relate to two-parent and one-parent families combined, and if applied to the latest administrative information on family income supplement caseload (May 1986) would imply :

  135,000 tenants

  55,000 owner occupiers

  15,000 non-householders.

  For the two groups separately the proportion of tenants is very similar, but two-parent families contain a rather higher proportion of owner occupiers and one-parent families a rather higher proportion of non-householders.

  Consultants
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give for 1987 the number of consultants on maximum part-time contracts who have merit awards, giving the number in each category : at, A, B and C.

  Mr. Newton
  The number of consultants in England and Wales on maximum part-time contracts with distinction awards in 1986, the latest date for which figures are available, is as follows:

  Level of award

  Number

  A+

  13

  A

  149

  B

  560

  C

  1,399

  Total

  2,121

  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give for the National Health Service for the years 1979 and 1987 the number of consultants with full-time and maximum part-time contracts.

  Mr. Newton
  Figures for 1979 and 1986 are set out in the table. Comparable figures for 1987 are not yet available.

  NHS Consultants (England): as at 30 September

  Full time contracts

  Maximum part-time contracts

  1979

  5,057

  3,261

  1986

  6,611

  4,668

  Pharmaceutical Products
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what was the increase, in cash and percentage terms, on intramural expenditure on research and development of pharmaceutical products in the United Kingdom in each year from 1983–84 to 1986–87.

  Mr. Newton
  Information on research and development expenditure by the British pharmaceutical industry is contained in the annual report 1986–87 of The Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry at table 6 on page 35. A copy is in the Library.

  Regional Secure Units
  Mr. Irving
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) how many places are(a) planned and (b) available in each regional secure unit;

  (2) how many places in each regional secure unit are not currently available for patients; and if he will give reasons for any discrepancy between (a) planned places, (b) existing places and places currently occupied;

  (3) if he will list those regional secure units for which there are waiting lists for places; for how many patients; how long they have been awaiting admission; and where they are currently accommodated.

  Mrs. Currie
  Thirteen of the 14 regional health authorities now have permanent regional secure units (RSUs) in operation. The remaining region, South West Thames, proposes RSU provision which will function in association with several "close supervision" units already operating in existing hospitals.

  Details of permanent regional secure units in operation are shown in the table. Figures relating to staffed and available beds are based on latest available information.

  Region and location

  Bed complement

  Number of beds staffed and available

  1. Northern

  St. Luke's hospital, Middlesbrough

  30

  25

  2. Yorkshire

  Fieldhead hospital, Wakefield

  48

  48

  3. Trent

  Towers hospital, Leicester

  45

  30

  4. East Anglian

  St. Andrew's hospital, Norwich

  36

  36

  5. North West Thames

  Ealing hospital, [St. Bernards wing]

  40

  40

  6. North East Thames

  Runwell hospital, near Southend

  10

  10

  7. South East Thames

  Bethlem Royal hospital + linked units managed by Bexley, Bromley, Maidstone and Eastbourne Health Authorities

  90

  90

  8. Wessex

  Knowle hospital, Fareham

  31

  22

  9. Oxford

  Borocourt hospital, Reading

  14

  14

  10. South Western

  Langdon hospital, Dawlish

  30

  30

  11. Mersey

  Rainhill hospital, Prescot

  50

  50

  112

  Region and location

  Bed complement

  Number of beds staffed and available

  12. West Midlands

  Rubery Hill hospital, Birmingham

  100

  46

  13. North Western

  Prestwich hospital, Manchester (adolescent)

  20

  20

  (adult)

  88

  44

  632

  505

  In addition to the details provided in the above table, the North East Thames region has plans to provide two further permanent RSUs, providing 62 beds, to complement the one already in operation at Runwell hospital; two further RSUs in the Oxford region, providing 26 beds, are due to be completed in 1988; and a second permanent RSU in the South Western region (30 beds) is also due to be completed at Glenside hospital, Bristol this year.

  In most units, regions have decided to bring their bed provision into use on a phased basis as and when staff are recruited and resources permit.

  We are awaiting the results of a research study which, together with other relevant evidence on secure facilities, will help us to take decisions on the eventual capacity and requirements of the regional secure unit programme.

  Information on bed occupancy and waiting lists is not collected centrally.

  Mental Nurses
  Mr. Irving
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what were the conclusions of the sub-group of the Standing Nursing and Midwifery Advisory Committee in its examination of the role of the registered mental nurse; and when he expects the committee to report.

  Mr. Newton
  The Standing Nursing and Midwifery Advisory Committee considered at its meeting on 5 April a draft report, prepared by a sub-group of its members, on issues arising in mental illness nursing in the light of developments in services for mentally ill people.

  An amended report will be considered at the next meeting of the committee in July, when it is likely that members will also discuss the form and timing of any advice they wish to offer to Ministers, especially about wider consultation.

  Community Psychiatric Nurses
  Mr. Irving
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what were the conclusions about the training of community psychiatric nurses of his predecessor's discussions with regional nursing officers; and what action he proposes to take.

  Mr. Newton
  Consultation with regional nursing officers has established that the number of mental illness nurses working in the community continues to increase as district-based services expand. There is an identifiable need to expand and develop education and training programmes to ensure an adequately qualified workforce to meet present needs and planned expansion.

  Action taken includes discussion with the English national board which has already increased the number of

  113
  centres where appropriate training can be conducted. It has introduced and is evaluating the use of part-time and distance learning to improve access to courses.

  Community psychiatric nursing staff have increased from 1,083 whole-time equivalents in September 1981 to 2,532 whole-time equivalents in September 1986.

  Mentally Ill Patients
  Mr. Irving
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make it his policy, where health authority assessments of the local needs of chronic severely mentally ill patients discharged since 1955 from mental illness hospitals have not been made, as distinct from existing patients' needs, to withhold approval of further reductions in mental hospital beds and of plans for the closure of such hospitals until assessments of their needs have been made and alternative services to meet such needs provided.

  Mrs. Currie
  We anticipate that the comprehensive mental illness services being developed by district health authorities, in accordance with current policy, will reflect the total range of local needs, including the need for hospital in-patient care on a short or longer term basis as well as alternative forms of care.

  Chronic Psychotic Illness
  Mr. Irving
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what opportunities for training and sheltered work are available for present and former patients suffering from a chronic psychotic illness in each health district(a) within psychiatric hospitals or units and (b) in the community.

  Mrs. Currie
  I regret that the information is not available centrally.

  Industrial and Occupational Therapy
  Mr. Irving
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what information he has on the plans of each district health authority affected to replace the industrial and occupational therapy provision in the psychiatric hospitals proposed for closure by 1995.

  Mrs. Currie
  Information on the plans of each health district is not routinely collected centrally but I would expect that, where appropriate, the replacement of any existing service would be part of the new services developed prior to the closure of a psychiatric hospital.

  Elderly Patients (Crewe)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what consultation he has had regarding the proposals for development by the Crewe health authority of a private nursing home or private trust company to care for long-term elderly patients.

  Mrs. Currie
  None.

  Funding and Medical Staff Employment (Trent)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what was the percentage change in(a) National Health Service funding in real terms and in cash terms and (b) employment of medical staff, from 1979 to 1988, in the Trent regional health authority.
  114
  Mr. Newton
  The latest available information for the hospital and community health services in the Trent region is shown in the table.

  Cash

  Real terms2

  Change

  Percentage change in net revenue expenditure 1979–80 to 1986–871

  103·4

  21·9

  —

  Percentage change in whole time equivalent medical staff3 1979–1986

  —

  —

  19·9

  1 Figures are based on health authorities' summarised income and expenditure accounts.

  2 Adjusted by the gross domestic product deflator.

  3 Includes permanent paid, honorary and locum staff.

  Private Patients (Nottingham)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the number of private patients using pay beds in the Nottingham district health authority on the latest available date, and what are the corresponding figures for each year since 1979.

  Mrs. Currie
  The information requested is given in the table.

  Private patients using pay beds in the Nottingham District Health Authority 1979 to 1986

  Year

  Average daily occupied beds2

  In-patient cases treated

  1979

  14·4

  1,210

  1980

  15·5

  1,359

  1981

  15·5

  1,405

  1982

  14·9

  1,400

  1983

  10·9

  1,033

  19841

  3·2

  312

  1985

  3·7

  285

  1986

  3·6

  259

  1 The reduction results from the following:

  (a) the closure of Nottingham general hospital pay bed wing during 1984.

  (b) the withdrawal of authorisation from Nottingham eye hospital and Nottingham hospital for women.

  2 Excludes occupation of authorised pay beds by NHS patients.

  Eye Tests and Dental Examinations (Nottingham)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many(a) eye tests and (b) dental examinations took place in the Nottingham health authority in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Newton
  I assume that the hon. Member is referring to the eye tests which are carried out under the general ophthalmic service and the dental examinations carried out under the general dental service. These are the responsibility of the family practitioner committee. The following table gives the relevant available figures for Nottinghamshire family practitioner committee which includes the area covered by Nottingham health authority.

  Nottinghamshire FPC

  Year

  Number of eye tests1

  Number of dental examinations

  1979

  ..

  500,900

  1980

  ..

  538,660

  1981

  ..

  570,690

  115

  Year

  Number of eye tests1

  Number of dental examinations

  1982

  ..

  591,490

  1983

  180,578

  591,810

  1984

  195,150

  618,580

  1985

  199,724

  635,560

  1986

  206,524

  2652,660

  1987

  221,955

  ..

  1 Information is not readily available on eye tests before 1983.

  2 The Dental Estimates Board altered its presentation of statistics from a calendar year to financial year as from 1986–87 and this figure relates to the financial year.

  ..= Not available.

  General Practitioners (Nottingham)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what information he has on the number of general practitioners in the area covered by the Nottingham district health authority in 1979 and the latest date for which figures are available; and if he will estimate the corresponding change in costs.

  Mr. Newton
  The information requested is collected from family practitioner committees which are not necessarily conterminous with health authority boundaries. The number of unrestricted general medical practitioners in the area covered by Nottingham family practitioner committee (which includes Nottingham DHA) has risen from 403 at 1 October 1979 to 464 as at 1 October 1986, the latest date for which figures are available. Information about the corresponding change in costs is not available centrally.

  Supplementary Benefit Claimants (Nottingham)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what has been the number of supplementary benefit claimants in each of his Department's offices covering the Nottingham, North constituency for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Portillo
  Nottingham, North constituency is served by the Department's local offices at David lane and Shakespeare street, although their boundaries are not conterminous.

  The numbers of supplementary benefit claimants for the years requested are :

  Nottingham

  Date of count

  David lane

  Shakespeare street

  27 November 1979

  6,674

  9,204

  2 December 1980

  7,721

  9,915

  9 December 1981

  9,508

  12,088

  7 December 1982

  10,604

  13,731

  6 December 1983

  10,756

  13,583

  12 December 1984

  11,694

  14,956

  11 December 1985

  12,342

  15,743

  10 December 1986

  12,962

  16,279

  17 November 1987

  12,543

  15,420

  Source: 100 per cent. count of cases in action.

  Staff (Nottingham)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what was the number of staff employed by each office of his Department in the Nottingham, North constituency for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Portillo
  The available information is in the table.
  116

  Staff-in-post

  1986

  1987

  1988

  David lane

  146

  153·5

  156

  Shakespeare street

  177·5

  183·5

  187·5

  The numbers above were the staff employed on 1 April each year. I regret that the information for earlier years is not available.

  Nottingham Health Authority
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list the number of(a) physiotherapists, (b) speech therapists, (c) radiographers, (d) chiropodists, (e) occupational therapists, (f) dieticians and (g) laboratory technicians employed by the Nottingham health authority in each of the last five years.

  Mrs. Currie
  The figures are shown in the table.

  National Health Service staff in post: 30 September Nottingham District Health Authority

  whole time equivalents1

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Physiotherapists23

  136

  143

  150

  155

  148

  Speech Therapists3

  51

  45

  36

  40

  40

  Radiographers3

  132

  137

  145

  150

  148

  Chiropodists3

  52

  44

  29

  32

  29

  Occupational Therapists3

  60

  72

  74

  84

  80

  Dieticians

  16

  17

  17

  20

  21

  Medical Laboratory Scientific Officers

  212

  210

  205

  211

  205

  Source: DHSS Annual Census of NHS non-medical manpower.

  1 All figures are independently rounded to the nearest whole time equivalent.

  2 Includes Remedial Gymnasts.

  3 Excludes helpers.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what are the projected levels of funding for the next three years for the Nottingham district health authority, expressing year-on-year changes as a percentage in both cash and real terms.

  Mrs. Currie
  The Department issues resource assumptions and allocates funds to regional health authorities which then determine district health authority funding. In 1988–89 Trent RHA's revenue allocation was increased to £1,050 million; a 6·3 per cent. cash increase or 1·7 per cent. in real terms. The initial resource assumptions for 1989–90 show a further real terms increase of between 1·5 and 1·7 per cent.; a revised assumption for 1989–90 and an assumption for 1990–91 will be issued in due course. The hon. Member may wish to contact the chairman of Trent RHA for information on funding for Nottingham district health authority.

  Examinations, Operations and Beds
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what are the current waiting lists for(a) examinations, (b) operations and (c) beds in each specialty in each hospital in the Nottingham health district.

  Mr. Newton
  The available information, for 31 December 1986, is given in the table. It should be noted that in certain specialties a clinician may maintain a waiting list which is common to more than one hospital within a district health authority.
  117

  In-patients waiting lists as at 31 December 1986, by hospital, Nottingham District Health Authority

  Hospital and Specialty

  Waiting list

  Nottingham City

  General surgery

  140

  Traumatic and orthopaedics

  290

  Urology

  77

  Plastic surgery

  1,160

  Thoracic surgery

  47

  Gynaecology

  658

  Total

  2,372

  Nottingham General

  Oral surgery1

  844

  Total

  844

  University

  Dermatology

  16

  Neurology

  22

  Geriatrics

  7

  General surgery

  811

  Ear, Nose and Throat

  1,491

  Traumatic and orthopaedics

  352

  Ophthalmology

  666

  Urology

  124

  Neurosurgery

  26

  Gynaecology

  355

  Total

  3,870

  Saxondale

  Total

  0

  Highbury

  Total

  0

  St. Ann's

  Psychiatry children

  1

  Adolescent psychiatry

  2

  Total

  3

  Basford

  Total

  0

  St. Francis

  Psychogeriatric

  11

  Total

  11

  Mapperley

  Mental illness

  22

  Total

  22

  The Coppice

  Total

  0

  1 Patients on the waiting list are treated at Nottingham City and University Hospitals.

  Bed Occupancy (Nottingham)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what were the bed occupancy rates in each specialty in each hospital in the Nottingham district health authority in 1987.

  Mrs. Currie
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. Goodlad) on 24 March 1988 at column 211.

  Cardiac Unit (Nottingham)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list all those who have made representations to him regarding a cardiac unit in Nottingham.

  Mrs. Currie
  We have received no such representations.

  National Health Service (Leasing)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what information he has on the use of leasing as a form of capital finance within the National Health Service.

  Mrs. Currie
  The National Health Service may employ leasing as a means of acquiring capital assets, but it should be used only where it represents best overall value for money to the Exchequer as a whole. Where leasing of capital assets is proposed the full costs of the leasing option must be shown to be lower than outright purchase, and the Department's and, in most cases, Treasury's approval is required. Leasing is not regarded as a form of additional capital finance for the National Health Service.

  Community Health Councils
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will seek powers to prevent community health councils from using public money for party political purposes.

  Mr. Newton
  Community health councils are established and funded by regional health authorities to represent the interests of the public in the Health Service. A community health council is independent both of the health authorities and the Department in the way in which it goes about its task. A community health council must, however, remain within the law and is accountable to the regional health authority for the way in which the funds have been used. If my hon. Friend has evidence of the misdirection of community health council funds to party political purposes I will arrange for it to be considered.

  Housing Benefit Scheme
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) if he will name the 45 local councils listed in his Department's housing benefit reform implementation progress report as not being ready to meet the deadline of 1 to 4 April for the implementation of the new housing benefit scheme;

  (2) if he will name the local councils which indicated in their replies to his Department's survey, "Housing Benefit Reforms April 1988: Progress on Implementation—Progress Report Form A", that they expect problems and delays with their computer software;

  (3) if he will name the local councils which indicated in their replies to his Department's survey, "Housing Benefit Reforms April 1988: Progress on Implementation—Progress Report Form A", that they expect problems and delays in training staff;

  (4) if he will name the local councils which indicated in their reply to his Department's survey, "Housing Benefit Reforms April 1988: Progress on Implementation—Progress Report Form A", that they expect problems and delays in converting existing cases to the new housing benefit scheme;
  119
  (5) if he will place in the Library the detailed responses from each local council replying to his Department's survey, "Housing Benefit Reforms April 1988: Progress on Implementation".

  Mr. Portillo
  I have placed in the Library a summary of the responses received to the questionnaire issued to local authorities by the Department in January of this year. It is not our practice to publish correspondence with individual authorities.

  Cigarettes and Tobacco (Regulation)
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he intends to follow the policy of the World Health Organisation on the regulation of cigarettes and tobacco.

  Mrs. Currie
  The World Health Organisation recommends that Governments should adopt a full range of policies on cigarette smoking and tobacco consumption. The Government have a comprehensive policy including restrictions on tobacco advertising and sponsorship, a ban on sales to children, controls on the composition of tobacco products and a programme on health education to make people aware of the dangers of smoking.

  World Health Organisation
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services which conferences held by the World Health Organisation were attended by officials from his Department in 1986 and 1987; and how many officials attended in each case.

  Mrs. Currie
  I regret that this information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what has been the annual contribution of the United Kingdom to the World Health Organisation since 1979.

  Mrs. Currie
  The United Kingdom's annual contributions to the World Health Organisation since 1979 were :

  Year

  £

  1979

  3,916,870·99

  1980

  4,487,613·48

  1981

  4,286,214·93

  1982

  5,548,167·23

  1983

  6,512,426·45

  1984

  7,484,053·40

  1985

  8,956,020·70

  1986

  7,730,188·60

  1987

  7,298,735·75

  The contribution is assessed in US dollars and the variations reflect, in part, fluctuations in the exchange rate.

  District Health Authorities
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list the amount of money paid in rates or in lieu of rates by each district health authority in England for the financial year 1987–88.

  Mr. Newton
  Health authorities' annual accounts for 1987–88 are not due for submission to the Department until the end of June 1988. Information for that financial year will be available in the autumn.

  Member's Correspondence
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects to reply to correspondence sent to him by the hon. Member for Gower dated 21 January with regard to Mr. Harris and his cataract operation.

  Mrs. Currie
  I wrote to the hon. Member on 29 March.

  Nurses
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many nurses are currently employed by health authorities in England; and how many are undertaking further training to improve the scope and standard of their skills.

  Mr. Newton
  There were 236,800 whole-time equivalent qualified nurses and midwives employed in the NHS in England at 30 September 1986.

  Information supplied by the English National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting showed that about 10,000 qualified nurses and midwives entered some form of post-basic nurse training during the year ended 31 March 1987. Details are :

  Numbers

  Midwifery, District Nursing and Health Visiting

  4,830

  Teachers training

  1,180

  Other Post basic training

  3,880

  In addition, an unknown number would have received further training organised by individual health authorities and in-service training.

  Whitley Hospital, Coventry
  Mr. John Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if following the decision to close the Coventry Whitley hospital, he will publish in the Official Report the letter from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) of 16 March 1988, to the Coventry district health authority about its duty to have regard to the particular circumstances of each elderly individual whose care provision will be transferred from the hospital consultants to the local housing association.

  Mrs. Currie
  The following is the text of the letter to the chairman of Coventry health authority."As you know we have been considering your proposals for the future pattern of services in Coventry and in particular the plans for the Whitley Hospital. We have weighed the arguments very carefully and have concluded that the proposals should proceed. We are satisfied that the proposals are in the best interests of patients and will allow more effective and efficient use to be made of health care resources in Coventry. In developing your plans for collaboration with the local housing association for the care of those elderly people not requiring consultant oversight in hospital, you will need to take into account the particular circumstances of each individual likely to be concerned.
  In agreeing to these proposals I hope you will bear in mind our concern that patients should not be compelled to transfer from NHS beds to a fee-charging home unless they have indicated their willingness to do so with a clear understanding on their part of the arrangements by which such charges would be met. You will continue to provide for patients in NHS beds under consultant care, who will require continuing nursing care and who do not wish to transfer to the new facility on the Whitley Hospital site."

  NHS Spending
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the present level of spending on the National Health Service; and what was the comparable figure in real terms in 1978–79.

  Mr. Newton
  The information is as follows:

  £ Million (at 1987–88 prices)

  1978–79

  1987–88 (estimated outturn)

  Gross National Health Service expenditure (Great Britain)

  15,687

  20,789

  Note:

  Expenditure for 1978–79 has been revalued using the GDP deflator.

  Patients (Physiotherapy)
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is his policy with regard to the treatment of NHS patients in need of physiotherapy continuing to be restricted to state registered physiotherapists.

  Mr. Newton
  We have no plans to change the current requirement of state registration as a prerequisite for the employment of physiotherapists within the NHS.

  Blood Donors (North Staffordshire)
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) for each year since 1983, what was the number of blood donors in north Staffordshire and the amount of blood collected from them;

  (2) how many people have been employed in the blood transfusion service in north Staffordshire in each year since 1983; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) whether there are any delays in the collection of blood from donors in north Staffordshire; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  I regret we do not hold this information centrally. The hon. Member may therefore wish to write to the chairman of West Midlands regional health authority, which is responsible for the blood transfusion service in the west midlands, for advice on these issues.

  Income Support
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will provide a breakdown of the extra expenditure on income support for families with children in 1988–89, broken down into expenditure incurred by transitional protection and expenditure not incurred by transitional protection; and, in each case, how much of this expenditure is attributable to compensation for the 20 per cent. rates contribution, on the same basis as his reply to the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East on 7 March,Official Report, columns 56–7.

  Mr. Scott
  Of the £150 million extra expenditure on income support for families with children in 1988–89, extra expenditure on transitional protection will be £20 million and that on structural changes £130 million.

  Extra expenditure on income support for families with children in 1988–89 to compensate for the 20 per cent. rates contribution will be £80 million. This relates entirely to the structural effect. However, in calculating the amount of
  122
  benefit payable at the point of change to income support, compensation for the rates contribution is also to be built into the supplementary benefit levels. But for this, the cost of transitional protection for families with children would have been reduced by £10 million and the total additional expenditure in 1988–89 reduced from £150 million to £140 million.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make it his policy to undertake to estimate the number of disabled claimants by constituency who will receive a lower entitlement under income support than they currently receive.

  Mr. Scott
  The effects of the reformed structure of income-related benefits on all the various client groups, including the disabled, will he monitored. It will not, however, be possible to provide information on an individual constituency basis.

  Family Credit
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how much of the extra £220 million to be spent on family credit from April is attributable to the freeze in child benefit.

  Mr. Scott
  About £18 million.

  Retirement Age
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services when he intends to bring forward proposals for retirement ages and pensions following the review he announced in answer to the hon. Member for Dorset North (Mr. Baker) on 25 February,Official Report, column 295.

  Mr. Scott
  We cannot at this stage predict when the work we are doing on considering options for change in pension age will yield results. In carrying forward this work, we must also have regard to the proposed EC directive completing the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in statutory and occupational social security schemes which is currently under discussion.

  Sight Tests
  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what estimates have been made of the reduction in numbers of people taking sight tests which will arise from the levying of charges.

  Newton
  [holding answer 25 March 1988]: It would not be practicable to attempt any such estimate, particularly in the absence of information about possible charges for sight tests conducted privately under the proposed arrangements. However, on the basis of experience with the more competitive market already introduced for spectacles, we would expect charges to be modest; and since some 30 per cent. of the population, including the least well-off, will continue to be entitled to a free NHS sight test, we see no reason to expect a significant reduction in demand.

  Government Expenditure
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what was Government spending on the
  123
  hospital and community health services per household as a proportion of the average household income in 1978–79, 1982–83 and 1986–87.

  Mr. Newton
  [holding answer 25 February 1988]: Gross expenditure on the hospital and community health services (United Kingdom) represented 4·5, 5 and 4·5 per cent. Of
  124
  average income per household in 1978–79, 1982–83 and 1986–87, respectively. However, as these figures are affected by changes in the number and composition of households, a more reliable indicator is expenditure per person which rose from £106 in 1978–78 to £198 in 1982–83 and to £249 in 1986–87.

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

Civil Protection
Viscount Mersey Viscount Mersey asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether all joint fire and civil defence authorities have supplied the civil protection information required by 1st April 1988 in the Home Office circular dated 30th October 1986, called A Planned Programme for Implementation.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, five fire and civil defence authorities have so far supplied the information required. We are in touch with the remaining two authorities.
Viscount Mersey: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Is he aware that there are very specific requirements for information which must have been provided by 1st April; to wit, to provide complete details about:
"collection and distribution of information on the results of attack … control and co-ordination of action … and advice to the public"?
Noble Lords: Reading!
Viscount Mersey: My Lords, I am reading from the document. Can my noble friend confirm beyond peradventure that all joint fire and civil defence authorities have complied to the letter with the requirements and that there is no element of creative compliance?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I do not know how one gives a guarantee beyond peradventure. However, I can say that we expect to receive the submissions of both authorities shortly. The early indications are that "creative compliance", as my noble friend delightfully uses the expression, is less widespread than some may have feared.

Premature Baby Care: Manchester
2.40 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether there have been any further developments leading to the restoration of the five beds that were closed down in the premature baby unit in the St. Mary's Hospital, Manchester.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Skelmersdale): My Lords, as I told the House on 23rd February, the beds in the premature baby unit were
972
reduced on the advice of the medical staff working in it. Since then arrangements have been made for two extra cots at a cost of £125,000 as a result of the £1·5 million allocated to the North-Western Regional Health Authority under the Government's special bridging fund initiative. They will open shortly.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I welcome the restoration of two beds. However, is the Minister aware that, on the figures which I gave when I last put the Question, the average number of deaths before 12 months of age in Manchester was 100 per cent. higher than the national average? Those figures were obtained when 15 beds were still available.
Is it not a fact that, although there has been a restoration of two beds, the situation is that the Manchester area has suffered a cut of 20 per cent. rather than one of 33 per cent? In those circumstances, is it not realistic to assume that the percentage of deaths above the national average will again increase? Will the Minister keep that matter under review?
Lord Skelmersdale: Not necessarily, my Lords. I am advised by the neonatal unit of St. Mary's Hospital in Manchester that the percentage of low-weight babies surviving in 1976 was 5 per cent. and that in 1987 the figure was 50 per cent. Over and above that, central Manchester has a high concentration of regional specialities, including neonatal intensive care, and the regional health authority has undertaken to conduct a comprehensive review of regional specialities. In so doing, it has asked all health authorities to provide two cots each for neonatal intensive care. The noble Lord may well be right as regards the figures for central Manchester. However, I believe that the problem should be viewed region-wide rather than centralising inquiries on a specific hospital in a specific district.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, when a regional authority is deciding to close wards or abolish beds, does the ultimate approval have to come from the department? Does the department seek the views of the professional bodies within that regional organisation?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, it is a long-established practice in those matters that the district in control of the situation has to consult the local community health council or councils. If they cannot reach an agreement between themselves, the matter goes up to regional level. If there is still no agreement, the matter comes to ministers in the department which I serve. At that point, when ministerial decisions are being made, there is no approach to unions or to anyone else. The matter is decided on the papers that are submitted.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, does the Minister accept that by definition premature babies are patients who cannot be put on waiting lists? Is it not clear, from the figures which the Minister has given to the House, that there has been a net reduction in the number of beds for premature babies in the Manchester area? Added to the loss of such beds

973
from the Duchess of York's Hospital for babies in Manchester, does that not create a serious situation?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I must repeat what I said to the noble Lord, Lord Dean: not necessarily. Of course I accept that premature babies, or indeed any babies, cannot be put on a waiting list, for obvious reasons. The important point is that the service should be region-wide or within that part of the region where it is necessary and should not necessarily be concentrated in one particular hospital.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, the Minister gave an explanation of how the issue proceeds if there is disagreement. Can he say who would be involved from the initial disagreement right up to the regional level? Would it be the professional organisations or others as well? In other words, which parties would be disagreeing with government?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the disagreement initially would be between the community health council or councils depending on the area and the district health authority which wants to carry out the closure.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, in view of the very high figures which my noble friend has quoted of deaths of children in the first 12 months of life, is the Minister satisfied that replacing two out of five beds is satisfactory? Is it not right that there should be a total restoration of the number of beds which have been cut and which are desperately needed not only in Manchester but across the country?
Lord Skelmersdale: No, my Lords. I think that the noble Lord is using the word "cuts" in a slightly loose fashion. What has happened in this particular case is that the doctors and nurses involved decided to approach the general manager of the district so that they could concentrate on very very low weight babies for which fewer cots were needed. The more normal low weight deliveries—as one might call them—would then be treated at other hospitals in the immediate vicinity. That is what is happening.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, was it not originally a shortage of money which led to a shortage of staff? That is the point I was trying to make to the Minister.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, no; emphatically not. There has been no cut in the funding or staffing of the unit. As I have said, the reduction was made on medical advice in order to use existing nursing staff more effectively.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I accept his answer to my previous Question that there has to be a regional perspective to the problem? However, would he not agree in principle that premature babies born in the centre of Manchester have as much right to survival as babies born outside Manchester? If he concedes that principle, will he keep the matter under review in an urgent sense in order to prevent the tragedies which are occurring and which may well be preventable?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, most certainly I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dean, that premature babies born in the centre of Manchester have as much right to survive as those born in the surrounding areas. I shall certainly make it my business to keep myself informed as to whether this policy is failing. However, present indications are that it is not.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, will the noble Lord not agree that while the babies may have the same right to survive they may not have the same chance to survive?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I would not agree. That is why I undertook to keep the matter under continuous review.

Listed Buildings: Alleged Statement
2.47 p.m.
Lord Kennet Lord Kennet asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the recently reported statement of the Earl of Caithness that "buildings should not be listed if the public does not like them" represents their policy.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, my right honourable friend's policy on listing is as set out in Section 54 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 and in DoE Circular 8/87. I made no such remark.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, may the House take it that the noble Earl will share with me the wish that the Sunday Telegraph should give as much prominence to the Answer he has just given the House as it did to his alleged remark a few weeks ago?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am sure that we all wish the press to report us accurately.
Lord St. John of Fawsley: My Lords, does my noble friend realise that many people are grateful to the Secretary of State for exercising economy of listing in the buildings put up in the 20 years from the beginning of the war? With regard to the alleged remark of my noble friend, is it not true to say that in architectural matters the public judgment is very often better than that of the experts, and if it had been listened to more often we should have had rather better architecture today than we have?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am very happy to agree with my noble friend.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, will the Minister accept that many of us regret that he has repudiated the statement which he was alleged to have made by the Sunday Telegraph, as it is not very often that Ministers make statements in simple English without any prevarication?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as a final decision had not been made by the time the report appeared

975
in the Sunday Telegraph, it was not surprising that I did not make the statement.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that right through history styles of architecture have had their popularity and their unpopularity, and then perhaps their popularity again? Does he agree that if one eliminates all the unpopular ones at the time when they are unpopular, there is no chance of their returning to popularity because there are no buildings left?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord makes a very valid point.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, is not the right criterion for listing buildings that which was placed upon the tomb of a certain Mr. Longbottom: vita brevis, ars longa?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am sure that my noble and learned friend is right.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, is not listing supposed to indicate that the piece of architecture concerned was distinguished in its period? If so, would it not be a good idea for the noble Earl now to put down a marker to the effect that the mock classical buildings, which we have all seen with absolute horror are proposed for the Thames frontage at Canary Wharf, should never be listed in the future and indeed should never be built at all?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the listing criterion is architectural or historic interest.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, can the Minister say who is responsible for finally deciding what is a listed building? Can I have an assurance that whatever happens the Marsham Street building will never be listed?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is ultimately responsible for listing. I believe that the DoE building was not completed until the late 1960s or early 1970s and we have not got round to that stage of listing. However, I am sure that in due course the Secretary of State will bear in mind the noble Lord's views.

Defence Contracts: Competition
2.51 p.m.
Baroness Sharples Baroness Sharples asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress they are making in encouraging greater competition for defence contracts.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, progress has been significant. We have extended the list of potential suppliers to include more new firms, advertised contracts more widely and continued support for companies from the Small Firms Advice Division. As a result, in the year to February 1968 contracts placed by competition amounted to 80 per
976
cent. and 70 per cent. by volume of land and air systems work respectively and 40 per cent. of sea systems, even taking account of non-competitive Trident contracts.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that extremely encouraging reply. Can he confirm that Her Majesty's Government insist on strict quality control over electronic components for military weapons, especially for the weapons to come, which are the high-tech weapons of the future?
Lord Glenarthur: Yes, my Lords, I can give my noble friend that assurance. Competition is certainly no way of getting round the high quality assurance standards, which of course remain paramount.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, does the Minister recall the House being told in 1986 that awarding the AWACS contract to Boeing would result in the creation of 4,500 new British jobs, although in fact it resulted in the cancellation of Nimrod with the loss of 2,000 jobs? Will the Minister comment upon that matter? Now that it has been revealed that £4 billion of the annual £8 billion equipment budget was unforeseen expenditure, does he not agree that that is a scandal and a disgrace for a government that pride themselves on being efficient and cost-effective and even boast about it?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, with respect to the noble Lord, I think that the latter part of his supplementary question is rather wide of the particular and specific Question on the Order Paper. Nevertheless, so far as concerns AWACS and the history of that business, perhaps the noble Lord is aware that that took place before the particular competition initiative began.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is quite relevant to the Question that, in spite of the welcome increase in the amount of competitive tendering, the most outrageous overcharging still goes on in many parts of defence procurement? Can he say whether there has been an increase in the proportion of contracts awarded to the smaller firms?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I think it is true that there could well still be overcharging. However, perhaps I can give the House two examples which were quoted in the 1987 Defence Estimates. As a result of the competition policy there have been 30 per cent. savings on a contract for sonarbuoys on the prices previously paid under single source procurement arrangements and savings of almost 50 per cent. over the last non-competitive price in a competition for training missiles. I think that that goes some way towards indicating that the policy is effective. So far as concerns small firms, about 2,000 small firms have contacted the Ministry of Defence as a result of the small firms initiative and a number of them have indicated that they are keen to be involved in defence work.
Lord Morris: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that there is no better evidence that Her Majesty's Government are encouraging greater competition in this field than their determination to go for international tendering in certain instances?
Lord Glenarthur: Yes, my Lords, it is important that we continue to do that, provided of course that the quality assurance is kept up to scratch, as my noble friend Lady Sharpies suggested.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether there is anything in the new competition system, which he described and which is surely welcome, that will help to get rid of the perpetual cost over-runs which are so much of a problem in defence procurement—that is to say that one obtains a nice, low price after a competition and then the supplier does not stick to it?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I hope so. There is also of course considerable scope for competition at the sub-contract level, which may go some way toward preventing the sort of problem to which the noble Lord refers.
Lord Ironside: My Lords, in encouraging greater competition in defence contracting, can my noble friend say what is the extent of government policy now in inviting foreign bidders to take part in the competitions? Within the figures mentioned for what went out to competitive tendering in the past year, can he say, by value, what proportion was awarded to foreign firms?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot give my noble friend the detail for which he asks but I shall find out and let him know.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, can the noble Lord say anything about the order for four frigates which must be placed this year if the Navy is to have 50 ships of that kind, which I take it is still the target, and if the shipyards are to retain their labour forces? Is he aware that Swan Hunter on the Tyne, which now has a labour force of 3,300, will have to start reducing it early next year unless some of those naval orders are forthcoming?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot go into detail on specific contracts, but if there is anything that I can find out and let the noble Lord know, I shall of course do so.

Business
2.57 p.m.
Viscount Long: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House to know that over 60 noble Lords have so far expressed a wish to speak at the Second Reading of the Education Reform Bill, and in view of this it has been agreed through the usual channels to spread the debate over two days; namely, Monday 18th and Tuesday 19th April.
The Third Reading of the Regional Development Grants (Termination) Bill will be deferred to the first business on Thursday 21st April. The Third Reading of the Employment Bill will be deferred to the first business on Monday 25th April.
With the leave of the House, I should like to say a few words on the conduct of the debate on the Second
978
Reading of the Education Reform Bill. It is proposed to treat the two days as a single debate with winding-up speeches at the end of proceedings on Tuesday only. Some noble Lords had expressed the hope that it might have been possible to debate the schools provisions on one day and higher education on another, but it has been agreed through the usual channels that such a division of a Second Reading debate would be impracticable in that it would deprive noble Lords of speaking on both parts of the Bill. I am sure that your Lordships will agree that this decision was the right one.
I should also like to take advantage of this opportunity to remind noble Lords that in order to be consistent with the normal conventions and courtesies of the House, speakers taking part in the debate should be present for both the opening and winding-up speeches. Therefore noble Lords who propose to speak should make sure that, save in the most exceptional circumstances, they can be present on both days of the debate. The list of speakers will close at 11 a.m. on Monday, 18th April (the first day) and the order of speakers will be drawn up by the Whips' Office in the usual way for both days of the debate.
Turning to today's business, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that, subject to the progress of business, the Report stage of the Immigration Bill may be adjourned at approximately 7.30 p.m. for approximately one hour and that during this adjournment the Town and Country Planning (Compensation for Restrictions on Mineral Working) (Amendment) Regulations 1988, the Criminal Injuries (Compensation) (Northern Ireland) Order 1988 and the Minors' Contracts (Northern Ireland) Order 1988 will be taken.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Long, for making that statement on behalf of the Chief Whip. Perhaps I may thank him for so readily agreeing to representations from all parts of the House that there should be a second day's debate for the Second Reading of the Education Reform Bill.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I also thank the noble Viscount for the decision to make it a two day debate. It is by popular demand. I am glad that the government business managers have seen their way to provide for this.
The only other comment I should like to make is on the agreement through the usual channels that a division between schools provisions on the first day and higher education provisions on the second day may be impracticable. I accept that it is impracticable to do that in any formal sense. I believe that it is still possible in an informal sense. Noble Lords may wish to cast their speeches in that way.
Viscount Long: My Lords, I am most grateful to both noble Lords for their kind remarks about the procedure for debate on the Education Reform Bill. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, and the House will understand sympathetically how these arrangements have been made during the past few days.

British Railways Order Confirmation Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936) deemed to have been read a second time and reported from the Committee.

Immigration Bill
3.1 p.m.
Report received.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 1:
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause:
("Members of diplomatic missions.
. At the beginning of subsection (3) of section 8 of the principal Act (exemption from immigration control for members of diplomatic missions etc) there shall be inserted the words "Subject to subsection (3A) below," and after that subsection there shall be inserted—
"(3A) In the case of a member of a mission other than a diplomatic agent (within the meaning of the said Act of 1964) subsection (3) above shall apply only if he enters or has entered the United Kingdom—

(a) as a member of that mission; or

(b) in order to take up a post as such a member which was offered to him before his arrival;

and references in that subsection to a member of a mission shall be construed accordingly." ").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of your Lordships if I speak to Amendments Nos. 1 and 18 together.
The amendment to Section 8(3) of the 1971 Act is being proposed to address an area of actual and potential abuse. I apologise for introducing this amendment at a fairly late stage in the Bill, but we are anxious to take this opportunity to deal with a problem.
The problem arises from the fact that at present Section 8(3) of the Immigration Act of 1971 confers exemption from immigration control on all members of a mission within the meaning of the Diplomatic Privileges Act 1964, together with members of their family forming part of the household. This extends to all locally-engaged staff; that is to say, someone who has come to this country for another purpose and has then been taken into employment by a mission. But locally-engaged staff are not generally accorded any other form of diplomatic immunity or privilege.
Immunities and privileges are not granted to locally-engaged staff if they are permanently resident in the United Kingdom. In effect, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office considers all locally-engaged staff to be permanently resident unless it receives formal notification from the mission to confirm that an individual is only temporarily resident and that he intends to depart when his employment in the United Kingdom finishes. In practice, at present all locally-engaged staff are exempt from immigration control, while virtually all enjoy no other form of immunity or privilege.
This exemption is exploited by people who seek to prolong their stay in this country when they would not otherwise qualify to do so. There is scope for abuse in two ways. First, missions may employ people who are already in the United Kingdom as
980
illegal entrants, or on temporary admission, or as overstayers. This employment places the person concerned beyond immigration control. He cannot be deported; nor can he be made subject to the immigration legislation. In effect, such a person can stay in the United Kingdom for so long as he remains employed by the mission.
Secondly, missions may be used as safe havens by prospective overstayers. An immigrant awaiting the outcome of an appeal against a refusal to vary his stay can join the staff of a mission and remain there even after his appeal has failed. He cannot then be deported. The control can also be frustrated by those who would otherwise be in breach of no-employment conditions, that is, people who are admitted as visitors or students, for example.
We are not concerned here with those who are appointed as full diplomatic agents. The problem relates to those who take up administrative and technical posts or service staff such as chauffeurs or caretakers. These are the positions that are the subject of the proposed amendment.
The effect of the new clause will be that locally-engaged staff in these non-diplomatic posts and their families will no longer be exempt from immigration control. Missions will continue to be able to employ locally-engaged staff in these categories provided that their immigration status enables them to take employment. It may also be possible for others to be employed in these categories, but only if the mission notifies the Foreign and Commonwealth Office of their appointment in accordance with the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office will then need to be satisfied that the individual is in bona fide employment and is entitled to immunities and privileges.
The proposed amendment puts into practice the advice which was given to missions by the Vice-Marshall of the Diplomatic Corps that they should not employ people who would not otherwise be permitted to work in the United Kingdom.
The proposed amendment would not apply retrospectively. Those already employed by missions would retain their exemption from immigration control while they remain in that capacity. These arrangements will be fully explained to missions before the amendment comes into effect. The proposed consequential amendment to Clause 11 will provide for the amendment to Section 8(3) to be brought into effect by means of a commencement order.
This is not an enormous problem at present. However, the fact remains that this loophole has been exploited in the past, and so long as the potential for abuse remains, it is likely to be exploited in the future. The Government have therefore taken this opportunity to improve the effectiveness of our immigration control arrangements in this area by means of this amendment. I commend it to the House. I beg to move.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, the fact that this proposal arises from advice given to missions generally by the Vice-Marshall of the Diplomatic Corps gives it great strength. Are we unique in acting

981
upon that advice, or will this be generally applied? That there should be a limit to the possibilities of abuse by those purporting and claiming to be members of diplomatic missions is clearly a wise and necessary step. To what extent shall we be unique in this regard, or will there be reciprocal arrangements made in and for other diplomatic missions in other countries? Will the rules also apply to our own diplomatic missions abroad?
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, as I understand it, the noble Earl indicated a few moments ago that this is not a major problem. His precise words were that it is not an enormous problem. How many cases have there been? It would be very helpful if he could answer that question.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it is difficult to answer the question of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, because one does not know all those cases where people have taken advantage of the system. I could not therefore give the noble Lord an accurate answer. However, I can tell him that there have been quite a number of cases.
In reply to the noble and learned Lord, I am grateful to him for taking that attitude. When the Vice-Marshall of the Diplomatic Corps has given this advice it is obviously of considerable importance. The noble and learned Lord asked whether we are unique in this aspect. So far as I know, we are unique in this country in having a Vice-Marshall of the Diplomatic Corps. I am not certain what happens in other countries. Perhaps they have their equivalent. I cannot say what the effect will be in other countries. Nor can I tell the noble and learned Lord whether there will be any reciprocal action. All we are saying is that people who take employment in missions should be those who are entitled to be employed and that those who are abusing this entitlement, and thereby escaping immigration control, should not be entitled so to continue.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I hope that the noble Earl will forgive me, but I do not think he quite caught the point that as I understood it my noble and learned friend was advancing. This was the point, I believe: is the noble Earl saying that this is a common protection in regard to immigration where members of the mission are concerned? In other words, does it apply in other countries? Are we likely to be affected by this clause in regard to membership of our missions abroad? I believe that was the point of the question. I am advancing it now because of our rules at Report stage that only one speech is permitted.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, unfortunately I can speak only with the leave of the House. I do not know whether the House wishes to give me that leave.
Noble Lords: Granted!
Earl Ferrers: I took the noble and learned Lord's point quite well, even though it was re-emphasised by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. What I cannot tell him is what effect this will have on other countries. Other countries have their own immigration rules and we have to abide by them. Presumably they are different from our immigration rules.
982
We are merely seeking to ensure that people do not abuse our rules. I hope the noble Lord will accept that. While he was being good enough to explain the point, which I understood in the first place, I have been able to find out that in 1986, among those who took up employment which entitled them to exemption from immigration control, there were—in answer to the specific question of the noble Lord, Lord Harris—119 overstayers or illegal entrants and 286 were subject to non-employment conditions. The great majority of these were employed as members of missions.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McNair Lord McNair moved Amendment No. 2:
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause:
("Appeal against return of asylum applicant to country where he fears persecution.
.The following subsection shall be inserted after section 13(3) of the principal Act—
"( ) The limitation of subsection (3) above on the exercise of the right of appeal against refusal of entry shall not apply in any case in which a person is to be removed to a country where he claims to have a well-founded fear of persecution on grounds of race, religion, nationality, membership of a social group or political opinion." ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I must admit straight away that I am in deep water on this. It has a marked similarity to an amendment which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, moved in Committee as Amendment No. 10 and which reappears today on the Marshalled List. At Committee stage the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, gave a by no means totally hostile response to the amendment. In fact at the time I thought he was downright friendly. He has since been kind enough to send me a copy of a letter which he sent to the noble and learned Lord. I hope to hear later what he thought of the letter he received and of the copy of the order which it contained.
However, this amendment differs from that one in that it refers to a different section of the principal Act. The other amendment referred to Section 15, which deals with repeals in respect of deportation orders, whereas the amendment I am moving now refers to Section 13 of that Act, which deals with appeals against exclusion from the UK.
To a non-lawyer the distinction is a trifle technical, but presumably if someone is excluded from the United Kingdom he is likely to find himself subject to a deportation order unless he learns of his exclusion before he has set out on his journey to this country. The position is further complicated by the fact that my amendment refers to Section 13(3) of the principal Act and this is to be repealed or altered by Clause 3(2) of the Bill. Hence my confusion and my inability to explain my amendment with the clarity I should like and for the lack of which I apologise.
However, if the principle is conceded that we cannot, must not and will not deport anybody to a country in which he has a well-founded fear of persecution on those well-known convention grounds—which I need not repeat—then surely both Sections 13 and 15 of the principal Act should be amended in such a way as to reflect that principle. I beg to move.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I can readily understand why the noble Lord finds that this might be confusing to the House. I am wondering whether some sensible arrangement cannot be made which will commend itself to him and to the House. It seems to be foolish to have a debate on these two clauses separately. Although I believe that originally it was thought sensible to have Amendments Nos. 2 and 8 grouped together, I wonder whether the House and the noble Lord, Lord McNair, will accept that it would be desirable to have Amendment No. 5 also spoken to in regard to this matter. Precisely the same principles apply.
I hope that I shall obtain the leave of the House later to speak for a second time on this group of amendments since my only reason for rising is to try to save the House in a procedural sense from wasted time in dealing with another amendment which covers the same principle.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am sure that noble Lords will agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, in that we should consider these various alternatives together not only to save time but because they are such closely linked matters.
It may surprise some noble Lords to be reminded that I am in favour of our doing something in the Bill about the way in which asylum cases are handled. Indeed this was the only point at Committee stage on which I agreed with noble Lords opposite. I have not changed my mind on that, although I have an open mind still as to the best method of dealing with it. Fortunately in our country we have a very long and admirable tradition of granting asylum in genuine cases. It is a jurisdiction—an exercise of the prerogative on behalf of the Crown, I believe, originally—which has always been exercised by the Home Secretary, generally in person. These cases are not very numerous compared with other immigration cases. My recollection is that they have nearly always gone to the Home Secretary for him to consider himself.
Owing to the strange and disturbed world in which we live, the number of applications for asylum has greatly increased in recent years. The difficulty of Home Secretaries in dealing with them has also increased. There are now so many cases in which people may merely have been political dissidents or wrongdoers in some way of another as well in their own countries and they think that the solution to their personal problem is to come to this great, free country of ours to claim the right of asylum in the hope that it will be granted.
I believe that it is right while we are legislating on immigration that Parliament should have some idea of the way in which the Home Secretary will in future exercise his discretion, especially in dealing with those awkward borderline cases. At the same time Parliament should give a degree of moral support to the Home Secretary on occasions when he must refuse cases which do not appear to be genuine. However, an answer to that point is contained in the phrase, "well-founded fear". That phrase appears in Amendment No. 2 and again in Amendment No. 5.
984
We must understand whether that expression is intended to apply an objective test (for which I would hope) or whether the movers of the amendments consider that it should be a subjective test (with which I would not agree).
It is quite clear that Amendments Nos. 2 and 5 are alternative ways of doing the same thing. However, Amendments Nos. 3 and 8 appear to be alternative ways of doing different things. That is not a good way of puting it; "different ways of doing different things" is a better phrase. As regards Amendment No. 3, I see no harm in a code of practice, although I prefer to see issues stated in principle in an Act of Parliament, so long as one does not enter into too much detail. As regards Amendment No. 8, I would be opposed to that suggestion. Bearing in mind the history of this matter, in exercising a discretion—originally a prerogative discretion—we should not be establishing an independent review board which would take away responsibility from the Secretary of State, albeit by means of an appeal. I hope that my noble friend will not accept Amendment No. 8 although I have an open mind as regards the other amendments.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, in considering these amendments we come upon a sombre feature of contemporary civilisation, if that is not too pompous a way of putting it. It is the extent of the denial of human rights and of persecution which exist in different parts of the world. When one looks at the business of the Human Rights Committee of the United Nations one sees the immense variety of issues with which it is called upon to deal: for example, deportation and depatriation on a massive scale; torture; imprisonment without trial; and a whole range of denial of human rights which is now a feature of the contemporary world. There are now probably as many if not more people seeking refuge from persecution than there have been at any time in our lives. We in this country can claim a reasonable record of the regard for our duty to refugees from countries in which they were liable to persecution.
In dealing with this matter, we think it right to set out clearly the rights of refugees and to ensure that those rights and possibilities for having their cases considered are embodied in the law and not in mere orders. Perhaps I may put the matter in that way, but not without paying due regard to the efforts made by the noble Earl in meeting the point in the draft order he has set. It has the limitation of being an order and not something embodied in the Act. It is therefore more capable of amendment, cancellation or revocation than would be the case if it was desired to change a fundamental statement in regard to this field of human rights, such as would be embodied if the language proposed in Amendment No. 5 was included in the Bill. It is stated quite firmly as limiting the restriction of the right of appeal against deportation in cases of breach of limited leave, as dealt with in Clause 4. Added to the words:
"except on the grounds that on the facts of his case there is in law no power to make the deportation order for the reasons stated in the notice of the decision"

985
are the words in Amendment No. 5 which read:
"or on the ground that he has a well-founded fear of persecution in the country to which he is to be deported on grounds of race, religion, nationality, membership of a social group or political opinion.".
As the noble Lord, Lord McNair, has indicated, that reflects what is now well established in international conventions. Indeed, it reflects the wording of the 1951 United Nations convention on the status of refugees and the protocol to that convention. This country is a signatory to that convention which prohibits the removal of any person to a country or territory where he has a well-founded fear of persecution. That is a well-established condition.
Although we appreciate the fact that the order, to which the noble Earl will refer when the opportunity arises, makes some reference to the inclusion of that language, it is nevertheless an order the making of which is within the entire authority of the Secretary of State. One of the remarkable features of the Bill is the arbitrary power that it gives to the Secretary of State. Clause 4 restricts the right of appeal against deportation in cases of breach of limited leave. Subsection (2) reads:
"Subsection (1) above applies to any person who was last given leave to enter the United Kingdom less than seven years before the date of the decision in question but the Secretary of State may by order exempt any such persons from that subsection in such circumstances and to such extent as may be specified in the order.".
I do not believe that it is an appealable order. Its terms are not capable of amendment, save under the terms of the provision in the clause which states that:
"The power to make an order … shall be exercisable by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament".
The word used is "annulment" and not "amendment".
Therefore, while we greatly appreciate the thought that has been given to the order and to this matter, we believe that at this of all times, when crazed governments are creating appalling problems for their citizens, the rights and possibilities for civilised countries to deal properly with refugees in the international scene has now become a vital aspect of the humanity of societies and of governments. With great respect, I invite the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, to give thought to this matter once again. His sympathy for it and his attitude towards it have been shown, but I beg him to make the decisive leap from a mere order to embodying this principle in the Bill and subsequently in the Act of Parliament.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I wish to make an apology to your Lordships' House. I regret to say that I have an engagement at 5 o'clock and I must leave at 4.30. Therefore, I shall be away for an hour or two but I hope to return afterwards.
Having said that, I have great pleasure in supporting the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord McNair and in following on the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones. The amendments in question, severally, joined together or themselves amended, return to the important question which I believe lies at the heart of this Bill; namely, the right of appeal. It is an involvement of
986
the law as opposed to administrative law in the execution of our immigration policies.
I am much heartened that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, sees force in principle in the amendments proposed. I add that, although the numbers involved, to which he has referred, have markedly increased since 1981, in the last year they have somewhat diminished. Of course the number of refugees goes up and down according to events outside this country and according to the acceptance or rejection of regimes in other countries which are well beyond our control. Therefore, I do not attach much significance to those rises and falls over the years.
Lord Renton: My Lords, when the noble Lord says that numbers have increased, is he saying that the number of those who have been granted asylum has increased or the number of those applying for it, including those applications which were refused?
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I take my evidence from Social Trends, which shows that the numbers applying between 1979 and 1986 have increased and in conjunction with that that the numbers granted asylum increased but have now decreased to lower than the number for 1979, the number of those granted exceptional leave to remain having increased to higher than the number in 1979. I can supply the noble Lord with the figures if he so wishes.
Therefore, the centre of this whole argument is the right of appeal. I do not believe that we are requiring very much of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, in asking him to consider seriously the proposal made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, whereby some redress would be provided for administrative procedures when they go wrong.
I add that almost all organisations connected with refugees have advocated a right of appeal and that that right of appeal is based on the recommendation of the Wilson Report of 1970, a most remarkable and important document. Paragraph 84 of that report, Cmnd. No. 3387, states:
"The other main argument in favour of an appeal system rests on a basic principle. Its advocates contend that, however well-administered the present control may be, it is fundamentally wrong and inconsistent with the rule of law that power to take decisions affecting a man's whole future should be vested in officers of the Executive from whose finding there is no appeal. In our opinion, these critics have reached the heart of the matter".
That is a very considered and important conclusion from a considerable lawyer. I believe that the Government would do well to take it seriously and I hope that the noble Earl will find it persuasive.
I said that almost all organisations interested in refugees have recommended a right of appeal. The Minister of State will remember that the 1984 Select Committee on Race Relations in another place recommended that there should be a right of appeal and that in 1985 the Government rejected the recommendation but on grounds that are of some interest today. The grounds on which it was rejected were the existence of the judicial review, that representations by Members of Parliament could cause a stop to deportation and that there was referral to UKIAS. Since then the referral procedure has been modified: representation by MPs no longer

987
provides a stop, and judicial review, as the noble Earl will agree, has its limitations and is not a substitute for an appeal on merits. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, said, if we abandon this and do not accept the amendment we may be in breach of Article 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
In Committee I referred to this country's proud record in the 19th century as a refuge and place of asylum to which people from all over Europe came when they were victims of persecution. Our record in the 1930s in respect of the receptionof Jewish refugees from Germany was not as glorious. It was better than some but could have been better still. However, I know that that record could have been worse. I dread to think what would have happened to many of those refugees who found a home here in the 1930s if this legislation unamended, had been on the statute book then.
All that this legislation hopes to do is to ensure refugees a right of appeal, that their right of appeal is protected by statute and that they are not simply victims of executive administration. I hope that the noble Earl will listen to the plea from this side of the House and to what the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has said.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, mercy and the guardianship of our traditional history do not constitute a monopoly for any part of your Lordships' House. This is one of those series of amendments on the Bill when I believe that in every section of the House there is what the noble Lord, Lord Renton, described as an open mind but at the same time a receptive mind as to how best we deal in this era of all eras with our participation in the relief of the problems of genuine refugees.
We are considering three amendments against the background of the Minister's generous statement in Committee when we were considering somewhat similar amendments. I know that the noble Earl will not mind—indeed he may appreciate it—if I quote what he said in Committee on 21st March:
"As has been said from all sides of the Committee it refers"—
and he is talking about the amendment—
"to the very basic position of people who are seeking asylum. It is right to remember that we are discussing Clause 4, which refers to the restricted right of appeal against deportation".
The noble Earl then quoted Clause 4(2) of the Bill, and continued:
"We believe that it is quite right to take account of those who are concerned about asylum. We recognise that asylum applications give rise to very special considerations and in this Bill we have made provision to ensure that in certain circumstances those who have been in this country for fewer than seven years are not denied a right of appeal—because it is with that that we are concerned—which is able to take account of asylum questions.
I do not believe that there is anything between us on this issue because it is the Government's intention to make that point clear by means of an order".—[Official Report, 21/3/88; col. 67.]
What we are dealing with at Report stage is a decision by this House, which I hope is united in all its sections, on the best way of dealing with the issue of those who come to our shores and claim the right of asylum. I am sure that the Minister will join in endeavouring to obtain the best answer to this problem. Following upon the undertaking which he
988
gave to try to see whether we could look at any order that might deal with this problem before the Bill left this House, the Minister courteously sent to certain noble Lords a draft of that order. I should like the noble Earl to listen to the reasons why, in spite of that generosity in sending us a draft order, we beg him to consider that that is not the correct answer to the problem.
The first point I make is one that has already been made. Orders are all very well; they can be altered so easily. They are administrative affairs and they are not known to the world outside. The Immigration Act will be known and read in the world outside. I believe that this House, of all places, wants to pass an Immigration Bill in which the world can see that we have made specially fair provisions for those who are genuine refugees and who enter our shores in accordance with convention, and the ordinary principles of mercy which we have shown very generously in the course of our history. It is for that reason that that provision should be put into this Bill and not be left to an order.
In commenting upon the question of procedure—namely, whether it should be in the order or whether it should be enshrined in an Act of Parliament—the noble Earl said that he felt the difficulty in including it in an Act of Parliament was that it might need an amending Act, whereas one could deal with an order in a different way should one require to amend it in the future. That almost emphasises the point that I was trying to make about the ease of altering an order. If we are careful about the wording that we use in regard to this matter, is it really likely that we will want to amend? If an amendment were necessary, is it so difficult to ensure that that amendment is brought before Parliament if the real need arises? That is the first point.
The second point arises out of the content of the draft order. I realise that the House is in some difficulty, because although I have the draft others may not. It has been made perfectly clear by the noble Earl—I want to emphasise this—that this is not a promised draft. The Minister in his courtesy and with his usual lucidity in regard to these matters pointed out that this was really a first draft and that it may be altered in the course of time before it emerges as a final order.
I believe I can make clear to the House what is intended in the order. In the draft the following matters arise. In its thinking (if I may put it that way) the draft order exempts from Clause 4(1) of the present Bill,
"any person who claims that his deportation would be contrary to the United Kingdom's obligations under the Convention and Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees".
Later the order says that a person so exempted,
"may appeal under Section 15 of that Act against a decision to make a deportation order against him on the grounds that"—
and the words are almost repeated by way of saying that,
"his deportation would be contrary to the United Kingdom's obligations under the Convention".
There is another ground; namely:
"that on the facts of his case there is in law no power to make the deportation order for the reasons stated in the notice of the decision".

989
For all practical purposes we can ignore the latter provision because it is most unlikely that a deportation order would be made if there was no power to do so.
We are therefore left with the bare right of appeal under the provisions of this draft order. I emphasise the fact that it is a first draft and the noble Earl in no way committed himself to this as the final wording. I have already said why I do not think it should be an order, but we are left with an order where the bare right of appeal is limited to the fact of its being the deportation order which is contrary to our obligations.
In order to bar any right of appeal the answer that the Government can so easily give—I am not thinking of any specific government and certainly not of this one, but we are legislating here for all types of government—is, "We have looked at the bare definition in the convention. We take the view that however we might have been moved, and possibly should have been moved, by mercy in this case, it is not within our obligations under this convention to admit. That may be by virtue of numbers or the fact that there is a nearer country over whose borders this man might have gone together with his family instead of coming to us; but this is no obligation". If there is no obligation then there is no right of appeal.
The next point is that quite apart from objecting to an order as against legislation, I feel that we ought not to be satisfied with the wording of the order as it is at present going through the Minister's mind. Within our legislation there ought to be a right of appeal where someone can make a prima facie case that he fears persecution and the fate that might befall him and his family within the meaning of this amendment. The amendment, of course, follows the wording of the convention.
I now turn to the best way of dealing with such an appeal. I respectfully say to the House that there ought to be a completely independent and specialised body to which such an appeal can be directed. It will have experience of the condition of refugees, of the genuineness of refugees, and it will be able to meet on an ad hoc basis. This body would be, as set out in Amendment No. 8, an asylum review board. What would it be doing, we having told the world that this is what we are prepared to do in regard to our participation in the rescue of refugees?
It would examine decisions to refuse applications for asylum. Those appeals would be from persons,
"who claim to have a well-founded fear that the country to which they are to be removed will return them to a country where they have a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion".
The board would have power to direct that,
"a person shall be granted a right of appeal to an adjudicator if the Board finds the person's fear of being returned to a country where he fears persecution reasonable".
It would go to the adjudicator if that prima facie case was shown to the satisfaction of the review board.
Bearing in mind the sympathy expressed by the Minister at col. 67 of the Official Report of 21st March, it may well be that he will have something
990
more advantageous, more tidy and more sensible to put forward than our amendments. My colleagues and I do not claim (and I am sure that the noble Lords, Lord McNair and Lord Bonham-Carter, will not claim) that we want to do anything other than produce a proper, practical result uniting with our colleagues throughout the House. I await with some anticipation the Minister's reply, which I hope will be sympathetic. One will then be able to decide the best method of proceeding for the benefit of one section of the community alone, and certainly not for the benefit of any political party. The section of the world that I am talking about at this moment are our refugees.
Lord Walston: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Earl is just as anxious as noble Lords who have spoken and have put their names to the amendments that this country should not return a would-be asylum-seeker to a country where he will be persecuted on the grounds that are set out here. It is simply a question of how to ensure that. It is all very well to say that the decision rests with the Secretary of State. However, as realists we know perfectly well that the Secretary of State has no time to investigate personally the pros and cons of the arguments put forward by the asylum-seeker. He obviously, and rightly, has to take the word of his officials.
In many cases—I do not say all cases—we know that the decision is taken at the relatively low level of the immigration officer and then moves up through the hierarchy. We want to establish that the asylum-seeker will have an opportuntity to put his case in the best possible light for himself, and not simply to one man who has to deal with a myriad of would-be entrants into this country, some of whom are legitimate and some, unfortunately, who are without good grounds for coming. We want to establish that the asylum-seeker will have his opportunity of convincing an experienced and impartial body that if he is returned to his country of origin he will be in danger of persecution on the various grounds set out. Surely the best way of achieving that is to give him the right of appeal to just such a body, which is experienced and impartial, and at the same time give him the opportunity of producing, probably with professional assistance, evidence which will support his case. Very often that will not be possible for him to do under the present circumstances.
The proposals put forward in the three amendments go a long way to ensuring that what we all want should be done, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, rightly pointed out, should be seen by the rest of the world to be done. It is our desire not simply to keep out as many people as we possibly can but to keep out those who are trying to find a loophole in our legislation and to allow into this country those who are in genuine fear of persecution in their own countries. I share the hope expressed by other noble Lords that the noble Earl will look with favour on the principles behind the three amendments, whether or not he accepts them in toto, and if he fails to do that he will hold out some hope of other methods of achieving the common end so that not only he and his colleagues but all noble Lords who have spoken in support of the amendments are satisfied.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, I have dealt with immigration cases over the years and I am convinced that the setting up of appeals tribunals has improved conditions tremendously. By allowing people to go to an adjudicator and if necessary to the appeals tribunal we have improved conditions tremendously for people seeking through the immigration rules to enter this country. The conditions of asylum-seekers are much more serious. If a mistake is made someone may be sent back who has a genuine fear not merely of his liberty but also of his life.
We are dealing with somebody for whom the decision is of the utmost importance. Therefore it is even more important that we should try to get it right. The proposal that we have some form of appeal machinery for asylum-seekers in those circumstances is one which I feel every Member of your Lordships' House should consider seriously. As the Minister is the person who will have to deal with it immediately, I hope that he will consider it more seriously than anybody else.
As has been said by other speakers, the method is a matter about which we shall have to have further debate this afternoon but the principle needs to be accepted. If we accept the principle, it needs to be in statute. I understand from what we have heard so far that the Minister is proposing to do something via an order. I join the appeal to him that if we accept the principle, let us make sure that we put it in statute.
4 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McNair, said when he moved the amendment that he was in some confusion. I fear that I am in even more confusion now because it appears that we are talking not just to his amendment but also to Amendment No. 8, which deals with the Asylum Review Board. Both amendments deal with people arriving at the ports. At the same time we are dealing apparently with Amendment No. 5 in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, which concerns appeals against deportation—in other words, people who are leaving. I think that we have got ourselves into a modest disarray. Even if the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, shakes his head with the clarity of mind which he always has, those of us who do not have such an advantage find it a little more confusing than he does.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said that we need to take care of the position of genuine refugees. On that aspect there is nothing between us. Indeed, it is an expression I have used before and I use it again: we are anxious to take care of those who are genuine refugees. My noble friend Lord Renton said that we must keep an open and receptive mind in the matter. I hope that we shall because we are anxious to get the balance right and it is a difficult position to be in.
The purpose of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord McNair—Amendment No. 2—is to introduce a form of in-country appeals system for those who arrive at our ports and claim asylum. The present position is that those people have a right of appeal, but of course it is exercisable only from abroad.
992
The argument in favour of the amendments is clear: that it is unsatisfactory that people who claim to be in fear of persecution—indeed, perhaps in fear of their lives—should be expected to return to the very country in which they fear persecution while they wait for an adjudicator to decide whether their fear is well-founded. I can understand and sympathise with that argument. Those are important issues which the Government take most seriously and which we have considered with great care.
The essence of our objection lies not so much in the fact that we do not want to look after the genuine refugee but in the fact that such a system, which permitted asylum applicants to remain in the country while their appeals were heard, would open the way to widespread abuse and delays which would ultimately have the effect of undermining our asylum determination procedures.
My noble friend Lord Renton said that the number of asylum-seekers is on the increase. He is quite correct. Indeed the experience of other countries points in that direction. For example, if one looks at the Canadian system, one sees that at present all asylum applicants have access to the appeals system within that country. The number of asylum applications has risen from 1,600 in 1980 to almost 30,000 in 1987, with a backlog of more than 40,000 cases outstanding, which is rising at a rate of about 2,500 each month. The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, chivvied us in Committee about the length of time taken by the appeals system. I ask him now to address his mind to the Canadian situation and to think what would happen to our appeals system if that practice were to be followed in this country.
Since May 1986 Canada has succeeded in removing only 140 of the total number of unsuccessful asylum applicants. The backlog in that respect was so bad that she even granted an amnesty in May 1986 when 22,800 asylum claimants were allowed to remain, irrespective of the merits of their case. However, even that measure did not help the situation. In the words of the Canadian Minister of Employment and Immigration:
"Canada's refugee-determination system is strained to the breaking point".
As a result, Canada has had to introduce legislation, which is now before her parliament, designed to streamline such procedures and, hopefully, to contain what she sees as the present abuse of the system.
However Canada is but one example; Denmark provides another. After introducing a more elaborate refugee determination procedure, Denmark found herself facing greatly increased numbers of asylum applications; in one month alone they received 3,000 which was a five-fold increase. As a result of that Denmark has also had to modify her procedures.
I cited those examples as an indication of the general trends which exist elsewhere. I am not, however, suggesting that, if the United Kingdom introduced a port appeals system, we would find ourselves, as Canada has, with 30,000 applications in one year. My point is merely that it would be unrealistic to expect that the United Kingdom alone would be immune from such pressures.

993
It is of course impossible to say precisely what effect the introduction of a port appeals system would have. It is, however, relevant to consider the number of people who at present have no in-country right of appeal and who are refused leave to enter this country each year. Last year there were about 19,000 such people. If all that those people had to do, in order to ensure that they were not immediately removed from the United Kingdom, was to claim asylum, it seems to me to be fairly safe to assume that a large proportion of them would do so.
It is reasonable to ask what effect that would have on the appeals system. At present there are about 100 port arrivals per year who have an in-country right of appeal—that is, people with entry clearances or work permits—and who exercise that right. It takes two to three months for their appeals to be heard by an adjudicator, with further delays if the case then goes to a tribunal or if there are applications for a judicial review. It takes little imagination to guess what would happen if the number of appeals increased even tenfold to 1,000—and the likelihood must be that the numbers would be far greater—especially when one realises that the potential is about 19,000 already, and that the introduction of the system would encourage others to try their luck.
Although the United Kingdom has not experienced such a dramatic rise in the number of asylum applications as many other countries have, the numbers nevertheless have tripled since 1979 while the proportion qualifying for refugee status has declined from 60 per cent to 13 per cent. So more people have applied— unsuccessfully—for asylum. However, over the same period between 70 per cent. and 80 per cent. of asylum applicants have in fact been allowed to remain in the United Kingdom merely because, although the majority do not qualify for refugee status, it has become impossible to remove them because of the passage of time. Therefore, if we start building even greater delays into the system, as the amendment requires, those figures would rise still further, and I do not believe that that would be a satisfactory situation.
We do not therefore believe that an in-country appeals system is a feasible proposition. In our view a better approach would be through a revised referral system which would allow an independent view to be put forward in the majority of port cases. Referral arrangements of that sort, which would involve a 24-hour turn-round of cases where safe third countries were concerned, are presently under discussion between the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service (UKIAS), the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and the Government. It would not be right for me to provide any details about those proposed arrangements as they are still under discussion, but we hope that it will be possible to reach agreement on a satisfactory scheme.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said in relation to the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, (Amendment No. 5) that we should be satisfied with an order. In Committee I said that I would consider whether it would be possible in the short time available to produce a draft order. The
994
noble Lord then very courteously and correctly said that what was produced was not written in tablets of stone and therefore could well be changed. However, we did produce a first draft of an order and I hoped that he would agree that this would effectively meet the objections and the points which he sought to enshrine.
The order will provide a right of appeal, on asylum grounds, to the appellate authorities against the decision to make a deportation order. That right of appeal will apply irrespective of the length of time that a person has been in the country. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, spurned the fact that the draft order could be amended, but the whole point of a draft order is that it can be amended, and not just for asylum-seekers; it includes those people who have left on a trip abroad during the currency of their leave.
I had hoped that your Lordships would have considered that it was appropriate to keep the order-making power in the Bill, but not because some terrible trick is going to be played. If there were some terrible trick, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and your Lordships could always complain and could refuse to accept the order, because it will be subject to parliamentary resolution. The advantage of keeping it is that it preserves a measure of flexibility. It enables any government to take account of the possibility that additional categories of people might, at some future stage, be regarded as meriting exemption, without the need to introduce primary legislation.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Earl, but he made a statement which I do not think is strictly accurate. The House does not vote against such orders. It may discuss them, but it does not vote against them.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords the purpose of a negative resolution is that the order is put down and comes into effect unless Parliament decides against it. If a debate is held and the order is voted against in either House, the order fails.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, does the noble Lord accept that it is the convention of the House that we do not vote against such orders?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, whatever the convention, that is the right of Parliament. It is the right of both Houses. It depends upon the orders. The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, shakes his head, but I well remember the Stansted order being voted against in the House many years ago, before, if I may say so, we had the advantage of having the noble Lord with us. That created the most fearful row. The Stansted order was considered here, and I think I am right to say was voted against. Anyhow, the Government withdrew it. The noble Lord will remember what then happened to Stansted Airport.
Having had that mild diversion, perhaps I may return to the point of this series of amendments. I understand the noble Lord's great concern to see that the genuine refugee seeker is permitted asylum. I can assure your Lordships that a genuine refugee is normally easily identified and will be granted refugee status. In some cases where there is real doubt the

995
asylum-seeker may be granted exceptional leave to enter. It is because we are concerned that people should not abuse the system that I am hesitant to invite your Lordships to accept the amendment.
Lord McNair: My Lords, the amendment which I so hesitantly moved a long time ago has received powerful support, and not only from this side of the House. I must admit that the noble Earl's somewhat deadpan response has not encouraged me. To hear those administrative arguments when we are discussing the most fundamental human rights matters is profoundly depressing. I have always felt that the 1951 convention on refugees was perhaps the noblest and most unsordid collective act of the governments of the world that there has ever been. I regard our adherence to that convention and to the principles underlying it as perhaps the most important test of our national reputation. I feel obliged to ask the House to agree with me.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 91; Not-Contents, 146.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Amherst, E.

Leatherland, L.

Ardwick, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B

Attlee, E.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Aylestone, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Banks, L.

Lockwood, B.

Basnett, L.

Longford, E.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

McNair, L.

Bottomley, L.

Mayhew, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Mishcon, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Molloy, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Mulley, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Nicol, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Oram, L.

Carter, L.

Parry, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Peston, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Saint Brides, L.

Ennals, L.

Seear, B.

Ezra, L.

Serota, B.

Falkland, V. [Teller.]

Shackleton, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Shaughnessy, L.

Foot, L.

Shepherd, L.

Gallacher, L.

Stallard, L.

Galpern, L.

Stedman, B.

Glenamara, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Grey, E.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Grimond, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Hampton, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Hanworth, V.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Underhill, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hooson, L.

Walston, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Hunt, L.

Whaddon, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Wigoder, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Willis, L.

Jacques, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Jay, L.

Jeger, B.

Winstanley, L.

John-Mackie, L.

996

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Aldington, L.

Kimball, L.

Allerton, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Annan, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Arran, E.

Kitchener, E.

Auckland, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Balfour, E.

Layton, L.

Bauer, L.

Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, E.

Beaverbrook, L.

Long, V.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Beloff, L.

Luke, L.

Belstead, L.

Lurgan, L.

Bessborough, E.

Lyell, L.

Birdwood, L.

McFadzean, L.

Blake, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Blyth, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Margadale, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Marley, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Merrivale, L.

Broxbourne, L.

Mersey, V.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Milne, L.

Butterworth, L.

Milverton, L.

Caithness, E.

Monk Bretton, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Moran, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Morris, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Mottistone, L.

Carnock, L.

Munster, E.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Nelson, E.

Chapple, L.

Newall, L.

Chelwood, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Coleraine, L.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Onslow, E.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Orkney, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Pender, L.

Daventry, V.

Penrhyn, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

De Freyne, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Derwent, L.

Porritt, L.

Dulverton, L.

Portsmouth, E.

Dundee, E.

Renton, L.

Elibank, L.

Ridley, V.

Ellenborough, L.

Rochdale, V.

Faithfull, B.

Romney, E.

Ferrers, E.

Rugby, L.

Fisher, L.

St. Davids, V.

Fortescue, E.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Gainford, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Selborne, E.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Selkirk, E.

Glenarthur, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Grafton, D.

Shannon, E.

Greenway, L.

Sharpies, B.

Gridley, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Somers, L.

Haddington, E.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Strange, B.

Terrington, L.

Halsbury, E.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Thurlow, L.

Harvington, L.

Trafford, L.

Havers, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hesketh, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hives, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Hood, V.

Ward of Witley, V.

Hooper, B.

Whitelaw, V.

Huntly, M.

Wynford, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Yarborough, E.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.22 p.m.
Lord McNair Lord McNair moved Amendment No. 3:
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause:
("Code of Practice on asylum application.
. The Secretary of State shall cause to be published from time to time a Code of Practice covering all aspects of the consideration of applications for asylum in the United Kingdom made under the terms of the 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees and the 1967 Protocol thereto.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 3. Your Lordships will have noticed that this amendment has certain similarities with Amendment No. 12, which stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. My amendment is a much shortened version. The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, is unable to be here today and he asked me to move his amendment on his behalf; but at present I am talking to Amendment No. 3. I shall inevitably cover the same ground as with No. 12, and what I shall do is listen to the noble Earl's response to this discussion and then decide which amendment to withdraw and which to press.
Both of them ask that the Secretary of State should publish a code of practice covering all aspects of the consideration of applications for asylum in the United Kingdom. The longer version which the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, put down lists some of those aspects, though I must say I do not regard the list as being an exhaustive one and there may be some quite important omissions involved.
My version simply asks for the publication of a code of practice and leaves its contents to the discretion of the Home Office. This is no new request. Organisations set up with government help to assist refugees and asylum seekers have long been asking for this. It would help them; it would help their clients; and I think it would also help our immigration officers, for whom asylum seekers represent something of a departure from their normal line of work. This is a very minimal request. We are not asking for any change in the law. We are merely asking that for the purpose of clarification the Home Office should do something which I should have thought it would willingly do of its own volition. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, when we were discussing the last amendment in the previous debate on asylum—a very important debate which lasted one and a quarter hours—the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, made what I said was a wise suggestion: that we should consider these other amendments on asylum together. I must confess I had overlooked the amendment put down by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, though I saw it on the Marshalled List last week.
My noble friend Lord Ferrers gave a very full reply to that last debate, which seemed to me to cover everything that really could be said on these further amendments. In particular, my noble friend said—and he gave very strong reasons for doing so—that a right of appeal from the decisions of the Home Secretary in cases of asylum is simply not on.
The noble Lord, Lord McNair, has said that there is nothing new in having a code of practice and there would be nothing new in such a code of practice as is
998
contained in his amendment. But Amendment No. 12, by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, would cause big changes to be made, including the right of appeal to which that amendment refers in subsection (2)(a). So I hope that we can deal with this matter quite briefly and I really would not expect my noble friend Lord Ferrers to give a sympathetic reply.
Lord Mishcon: But I would, my Lords. I have more faith in the noble Earl than presumably some of his colleagues have. First, perhaps I may make the point that when I suggested to the House, and the House was good enough to agree, that similar subjects should be taken together since our speeches would be concentrated on them and the time of the House would be saved, we were dealing purely and simply with the right of appeal. That matter was put to the House and the House, to my personal regret, has decided in a certain way in regard to the right of appeal. With all due respect to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, we are now dealing with an entirely different matter. It has nothing to do with appeals. It has—
Lord Renton: My Lords, if we are referring to Amendment No. 12, as the noble Lord, Lord McNair, invited us to do, that in fact refers to appeals, as I mentioned.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I said—and the noble Lord, Lord Renton, will have heard me—that the amendment we are dealing with, which is Amendment No. 3, has nothing to do with the question of appeals. We have not reached the other amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, is not at the moment in his place, and for all I know that amendment may not be moved. I merely say, in order to be perfectly frank with the House, that when I read his amendment I thought it went far too far to stand any chance of being accepted by the Government. I would in all frankness make that remark if and when the amendment is moved.
What we are considering at the moment, I repeat, has nothing to do with appeals or appeals procedures. What it has to deal with is this. How with uniformity—and I use one of the favourite words of the Minister—and how with flexibility do we deal with the consideration of applications by refugees? What we are asking for here—and we join with the noble Lord, Lord McNair, in this amendment—is a code of practice to be produced which can be varied from time to time, thus giving all the flexibility that the noble Earl seeks in these matters, and which lays down what are the matters to be considered when dealing with the question of refugees.
It will be of great use to immigration officers. It will be of great use to those organisations which look after refugees, because they will be able to point to the code of practice, and say whether they are within that code or without that code if they are helping refugees. It will be helpful to civil servants. It will be helpful to the outside world, which will now find no specific reference to the convention in the Bill such as that for which we are asking or to the care of refugees in the particular respect to which the previous amendments were related. Obviously also there will be great help in the ordinary citizen, and indeed in a refugee and

999
the advisers of a prospective refugee, knowing the way in which his application would normally be treated and what would be the main points of consideration which those who were dealing with him would, and should, have in mind.
The noble Lord, Lord Renton, is always very helpful, and I am sure he will agree with me that it would be unhelpful if on this occasion anyone looked at any other amendment which is not being grouped with this at the moment but which is being dealt with on its own so far as I am concerned—namely, Amendment No. 3—and was confused into thinking that we are also voting on any other amendment at all.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, and because he has so kindly referred to my attitude on this, let me say that I was going simply by what the noble Lord, Lord McNair, said when in moving his Amendment No. 3 he referred to Amendment No. 12 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. He said that the noble Lord had asked him to move it and then started commending it.
Lord McNair: My Lords, with the leave of the House I think I can clear this up. I only referred to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, as a courtesy to the absent noble Lord because he had asked me to do so. It is perfectly clear that I am moving Amendment No. 3, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has said, and that we are not considering the later one.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that clears up one little problem. I had thought that, had we taken the earlier amendments one by one, instead of in threes and fours, it would have been easier. I also thought that, had we taken the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, with that of the noble Lord, Lord McNair, that would have been easier too. But the noble Lord, Lord McNair, said no; he would just move his amendment even though he referred to the other one so I shall endeavour to address such remarks as I have to make to his amendment. But inevitably the two are linked together and it is quite difficult to see how to separate them without leaving the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, totally unanswered.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said that he had a great deal of faith in me, much more than my noble friend behind me. I found that touching. I should like to be able to accommodate him on this as on so many other matters. But the amendment which the noble Lord, Lord McNair, has moved requires the Secretary of State to draw up a code of practice which both he and the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, think is highly desirable. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton—and I only refer to this as a courtesy, just as the noble Lord, Lord McNair, referred to it—would specify the particular matters which the code is to cover, while the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord McNair, and the noble Lord, Lord Chitnis, leaves this to be determined presumably by the Secretary of State.
1000
So far as the rules and general principles are concerned, these are already available. The United Kingdom is bound by the provisions of the 1951 United Nations Convention on the Status of Refugees which sets out the test for refugee status and various other provisions relating to the treatment of refugees. In applying the provisions of the convention, officials in the Refugee Unit of the Immigration Department are guided by the advice contained in the United Nations Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status. The Immigration Rules also contain provisions relating to asylum-seekers. Since all these provisions are already generally available, I suggest to your Lordships that there seems little point in requiring my right honourable friend to republish them.
Moreover these documents together already effectively cover the whole area of asylum procedures and it is difficult to see why in this area of immigration practice alone a separate additional code of practice is required. There is no such code governing other aspects of immigration control in respect of which there is perhaps not such comprehensive guidance as already exists in the asylum area.
That is an area of law and practice which is subject to constant review. Last year alone there were, for example, four significant legal judgments which affected our procedures and practices. In the circumstances it is clearly essential that we have a system which is sensitive and able to respond flexibly to developments and changing circumstances. I believe it would be unwise to limit our ability to respond in this way by drawing up a code of practice which would inhibit future developments.
As for the other matters which are to be covered by the noble Lords' code, a number already represent existing practices. Immigration officers are, for example, already being given training in asylum matters and the majority of asylum applicants who are not otherwise represented are referred to the United Kingdom's Immigrants Advisory Service, while those refused asylum at a port are given detailed reasons for their refusal. As for explanatory literature for asylum-seekers, the Government are only too ready to discuss with the various interested organisations the form and content of such literature; indeed, we have already had discussions with the British Refugee Council on this very matter.
I should point out that neither the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord McNair, nor indeed the one which we are not referring to, which is that of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton—but were we referring to it the same objection would apply—seeks to make the code enforceable in any way. This could be said in part to meet the objection which I have raised that a code would have an inhibiting effect. On the other hand, if it is not enforceable there does not seem very much point in having a code. So I hope your Lordships will agree that on the whole it is better to leave the system as it is in the Bill.
Lord McNair: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Earl for that reply, which I should like to study and consult about with those who know more about

1001
this matter than I do. For the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 [Restricted right of appeal against deportation in cases of breach of limited leave]:
Lord Elwyn-Jones Lord Elwyn-Jones moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 3, line 17, at end insert ("or on the ground that he has a spouse, parent or child settled in the United Kingdom and that deportation is not therefore appropriate".
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 4 is a modest amendment and I think that it, for a change, stands alone. It refers to spouses, which indicates more than one party. This arises from Clause 4 of the Bill, which restricts the right of appeal against deportation in cases of breach of limited leave. Subsection (1) provides that,
"A person to whom this subsection applies shall not be entitled to appeal under section 15 of the principal Act against a decision to make a deportation order against him"
Then the provisions in paragraphs (a) and (b) are set out:
"except on the ground that on the facts of his case there is in law no power to make the deportation order for the reasons stated in the notice of the decision".
The amendment proposes to add another exception on the ground that the person in question,
"has a spouse, parent or child settled in the United Kingdom and that deportation is not therefore appropriate".
The amendment therefore proposes that if a person threatened with deportation can show that he has a spouse, a parent or a child settled here and deportation is not therefore appropriate, the adjudicator hearing the deportation appeal would be enabled to take into account the fact that the person concerned has relations, a family, a spouse, parent or child, settled in the United Kingdom. In other words, if the person concerned is settled here with a family base, deportation of that person would not be appropriate. This is a straightforward, simple, and humane consideration. At any rate it carried the sympathy of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, when he said in Committee:
"Family ties, together with any other compassionate circumstances which may be present, will continue to be taken into account before a decision to deport is taken." [Official Report, 21/3/88; col. 63.]
That is splendid, so far as it goes. But, in my submission, it is sufficiently important to be embodied in the Bill itself. It goes directly to the important issue of maintaining the unity of families settled here in this country. We have said on more than one occasion that the Bill threatens to undermine that.
This is a straightforward and humane proposal that seeks to keep families together. In the circumstances described, where deportation would clearly be inappropriate, it is right that this should be a consideration in the mind of the adjudicator when he has to determine an appeal. I beg to move.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, this matter was debated and, I thought, quite thoroughly debated, in
1002
Committee. It seemed to me at the time that this amendment was wrong and that one could carry family unity too far. I gave an example of a murder case in which I prosecuted where a man who was married in this country took unto himself a mistress. He murdered the mistress and the court ordered imprisonment for life in the usual way and made a deportation order. The case went to the Court of Appeal on the question of whether a deportation order was appropriate in the circumstances of the sentence of life imprisonment. There was no question as to whether there was a spouse, admittedly.
A family which is over here might include several sons, one of whom has committed a number of crimes making him eligible for deportation by order of the court. It is absurd that because he happens to have other members of his family here, he should be given a right of appeal against the deportation order. That is not a right of appeal within the ordinary structure of our system of justice; it is a right of appeal granted under our immigration laws.
I can easily see a conflict arising between, for example, a deportation order which has been the subject of an appeal in the Court of Appeal and a deportation order which is the subject of an appeal under Section 15 of the principal Act. It does not seem to me to make sense, with great respect, that we should have this amendment.
I take up a point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, who said that he and his noble friend supporting the amendment were merely asking, on compassionate grounds, that the fact that there is a spouse or other member of the family here should be taken into account when deciding whether there should be entitlement to an appeal. However, if one reads through the amendment, it is not merely a question of taking that matter into account. It would mean, I understand, that the fact that there was another member of the family here would entitle the person concerned to appeal against the deportation order. It is not a matter of discretion; it is a matter of entitlement.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, I cannot see what is wrong with that. The Bill says that if a person is to be deported because of a breach of limited leave or by virtue of being the member of a family that is to be deported, he cannot appeal except on the grounds that the facts are different. In effect, that is what the Bill says. All the amendment says is that the fact he has a spouse and children here and therefore has some serious attachment to this country should be one of the grounds on which he makes an appeal. It does not follow that his appeal will be successful; all the amendment does is to allow that fact to be taken into account.
We read a great deal in the press about families in difficulties as a result of the deportation often of the father leaving a mother with children here. It may well be that in the final analysis, after hearing the appeal, the adjudicator will still think the right course is for that person to be deported. But, certainly, it is right that the conditions that would be created by his deportation are taken into account.
As I see it, all this amendment asks is that when a person makes his appeal, it should be not only that,

1003
on the facts of his case, there is in law no power to make the deportation order but also that he has ties with this country by virtue of having a spouse, children or a parent here that should be taken into account. That is all that the amendment asks. It asks that an appeal that there is in law no power to make the deportation order should be made not only on the facts of the case but also on the basis that there are ties in this country by virtue of having a spouse, child or parent here. Unless there are serious grounds for not allowing it, the amendment seems to me to be extremely reasonable.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, perhaps I may add briefly to the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, raised a point which should be dealt with. I believe he suggested to the House that, on the wording of the amendment, the mere fact that someone could say that he had a spouse, parent or child settled in the United Kingdom would entitle him as of right to a successful appeal.
Lord Renton: My Lords, no, to appeal.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, if the noble Lord says, "to appeal", then that must be right. If he had said that someone was entitled merely on proof of such facts to succeed on appeal, that would obviously have been wrong. I should have then referred the noble Lord to the words of the amendment. If that is the noble Lord's understanding, it is correct.
The ground of an appeal would be that there was a child, spouse or parent settled in the United Kingdom and it would therefore be inappropriate for a deportation order to be made. That is the wording of the amendment and that would be the ground of appeal. At the moment, the Bill is harshness with an underlining. The only ground of appeal against deportation, as regards a breach of limited leave or a person belonging to the family of someone who has been ordered to be deported by virtue of Section 3(5)(a), would be in regard to a stay of seven years in this country. The number of deportations which would be made for people who had been here for seven years would be few and far between.
It is all very well using examples involving murder cases, which one hopes are somewhat exceptional, and speaking of someone who has a spouse and a mistress, and who has murdered the mistress. It is all very well to take the cases of wicked people. I should rather the House concentrated on those who are not wicked and who have merely overstayed their leave, applied and been told that they must go. Under the clause, having to go means literally being deported from these shores with the consequent breaking up of a family.
If we were arguing that the mere decision to do that should not be operative, I could well understand your Lordships' saying that there may well be cases where it should be operative. However, we are only saying that if a person can show that he has such a link with this country and has a settled child, spouse or parent, then he should have a right to go on appeal, argue his case and say that deportation would not be appropriate and would break up a family quite needlessly.
1004
We are merely asking for the right of appeal. Many decisions have been taken so far in your Lordships' House which, in my submission, are very harsh. I ask your Lordships not to add to their number by resisting the amendment.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, said that this was a simple, straightforward and humane amendment and that he wished it to be given consideration. Of course one gives it consideration. However, I am bound to say that it would drive a coach and horses through the philosophy of Clause 4. The noble Lord, Lord Pitt, said that he wanted appeals to include not only on the facts but also on compassionate grounds and that the amendment was very reasonable.
I think it may be helpful if I remind the House briefly of what Clause 4 does because I think that there was some uncertainty about that during our debate in Committee. Clause 4 is not in any way concerned with the appeal rights of people who are refused entry clearance overseas, nor with people who are admitted to this country and then apply to extend their stay here but are refused. In both cases, there is a wholly separate right of appeal, unaffected in any way by Clause 4.
Clause 4 is concerned only with people who have broken the law, either by remaining here when their permission to do so has expired, or by breaking the conditions of their admission. They have broken the law. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said that the Bill was "harshness with an underlining" and that the amendment was reasonable. I repeat that it refers only to people who have broken the law.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, also said that after seven years people will be, as it were, all right. After seven years the position is that both the facts and the compassionate grounds can be considered together. Until such a person has been in this country for seven years, we consider that in appeals it is proper that only the facts should be considered.
The intention of Clause 4 is quite deliberately to restrict the scope of appeal hearings to the facts for people who have been here for a comparatively short period of time. When someone has been here for fewer than seven years and has broken the law, quite simply our view is that the fact he has broken the law should take priority at appeal over any other arguments which might be brought forward in his favour.
The Government's objective in Clause 4 would be totally defeated if the adjudicators were required to give priority to the question whether someone has a spouse, parent or child here rather than to the fact of whether a person has overstayed his leave or taken employment when specifically prohibited from doing so.
Having said that, I have said on previous occasions that family ties and any other compassionate factors that may be present will of course be taken into account before a decision to deport is taken. If subsequent representations are made up to the moment the deportation order itself is signed, then those compassionate circumstances will be considered. There is no question of such matters

1005
being ignored altogether. The point is that we do not believe that it is right or proper for those compassionate matters formally to be taken into account at appeal hearings against deportations involving people who have been here for fewer than seven years.
At the Committee stage, your Lordships were concerned about this problem. I undertook to consider whether there were any steps which we could take to resolve the uncertainty which some noble Lords felt—particularly the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon—as to whether adjudicators can or cannot recommend the use of the discretion of the Secretary of State on compassionate grounds. I sought to reassure the Committee on that occasion that I am by no means convinced that there is such uncertainty. The appellate authorities are wholly independent of the Home Office and they are appointed by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor.
However, my officials have written to the Lord Chancellor's Department drawing attention to what was said in the Committee's debate on the issue.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I hesitate to interrupt the noble Earl, but he will know that the matter with which he is now dealing is entirely separate from this amendment and forms the subject of Amendment No. 9. I shall be arguing the case on Amendment No. 9. I am sure that he would not wish me to argue it now.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I was merely adopting a happy precedent which seems to have been part of this Report stage in which we consider a number of amendments together. I was not addressing my remarks specifically to Amendment No. 9 but was merely saying that at Committee stage the noble Lord was concerned that those factors might not be taken into account. However, I shall leave that point and shall not make too much of it.
The point that I seek to make is that we believe that it is right that in appeals only the facts should be considered: has the person broken the law or has he not? If the time comes later for a deportation order to be made, all the compassionate circumstances will be taken into account by my right honourable friend before he signs the order.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, I confess that I was hoping for a more sympathetic reply from the noble Earl, who indicated some sympathy in the course of our earlier discussion in Committee.
What it sought is to enable the adjudicator to be clothed with the duty, if that is not putting it too highly, or at any rate with the right to consider the domestic circumstances of the person who may be deported. The case of the single person with no roots in the community in the form of a family is one thing, but where somebody is settled and well established here with a family that surely is a circumstance which should properly be taken into account. It is astonishing that that is thought to be an unreal and almost improper consideration. I am afraid that I must seek the views of the House.
5.2 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 4) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 82; Not-Contents, 151.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Leatherland, L.

Amherst, E.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Ardwick, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Attlee, E.

Lockwood, B.

Aylestone, L.

Longford, E.

Banks, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Basnett, L.

McNair, L. [Teller.]

Boston of Faversham, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Bottomley, L.

Mishcon, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Molloy, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Mulley, L.

Caradon, L.

Nicol, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Oram, L.

Carter, L.

Parry, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Peston, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Dean of Beswick, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Rea, L.

Ennals, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Ezra, L.

Seear, B.

Falkender, B.

Serota, B.

Falkland, V.

Shackleton, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Stedman, B.

Foot, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Gallacher, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Galpern, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Glenamara, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Gregson, L.

Tordoff, L.

Grey, E.

Underhill, L.

Grimond, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hampton, L.

Walston, L.

Hanworth, V.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Whaddon, L.

Jacques, L.

Wigoder, L.

Jay, L.

Willis, L.

Jeger, B.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

John-Mackie, L.

Kagan, L.

Winstanley, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Aldington, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Allerton, L.

Carnock, L.

Arran, E.

Chelwood, L.

Auckland, L.

Coleraine, L.

Balfour, E.

Colnbrook, L.

Bauer, L.

Colwyn, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Beloff, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Belstead, L.

Craigavon, V.

Bessborough, E.

Cranbrook, E.

Birdwood, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Blake, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Blyth, L.

Daventry, V.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Denham, L. [Teller]

Brookeborough, V.

Denwent, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Dulverton, L.

Broxbourne, L.

Dundee, E.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Elibank, L.

Butterworth, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Caithness, E.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Ferrers, E.

1007

Fisher, L.

Nelson, E.

Fortescue, E.

Newall, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Norfolk, D.

Gainford, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Onslow, E.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Orkney, E.

Glenarthur, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Grafton, D.

Oxfuird, V.

Greenway, L.

Pender, L.

Gridley, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Haddington, E.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Porritt, L.

Halsbury, E.

Portsmouth, E.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Rees, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Renton, L.

Harvington, L.

Ridley, V.

Havers, L.

Rochdale, V.

Hesketh, L.

Romney, E.

Hives, L.

Rugby, L.

Holderness, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Hooper, B.

St. Davids, V.

Hunter of Newington, L.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Huntly, M.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Selborne, E.

Kinnaird, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Kinnoull, E.

Shannon, E.

Kitchener, E.

Sharples, B.

Lauderdale, E.

Shaughnessy, L.

Lawrence, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Layton, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, E.

Strange, B.

Long, V.

Terrington, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Teynham, L.

Lurgan, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Lyell, L,

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

McFadzean, L.

Thurlow, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Trafford, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Trumpington, B.

Malmesbury, E.

Tryon, L.

Margadale, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Marley, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Merrivale, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Mersey, V.

Weir, V.

Milverton, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Monk Bretton, L.

Wynford, L.

Moran, L.

Yarborough, E.

Morris, L.

Young, B.

Mottistone, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Munster, E.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.10 p.m.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 5:
Page 3, line 17, at end insert ("or on the ground that he has a well-founded fear of persecution in the country to which he is to be deported on grounds of race, religion, nationality, membership of a social group or political opinion").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, many noble Lords have promised to be brief. I promise also to be brief and I shall keep that promise. This amendment deals with Clause 4 of the Bill and the limitation of the right of appeal in regard to which the House has already received an explanation. The right of appeal against the power of the Government to make an order of deportation does not apply to somebody who has settled in this country for a period of fewer than seven years. I ask the House to consider that the period of seven years is unreasonable.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt the noble Lord. He has already spoken to
1008
Amendment No. 5, and I rather think that he is moving the other amendment. I understood that he intended to say that he did not wish to move Amendment No. 5.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right and I am grateful to him. In fact I was speaking to Amendment No. 6. I thought that Amendment No. 5 had already been dealt with. However, I am wrong.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: If, my Lords, my noble friend will allow me, I should like to say that for reasons that I need not specify in any detail I regret that I was not present when Amendment No. 5 was called.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, Amendment No. 5 will not be moved. We wish to reconsider the position and will see where we stand at Third Reading.
[Amendment No. 5 not moved.]
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 3, line 19, leave out ("seven") and insert ("three").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is difficult not to sound like a gramophone record in these circumstances. Perhaps I may merely say that this amendment seeks to substitute for the period of seven years the more moderate period of three years, that being the period after which someone who is settled in this country will have the right of appeal against a deportation order. That is the short point of this amendment. It is the reasonableness alone of the period which is material to this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, I hope that the Government will accept the amendment. I do not quite understand why the Government have chosen a period of seven years. When all is said and done, a four or five-year period is sufficient for naturalisation. Seven years seems very arduous. I hope that the Government are prepared to rethink the matter.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, whatever the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, thinks he sounds like, I have never considered him to sound like a gramophone record. He always manages to say something different and produces a different intonation on each occasion. It is always fascinating to listen to him and I was delighted to hear him move the same amendment a second time but in different words and with a different inflection.
As the noble Lord moved his amendment briefly, I shall try to be brief in my response. When a figure is mentioned, of course someone always says that it is the wrong one. The point here is that when a person has been in this country for seven years he has the right to have his compassionate circumstances considered along with the facts of his case or his overstaying. We believe that that is right because after seven years he has retained and very likely may have obtained a number of compassionate circumstances. Within three years it is likely that those compassionate circumstances would be less insistent.

1009
I see that the noble Lord shakes his hand in dismay; but I cannot believe that he considers that a person who has been in this country for three years is likely to have as many ties as one who has been here for seven years. I return to my comments on the previous amendment. The whole purpose of appeals is to enable the facts to be considered. After the facts have been considered, if it is decided that deportation is the correct course to take, then of course all the compassionate circumstances will be taken into account. That is the philosophy behind this clause. I know that it is one which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and his colleagues find difficult to accept; but I believe that the figure is a reasonable one.
We are not saying that compassionate circumstances are not considered, but that at appeal the facts should be considered. Of course after seven years it is right that compassionate circumstances should be considered as well. I hope that your Lordships will agree that even though I have spoken at greater length than did the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, it is only because I have been trying to persuade him of the rectitude of my case as opposed to his.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the noble Earl has been gracious enough to say that he has some respect for the fact that not only did I attempt to move an amendment twice, but I made two speeches which had some variety. Perhaps I also may say that we are always delighted to hear the noble Earl. He succeeds in saying no to every amendment and does it by different methods and different speeches. I admire the variety that he offers just as he admired my own.
However, this negative is quite unnecessary. I ask the noble Earl to reconsider what he has just said. We are dealing only with the right of appeal. As the Bill reads at the moment it does not deal with an appeal on facts. The Bill states that one cannot appeal—and I quote the exact words:
"except on the ground that on the facts of his case there is in law no power to make the deportation order".
It is not a question of an appeal on facts; it is a question of saying, "You have no jurisdiction to make this order" and if jurisdiction is not there the appeal does not even get off the ground. There is Ole exception where one can bring in compassionate grounds on appeal; namely, if someone has been settled in this country for at least seven years.
It is not a question of saying that any figure can be argued about and therefore one may just as well argue about seven years as about three years. The House can envisage the hardship that might arise from a deportation order when someone has been settled in this country for three years. Hardship does not necessarily arise out of length of stay. Hardship can occur after a matter of months, let alone years, and such considerations ought to be looked at from the point of view of an appeal.
The Government have turned their face in one amendment after the other against any giving in or yielding to pleas for mercy or consideration or for matters to be on the face of the Bill so that the world may know how we deal with such things as our
1010
convention on refugees, for example. I thought that at the very least the Minister could have conceded that a period fewer than seven years ought to appear in the Bill before anybody is denied a right of appeal.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, perhaps the noble Earl will explain to us why he is so certain that after seven years one has acquired so many more commitments and be in so much greater need of consideration than after three years. A man who lives in this country with his family, and who is established here, with his children at school and his wife possibly working, has acquired residence after five years, and all those circumstances are just as important after three years as they are after seven years.
What is so mysterious about reaching seven years with, as the noble Earl said, more ties? The ties are not the pals that one has made in the pub between years three and seven. They are the family commitments, the family settlement, in this country which will be as embedded—if that is the right word—at three years as at seven. I do not follow the argument of the noble Earl about there being so much more need for consideration in these circumstances at seven years than at three.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, if I may have the permission of the House to reply to the noble Baroness, I would say this. She seems momentarily to have forgotten that we dealing with people who have broken the law. In the case to which she is referring—they have been here for three years having broken the law. We are saying that when their case comes up for appeal it should be only the facts that should be considered. On the other hand, if persons have been here for seven years, having broken the law all that time—and I shall continue to use that expression, if I may graciously rub it in to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, who makes the assertion that we are being most harsh about this—and then it is found that they are overstayers, they can have both the compassionate circumstances and the facts considered at appeal.
The noble Baroness asked why one should have made more ties when one has been here for seven years than for three. I find that a rather astonishing question. It is fairly obvious that if one is married the chances that one will have more children after seven years than after three are considerable. The chances that one will have compassionate circumstances after seven years are more likely than after three. Therefore we say that it is right after seven years that one should have those circumstances taken into account. But until then only the facts should be taken into account at the stage of appeal. I reiterate that before the deportation order is signed compassionate circumstances are taken into account even before seven years.
5.23 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 6) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 72; Not-Contents, 151.

DIVISION NO. 3

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Llewelyn Davies of Hastoe, B

Amherst, E.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Ardwick, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Aylestone, L.

Lockwood, B.

Basnett, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

McNair, L. [Teller.]

Bottomley, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Mishcon, L.

Caradon, L.

Molloy, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mulley, L.

Carter, L.

Nicol, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Oram, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Parry, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Dormand of Easington, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Ennals, L.

Rea, L.

Falkender, B.

Seear, B.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Serota, B.

Foot, L.

Shackleton, L.

Gallacher, L.

Stedman, B.

Galpern, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Gregson, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Grey, E.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Grimond, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hampton, L.

Underhill, L.

Hanworth, V.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Walston, L.

Hunt, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Whaddon, L.

Jacques, L.

Wigoder, L.

Jay, L.

Willis, L.

Jeger, B.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

John-Mackie, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Winstanley, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailesbury, M.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Aldington, L.

Deedes, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Allerton, L.

Derwent, L.

Ampthill, L.

Dundee, E.

Arran, E.

Elibank, L.

Auckland, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Balfour, E.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Bauer, L.

Faithfull, B.

Beaverbrook, L.

Ferrers, E.

Beloff, L.

Fisher, L.

Belstead, L.

Fortescue, E.

Bessborough, E.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Blake, L.

Gainford, L.

Blyth, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Grafton, D.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Broxbourne, L.

Greenway, L.

Butterworth, L.

Gridley, L.

Caithness, E.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Haddington, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Carnock, L.

Halsbury, E.

Chelwood, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Coleraine, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Harvington, L.

Colwyn, L.

Havers, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Hertford, M.

Cottesloe, L.

Hesketh, L.

Craigavon, V.

Hives, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Holderness, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Hooper, B.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Daventry, V.

Huntly, M.

1012

Hylton-Foster, B.

Portsmouth, E.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Rees, L.

Joseph, L.

Renton, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Renwick, L.

Kimball, L.

Ridley, V.

Kinnaird, L.

Rochdale, V.

Kinnoull, E.

Romney, E.

Kitchener, E.

Rugby, L.

Lauderdale, E.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Lawrence, L.

St. Davids, V.

Layton, L.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Long, V.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Lyell, L.

Selborne, E.

McFadzean, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Shannon, E.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Sharples, B.

Malmesbury, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Margadale, L.

Somers, L.

Marley, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Merrivale, L.

Strange, B.

Mersey, V.

Terrington, L.

Middleton, L.

Teynham, L.

Milverton, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Moran, L.

Trafford, L.

Morris, L.

Trumpington, B.

Mottistone, L.

Tryon, L.

Munster, E.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Nelson, E.

Waldegrave, E.

Newall, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Weir, V.

Orkney, E.

Whitelaw, V.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Wynford, L.

Pender, L.

Yarborough, E.

Penrhyn, L.

Young, B.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.30 p.m.
[Amendment No. 7 not moved.]
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 8:
After Clause 4, insert the following new clause:
("Asylum Review Board.
. The Secretary of State shall by Order establish an Asylum Review Board to examine all decisions to refuse applications for asylum made by persons who claim to have a well-founded fear that the country to which they are to be removed will return them to a country where they have a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. The Asylum Review Board shall have power to direct that a person shall be granted a right of appeal to an adjudicator if the Board finds the person's fear of being returned to a country where he fears persecution reasonable").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, when the grouping of amendments took place at the very beginning, your Lordships were very patient while you listened to me appealing for the Asylum Review Board. Noble Lords would not be as patient if I repeated those submissions now in support of this amendment. Having already spoken to the amendment earlier, the courteous thing for me to do is to ask for the view of the House.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, with equal brevity as we have discussed the question before, even though it was discussed fairly shortly, I hope that your Lordships will not agree with this amendment.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 8) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 69; Not-Contents, 134.

DIVISION NO. 4

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Lockwood, B.

Amherst, E.

Longford, E.

Aylestone, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Basnett, L.

McNair, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Mishcon, L.

Caradon, L.

Molloy, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mulley, L.

Carter, L.

Nicol, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Oram, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Parry, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Peston, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Falkender, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Rea, L.

Gallacher, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Galpern, L.

Serota, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Shackleton, L.

Stedman, B.

Gregson, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Grey, E.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Grimond, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hampton, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Hanworth, V.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hunt, L.

Underhill, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Jacques, L.

Walston, L.

Jay, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Jeger, B.

Wigoder, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Willis, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Llewelyn Davies of Hastoe, B.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Winstanley, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Allerton, L.

Derwent, L.

Ampthill, L.

Dulverton, L.

Arran, E.

Elibank, L.

Balfour, E.

Ellenborough, L.

Bauer, L.

Faithfull, B.

Beaverbrook, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Beloff, L.

Ferrers, E.

Belstead, L.

Fisher, L.

Bessborough, E.

Fortescue, E.

Blake, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Blyth, L.

Gainford, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Grafton, D.

Brookeborough, V.

Gray of Contin, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Greenway, L.

Butterworth, L.

Gridley, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Haddington, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Carnock, L.

Chelwood, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Coleraine, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Harvington, L.

Colwyn, L.

Havers, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Hertford, M.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Hives, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Holderness, L.

Craigavon, V.

Hooper, B.

Cranbrook, E.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Huntly, M.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Daventry, V.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Deedes, L.

Joseph, L.

1014

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Renton, L.

Kimball, L.

Renwick, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Rochdale, V.

Kitchener, E.

Romney, E.

Layton, L.

Rugby, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

St. Aldwyn, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

St. Davids, V.

Lurgan, L.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Lyell, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

McFadzean, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Selborne, E.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Sempill, Ly.

Malmesbury, E.

Shannon, E.

Margadale, L.

Sharples, B.

Marley, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Merrivale, L.

Somers, L.

Mersey, V.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Middleton, L.

Strange, B.

Milverton, L.

Terrington, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Teynham, L.

Monson, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Morris, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Mottistone, L.

Trafford, L.

Munster, E.

Trumpington, B.

Nelson, E.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Norfolk, D.

Waldegrave, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Orkney, E.

Whitelaw, V.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Wynford, L.

Pender, L.

Yarborough, E.

Penrhyn, L.

Young, B.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L

Portsmouth, E.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.40 p.m.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon: moved Amendment No. 9:
Insert the following new clause:
("Adjudicator's power to make recommendations on compassionate grounds.
.After subsection (3) of section 19 of the principal Act there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(3A) In any case in which an adjudicator is required by section 19(1)(b) above to dismiss an appeal he may recommend that on compassionate grounds the appellant be granted leave to enter or remain outside the immigration rules and for the purposes of this subsection shall be entitled to receive any evidence of facts or circumstances relevant to the making of a recommendation." ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to recall an interesting debate which took place at Committee stage on an amendment which I had the privilege of moving. After all that the Minister had said about the room for compassion in dealing with cases before appeal, on appeal and sometimes after appeal, I endeavoured to put it into active consideration by inserting into the Bill a positive power to enable the adjudicator to consider such matters. I did so for reasons which I explained. I gave long quotations, which I do not intend to repeat tonight, from documents which stated that without any doubt some adjudicators thought that they had the power; some adjudicators thought that they ought to make recommendations if they had the power; some adjudicators thought that they should not make recommendations even though they had the power; and the chief adjudicator thought that it was not within the province of an adjudicator to make recommendations on compassionate grounds. In an attempt to achieve uniformity I moved my amendment.
The noble Lord, Lord Renton, corrected me; he was absolutely right to do so. He pointed out that, although I was addressing my remarks to compassionate matters, the word "compassion" was not contained in my amendment. Furthermore, he or the Minister pointed out that, as the amendment was worded, the adjudicator must listen to evidence, whether he wanted to or not, on matters which were being directed to him. In the course of the debate the waste of the time of the adjudicator, and so forth, was brought into play.
The Minister concluded by saying that the adjudicator,
"frequently makes a recommendation to the Home Secretary which says that a man has broken the law but that his compassionate circumstances are such that they ought to be considered. Therefore, even when a man has broken the law, the Home Secretary may still take into account these compassionate circumstances. I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, wishes to do. I would hesitate to say that that ought to be written into the Bill because I think it is a practice which is followed at present." [Official Report, 20/3/88; col. 120.].
As a result of that debate I gathered that I must put my house in order. First, I must introduce the ground about which I was talking; namely, the compassionate ground. I have done so, and it appears in the amendment. It is the only basis upon which, according to the amendment, the adjudicator can make a recommendation. Secondly, I thought that I must make perfectly clear that the adjudicator was entitled to take such matters into account and to make a recommendation, and that it was not mandatory. I have done so and I have used the words "entitled to".
Having put my house in order, I look once again with a direct gaze and try to find a softness in the Minister's heart to which I have already paid tribute. I believe that he is having an unhappy time in relation to this Bill, having to say "no" so many times. He is presenting a steely front when anyone looking at him will know that that is not appropriate in the slightest.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I rely upon the Minister's words when he states:
"I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, wishes to do".
At the Committee stage, I did so wish but the wording of my amendment did not permit it. However, I expressed to the Committee my wishes. The Minister went on to say:
"I would hesitate to say that that ought to be written into the Bill".
The Minister does not hesitate as a rule and therefore there must be a cause for that hesitation
"because I think it is a practice which is followed at present".
I rely upon the Minister. He was courteous as always in writing to me to explain that there were certain difficulties. After all, it is not the Home Office which governs the life of adjudicators; it is the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. The Minister said that he had brought to the attention of the Lord Chancellor's Department, through the officials of his own department, what was said in the debate.
Such a notification may or may not be useful. Before we leave the question of compassion—and, if I may respectfully say so, we have not shown very
1016
much this afternoon in the various votes of the House—I believe that your Lordships will wish to ensure that it is clearly stated. I limit my submission to saying that an adjudicator is entitled, if he wishes, to hear evidence on compassionate grounds and that he is entitled to make a recommendation, if he wishes, on compassionate grounds and on compassionate grounds alone. We do little harm by passing this amendment and, in my submission, we do a lot of good.
Lord Renton: My Lords, the noble Lord is extremely generous in acknowledging the help that I managed to give on a previous occasion. However, I must confess that I am not always right. It has just dawned on me that in regard to Amendment No. 4 I missed the point entirely and I apologise to your Lordships. However, this amendment is obviously an improvement on that the noble Lord moved previously. The only constructive suggestion I have to make on this occasion is that it would be even better if the word "such" were inserted in the last line after the word "of". However, that is a small point of detail.
I had an open mind about the merits of the matter and still have some difficulties which I expressed in Committee at cols. 118 and 119 of the Official Report. I do not intend to repeat them. However, there certainly is no great harm in the amendment.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, should say that I put on a steely front. It is not a natural posture. It is merely that I have been unable to find myself in agreement with him. I think that he has been not merely wrong but misguided. For that reason I believe that the amendments he has tabled would not have improved the Bill. He was kind enough to quote what I said on the last occasion which was that I accepted what he wished to do and that I understood his wishes. He was also generous enough to quote my remark that I would hesitate to put it in the Bill. I said that a provision which would require adjudicators to consider the possibility of making recommendations would be very damaging.
During the debate in Committee I argued that a provision which would require adjudicators to consider the possibility of making recommendations would be very damaging. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, stressed that his intention was only to end the uncertainty—and he said that again today—which he believed exists in the minds of adjudicators about their powers. The noble Lord said that I told him to put his house in order. I cannot remember using quite such a stricture to the noble Lord, although the interpretation which he put on my words might have had that effect.
The present amendment now permits rather than requires adjudicators to consider making a recommendation which found a modest degree of sympathy with my noble friend Lord Renton. I have looked at this matter very carefully and even such a superficially harmless amendment as this would contain quite considerable complications.
As I tried to make clear during our debate in Committee—and the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon,

1017
agreed to this—it is already open to an adjudicator to recommend, when dismissing an appeal that leave to enter or to remain be granted outside the rules. Although the Home Secretary is not bound by such informal recommendations, they are given considerable weight and the normal approach is to accept them unless there is something unreasonable or inconsistent in doing so.
Even though this new clause now appears to do no more than confirm in statute what is already the informal position, the reality is that it would go very much further. In practice, this new clause would still require adjudicators to consider making recommendations in every appeal they hear, with all the attendant dangers to which I referred in our previous debate. It would have this effect, because every adjudicator would know that if, in the circumstances of any individual case, he decided not to hear evidence about compassionate circumstances or not to make a recommendation, it would be open to the appellant to go to the courts and claim that the adjudicator had acted unreasonably. And because the provision permitting the adjudicator to make a recommendation would be there on the face of the law, the court might have to conclude that it had been Parliament's intention that he should always consider evidence which might be relevant to the making of a recommendation. The court might then find that the adjudicator had not done his job.
So the only way in which the adjudicator would protect himself from this risk would be for him to allow an appellant corning before him to argue absolutely any case he liked, however irrelevant it was to the real issue at stake in the case, and however much it prolonged the hearing of the appeal. The result would be to introduce enormous delays into the appeals system—not just deportation appeals but all appeals—which would make the appeals system almost grind to a halt. There are 15,000 appeals per year which would, under this amendment, require adjudicators to consider any factors not directly relevant to the decision under appeal.
This amendment would destroy the effect of Clause 4 of the Bill. It would do this because, even in deportation appeals to which Clause 4 applies, adjudicators would feel obliged to consider the possibility of making a recommendation on compassionate grounds rather than risk having their decisions overturned by the courts. This is directly contrary to what we are trying to achieve in Clause 4, which is to enable appeals to consider only the facts of the case.
I hope that the reasons why the Government remain unable to accept even the revised amendment now proposed will be clear. I am in absolutely no doubt but that to take such a step as this would be enormously damaging. After all, it is for adjudicators to interpret the law and it is not right for us to tell them how to interpret the law.
That said, I hope that any real uncertainty which may exist in the minds of adjudicators about their ability to make informal recommendations—and I repeat that they have that ability—will have been dispelled by the debates which have taken place in your Lordships' House. In response to the concern
1018
which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, voiced on this matter during the Committee stage, we have been in touch with the Lord Chancellor's Department, who are responsible for the appellate authorities, to draw attention to what was said at that time. I feel sure that adjudicators will themselves have followed with interest the debates which have taken place on this Bill. They will, I am sure, as a result be in no further doubt about their scope for making informal recommendations.
For these reasons, and not because I am steely, I suggest that your Lordships do not accept this amendment. Did I hear the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, ask a question? I thought the noble Lord asked, "What do you think?". I agree.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I am delighted to know that the noble Earl has at last agreed with me. That has not been very common in the course of either the Committee stage or Report stage of this Bill. I wish I understood the argument.
When I spoke to the Committee about the injustice of the inconsistency here, with some adjudicators deciding that they would hear pleas on the grounds of compassion and others deciding that they would not, the Minister gave a very different answer from the one that he gave today. He said that we all know that there are judges who are known as harsh judges and judges who are known as merciful judges—I am paraphrasing and not quoting his exact words. Do we really want the lives of people to be determined by whether they appear before a harsh adjudicator or someone who is not harsh and who decides that he will listen to pleas of this kind? Surely there must be consistency.
As the noble Lord, Lord Renton, very fairly said—and I appreciated his remarks—there would be little harm in agreeing to this amendment. I should have thought that the Government would want to see that matters of this kind are made abundantly clear on the face of the Bill. In the face of this complete resistance to matters of mercy and compassion, I regret that I have no alternative and again I must ask for the opinion of the House to be on record.
5.57 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 9) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 71; Not-Contents, 124.

DIVISION NO. 5

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Amherst, E.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Ardwick, L.

Dormand of Easington, L

Aylestone, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Basnett, L.

Ennals, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Falkender, B.

Bottomley, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Gallacher, L.

Caradon, L.

Galpern, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Glenamara, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Grimond, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Hampton, L.

1019

Hanworth, V.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Hunt, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Rea, L.

Jacques, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Jay, L.

Russell of Liverpool, L.

Jeger, B.

Serota, B.

John-Mackie, L.

Shackleton, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Stedman, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Lockwood, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Underhill, L.

Mishcon, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Molloy, L.

Walston, L.

Mulley, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Nicol, B.

Whaddon, L.

Northfield, L.

Wigoder, L.

Ogmore, L.

Willis, L.

Parry, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Peston, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Hardinge of Penhurst, L.

Allerton, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Ampthill, L.

Havers, L.

Arran, E.

Hertford, M.

Balfour, E.

Hesketh, L.

Bauer, L.

Hives, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Holderness, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Hooper, B.

Beloff, L.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Belstead, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Bessborough, E.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Blake, L.

Kenilworth, L.

Blyth, L.

Kimball, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Kitchener, E.

Brookeborough, V.

Lauderdale, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Layton, L.

Butterworth, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Caithness, E.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Lurgan, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Lyell, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

McFadzean, L.

Carnock, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Chelwood, L.

Mancroft, L.

Coleraine, L.

Margadale, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Marley, L.

Colwyn, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Mersey, V.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Middleton, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Milverton, L.

Craigavon, V.

Monk Bretton, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Morris, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Mottistone, L.

Daventry, V.

Munster, E.

Deedes, L.

Nelson, E.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Norfolk, D.

Derwent, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Dundee, E.

Orkney, E.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Erroll, E.

Pender, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Ferrers, E.

Rees, L.

Fisher, L.

Renwick, L.

Fortescue, E.

Rochdale, V.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Rugby, L.

Gainford, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Gibson-Watt, L.

St. Davids, V.

Gray of Contin, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Greenway, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Gridley, L.

Selborne, E.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Shannon, E.

Haddington, E.

Sharples, B.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Somers, L.

1020

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L

Strange, B.

Ward of Witley, V.

Terrington, L.

Weir, V.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Wynford, L.

Trafford, L.

Yarborough, E.

Trumpington, B.

Young, B.

Tryon, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.5 p.m.
Clause 5 [Knowingly overstaying limited leave]:
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 3, line 37, at end insert ("but a person shall not be prosecuted under that provision more than once in respect of the same limited leave.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I think that a thin chink of light is about to enter the Chamber and since it is so rare I want your Lordships to enjoy it. I have reason to believe that an amendment moved from these Benches is possibly going to be accepted. In Committee, when dealing with the question of the continuity of an offence of staying in this country without leave, I ventured to point out that there could be doubt as to whether, having been acquitted of a charge of having committed that offence, there could be a fresh prosecution since the offence was a continuing one in spite of the acquittal. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, with his usual modest show of considerable learning, pointed out to the Committee that that would be very objectionable. He asked whether the well-known maxim of autrefois acquit applied.
The noble Earl was gracious enough to say that he would consider the point. He wrote to me and intimated that in order that the point may be put beyond doubt an amendment would be accepted. He also suggested wording which might be acceptable to the Government. Obediently, I tabled an amendment. I now look for the slight chink of light to enter the Chamber. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, being totally mystified I do not propose to address your Lordships on this matter.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, my noble friend would not be mystified if only he saw the chink of light, because then he would be able to see what was going to happen. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has accused me of being steely and of turning down every single amendment. I have been obliged to do that but I am not sure whether "turning down" is the right expression because it is for your Lordships to decide; I can only advise how it is most appropriate to vote.
The noble Lord introduced this amendment and it is with some hesitation that I give him cause for concern. I should not like him to be disappointed, but there are times when one has to tell him what one believes is right. However, I am bound to tell him that I believe this amendment is right and I have the greatest of pleasure in advising your Lordships to accept it. If noble Lords wish to go through the Division Lobbies, I shall have the pleasure of going through with the noble Lord.

1021
The intention behind the amendment is to make clear that a prosecution may only be brought once in respect of overstaying in any one period of leave. It is not the intention of the Government that those who overstay their limited leave should face more than one prosecution for the same offence. This amendment makes the position clear and removes any doubts that there might be about the effect of Clause 5.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, your Lordships will never know the extent of the temptation which the noble Earl has pointed in this direction. I was so tempted to call a Division in order to see him walk with me, but I shall resist the temptation in view of the seriousness of the Bill and the time. I am most grateful to the noble Earl and I hope that his graciousness will be repeated in the course of this evening.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 not moved.]
Clause 6 [Persons exercising Community rights and nationals of member States]:
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 4, line 11, at end insert—
("(4) Immigration rules made under this or any previous Act shall be so framed that no spouse seeking to join a British citizen settled in the United Kingdom shall be subjected to more onerous requirements than those imposed in this section on spouses of nationals of EEC member states.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, at the Committee stage we dealt with an amendment which discussed the position of someone who was settled in this country being in a worse position than someone who was a national of an EC member state. A specific example was given to the Committee of an EC national with a foreign spouse being able to come to this country and reside and work here, whereas somebody settled in this country would have no such right unless various conditions were fulfilled, including the supply of a residence, the means to maintain and matters of that kind. None of those matters would have to be dealt with by a national of an EC member state.
This point was answered on behalf of the Government and indeed by other noble Lords by casting doubt upon the parallel of somebody settled in this country and a national of an EC country. It was mentioned with some relevance that we were parties to a treaty, that this had mutuality in regard to the countries of the EC and that therefore the argument was not one that necessarily deserved to win. In this amendment I am talking not about someone who is settled here but somebody who is not only settled here but is a British citizen.
I wonder whether your Lordships are aware that, under our present immigration laws, if any British citizen settled here decides to marry a foreign spouse all the conditions that I have just mentioned—satisfaction as to residence, maintenance and so on—have to be gone through as well as the test of whether it was a genuine marriage and the marriage took place for the purposes that marriage should take
1022
place or whether it was merely a deception in order to gain the right of immigration for the spouse. There is no such requirement for a citizen of any other EC country.
All that this amendment calls for is the same treatment for those who are British citizens and are settled here as is accorded to nationals of EC member states. If we fail to put this provision into the Bill we are saying that British citizens settled here have no right to bring spouses into this country unless conditions are fulfilled, whereas a national of an EC member state is in a far superior position having not to fulfil those conditions at all. I beg to move.
6.15 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, during the Committee stage of the Bill the House debated an amendment which sought to ensure that both the spouses and the family members of anyone settled here—whether or not a British citizen—could be admitted as readily as the family members of European Community nationals exercising their rights under the Treaty of Rome. The present amendment is more narrowly drawn. It now concerns only the spouses of British citizens.
I sought to explain during the Committee stage that our obligations to EC nationals stem from our membership of the Community. Family members of EC nationals coming here to work have a right to come here under the Treaty of Rome. But this is a reciprocal right. British citizens going to work in other EC countries have the same rights to take their families with them. There are no such reciprocal arrangements with all the other countries around the world. This is an obligation which we freely accepted when we joined the EC. The whole philosophy of the EC is that there should be free movement between member states.
I said at Committee stage—and I repeat it again—that to try to equate our obligations under the Treaty of Rome with our immigration control over people coming to our country from all over the world is trying to equate two things which are totally different. I said that it was like saying, "Which do you prefer; Piccadilly Circus or Tuesday afternoon?" They are simply not comparable. I really do think that noble Lords are running down the wrong track when trying to draw a similarity between these two totally different situations.
The real point which is being argued is quite simply that the spouses of British citizens should automatically be allowed to settle in this country without having to satisfy any tests first. It does not take a great deal of thought to realise that this superficially attractive notion contains some flaws.
At present, the general rule is that anyone wishing to settle in this country as the spouse of someone who is already settled here has to meet certain tests. These tests are designed to ensure, first, that marriage is not abused as a means of immigration to this country; and, secondly, that the arrival of people from overseas who come to join family members who are settled here should not result in a drain on public funds. Those are surely reasonable and perfectly respectable aims. But if we say that anyone who

1023
marries a British citizen is to be exempt from the requirements of the rules, those who would abuse marriage for immigration reasons would then know that they would only have to go through a valid marriage ceremony with a British citizen in order to be sure of being permitted to settle here. Such a step would be an open invitation to people to contract marriages of convenience purely for immigration reasons, knowing that there would be nothing that we could do about it. This is not a spurious theory. It actually happens.
Of course it is right for families to be united. The immigration rules make it perfectly possible for people who are settled here to bring their spouses to join them. But there is no good reason why we should let people abuse marriage in order to come here; nor is it fair to expect the taxpayer to support husbands and wives who wish to be united in this country, especially when, as happens in many cases, they have themselves chosen to spend a number of years apart.
If somene has come here and settled in this country and then wishes to bring his or her spouse here as well, the Government think it perfectly reasonable to expect that couple to support themselves and not to become a burden on the public purse. The amendment would make it impossible to prevent that. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, will see that and realise in the wisdom and generosity of his mind that it would be better not to move the amendment.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, in the course of his remarks the noble Earl likened the parallel of a British citizen and a national of an EC member state to comparing Piccadilly Circus with a Tuesday afternoon. I invite him, in all seriousness, to go to Piccadilly Circus any Tuesday afternoon that he chooses and talk to the British citizens who pass through that place. I suggest that he tells them that Her Majesty's Government, and indeed the United Kingdom parliament, have decided that if any British citizen cares to marry a Yugoslav wife, before that wife can enter this country and settle here with him, he will have to prove that such a marriage was genuine. Furthermore, he will have to prove not only that the marriage took place for the purpose of love and affection, and not for the purpose of immigration, but also that he can, and will, maintain her in a residence which is suitable to accommodate both of them.
Moreover, in Piccadilly Circus on that Tuesday afternoon, the Minister must tell that citizen that of course those restrictions do not apply to the French, the Spanish, or the Greek who can marry anyone they like. They can come to this country, abide here and not have to prove in any way why the marriage took place. Similarly, they need not show in any way the duty to maintain, or that there is a suitable residence to accommodate them. I invite the Minister to inform the citizens of this country of that situation and to let them know how completely absurd our immigration laws are on that matter.
All I am asking is that the present amendment—as against that which was moved on the previous occasion—should be restricted to the British citizen; that is, the British citizen who is settled in this
1024
country, and I restrict it to a spouse. If the amendment is not put to the House so that the nation can see those who are voting for it and those who are voting against it, I would consider my duty not done in regard to the Bill. Therefore I must test the opinion of the House.
6.22 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 13) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 72; Not-Contents, 122.

DIVISION NO. 6

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Lockwood, B.

Amherst, E.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Ardwick, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Aylestone, L.

McNair, L.

Basnett, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Bottomley, L.

Mishcon, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Molloy, L.

Caradon, L.

Mountevans, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mulley, L.

Carter, L.

Nicol, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Northfield, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Ogmore, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Parry, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Peston, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Ennals, L.

Falkender, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Gallacher, L.

Seear, B.

Galpern, L.

Serota, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Shackleton, L.

Gregson, L.

Stedman, B.

Grey, E.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Grimond, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hampton, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Hunt, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Tordoff, L.

Jay, L.

Underhill, L.

Jeger, B.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Walston, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Whaddon, L.

Kagan, L.

Wigoder, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Willis, L.

Llewelyn Davies of Hastoe, B.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Allerton, L.

Carnock, L.

Arran, E.

Chelwood, L.

Balfour, E.

Colnbrook, L.

Bauer, L.

Colwyn, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Beloff, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Belstead, L.

Craigavon, V.

Bessborough, E.

Cranbrook, E.

Blake, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Boardman, L.

Daventry, V.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Deedes, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Denham, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Dundee, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Butterworth, L.

Erroll, E.

Caithness, E.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Ferrers, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Fisher, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Fortescue, E.

1025

Gainford, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Morris, L.

Grafton, D.

Mottistone, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Moyne, L.

Greenway, L.

Munster, E.

Gridley, L.

Nelson, E.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Norfolk, D.

Haddington, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Orkney, E.

Oxfuird, V.

Hardinge of Penhurst, L.

Pender, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Havers, L.

Rees, L.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Renton, L.

Hives, L.

Rochdale, V.

Hooper, B.

St. Davids, V.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Salisbury, M.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Selborne, E.

Kenilworth, L.

Shannon, E.

Kimball, L.

Sharples, B.

Kinloss, Ly.

Skelmersdale, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Kitchener, E.

Teviot, L.

Layton, L.

Teynham, L.

Leathers, V.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L

Long, V. [Teller.]

Trafford, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Trumpington, B.

Lurgan, L.

Tryon, L.

Lyell, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

McFadzean, L.

Vinson, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Waldegrave, E.

Mancroft, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Margadale, L.

Weir, V.

Marley, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Wynford, L.

Mersey, V.

Yarborough, E.

Milverton, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

6.30 p.m.
Clause 8 [Charges]:
Lord Elwyn-Jones Lord Elwyn-Jones moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 5, line 3, after ("prescribed") insert ("(save that no fees shall be so prescribed in respect of children under the age of 18)").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Clause 8 provides that:
"The Secretary of State may with the consent of the Treasury make regulations prescribing fees to be paid, at such times as may be prescribed, in connection with any application for indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom or the grant of such leave; and no such leave shall be granted unless any fee payable in connection with the grant of that leave has been paid".
Your Lordships may think that that is a powerful sanction. Subsection (2) provides:
"Regulations under subsection (1) above may make different provision for different cases, including provision for cases in which no fee is to be paid".
Then perhaps I may complete the story so far as it relates to the amendments:
"the power to make regulations under subsection (1) above shall be exercisable by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament".
Those provisions can have serious consequences for the people concerned. They involve the payment of fees, the nature and amount of which are not indicated. We have to wait for regulations for that. In the case of a family with a number of children, it may
1026
be an extremely oppressive provision. That is why we have introduced an amendment to diminish the risk.
Amendment No. 14 therefore provides that no fees shall be prescribed in respect of children under the age of 18. That would seem to be a piece of simple justice, and it would be surprising if it were resisted. However, I had better not make any comment about that because so much has happened which has been surprising and has not been resisted. Amendment No. 14 proposes that children under 18 should not be subject to fees, the non-payment of which, as I have indicated, could have such grave results. There is no provision to waive payment in deserving cases, which would seem to be a reasonable requirement and which your Lordships may believe should be provided for.
The last of the batch of three amendments proposes that the regulations which the Secretary of State is empowered to make shall be made by the negative procedure, exercisable by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House.
In view of the consequences that would flow from non-payment, as Clause 8(1) shows, it is a serious matter. Your Lordships may think that it is one which calls for a more stringent form of parliamentary control than is provided by the negative resolution proceeding. We have introduced the third amendment in this series so that far more scrutiny can be given by Parliament than is provided by the negative resolution procedure. That is why we propose that the regulations to be passed by the Secretary of State fixing the amount of fees, when they should be charged and whether they shall be varied as between one payee and another, which joined together point to matters of substance, merit proper and full scrutiny in Parliament. I beg to move.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, I support the amendments. I invite the Government—I think that we did so in Committee and I hope that they have given some thought to it in the interval—to think about the consequences of forcing each member of a large family to pay the fee. We will often be talking about people on below average incomes and for them a large fee would be an onerous obligation.
By waiving the fee for those under 18 we should be making it less difficult—I put it no higher—for a united family to register for permanent residence. I gather that the purpose of the fee is to cover costs. It may well be necessary therefore to raise the fee payable in order to be able to exempt children. I regard that as a sensible way to deal with the matter. If we insisted on the same fee being paid for every adult and every child it would create a great deal of hardship. Therefore I hope that the Government will accept Amendment No. 14.
I should also like to reiterate what I said in Committee about the provisions contained in Amendment No. 15. I am certain, whether the Minister wishes to admit it or not, that if the Home Secretary had had the power to waive the fee with regard to nationality we should not have the problems that we are having with the chaps who fought in the Falklands and who do not wish to pay fees to register as citizens. I am certain that if we had

1027
had that power the Home Secretary would have waived the fee and we should not have heard anything about the matter. It is now going to the European Court of Human Rights. All sorts of nonsenses are happening as a consequence of the Home Secretary not having the power to waive the fee.
I hope that on this occasion the Home Secretary will take the power to waive the fee. We do not know what circumstances will arise where it may be necessary to do so. I recommend all three amendments because it is wise that the House should look at the regulations. The best way to do that is by affirmative resolution and not by the negative resolution procedure. I hope that the Government will accept all three amendments.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, we are discussing Amendments Nos. 14, 15 and 16 together. They all relate to the system of prescribing fees. By Amendment No. 14 the noble and learned Lord wishes to have inserted into the Bill the fact that no fees should be prescribed in respect of children under the age of 18; and by Amendment No. 15 the Secretary of State should have the powr:
"to waive the payment of any prescribed fees in suitable deserving cases".
In fact the powers in this Bill are sufficiently flexible to enable the Government to prescribe a nil fee or a reduced fee for minor children or to allow for concessions for more than one child of the same family group. We would also have sufficient power to prescribe reduced or nil fees for categories of what are described in the amendment as "suitable deserving cases". We are not of course empowered to grant waivers or reductions in individual cases.
I tried to explain at the Committee stage that we expect the standard fee for settlement to be in the region of £50 and that the normal procedure, if an applicant is in difficulty over paying the fee, would be to grant limited leave for him or her to remain in the United Kingdom. We do not propose to initiate deportation procedures on the sole ground that an applicant for settlement is unable to pay the fee for settlement.
Perhaps I could mention a fear which was expressed at some length in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter. He was concerned that Clause 8(1) will act as an obstacle to family unity. I should like to make clear that there are no powers in Clause 8(1) to charge fees for the grant of leave to enter this country. There is nothing in the Bill which will enable us to impose fees on those who are granted indefinite or limited leave to enter at the ports.
Clause 8(1) therefore imposes no new obstacles for those, whether they are minor children or adults, who enter this country to join their families. It deals only with those who are already here with conditions attached to their stay and who then seek indefinite leave to remain here. It is at that juncture when the fee is payable. I should add that the majority of minor children who come here to join their families are admitted to this country unconditionally. No question of fees will arise at all in their case. It is only in the case of those few children who are admitted
1028
with limited leave and who then seek to become fully settled here that the question of fees under Clause 8(1) will arise at all. It is hard in these circumstances to see how the powers in Clause 8 can be seen as making family reunification more difficult.
I think that the fears of the noble and learned Lord are somewhat unfounded. The Bill contains sufficient flexibility to achieve the results which he and others desire. Parliament can express a view on the content of the regulations under Clause 8(1) through the procedure which is proposed.
In Amendment No. 16 the noble and learned Lord seeks to change the procedure from the negative resolution to the affirmative resolution. I reemphasise that there are no powers in Clause 8 to require fees of those seeking to enter this country. The powers are confined to those who have entered the country with limited leave to remain here and who then seek settled status or indefinite leave to remain.
I made clear at the Committee stage the Government's view that the negative resolution procedure would provide a sufficient degree of parliamentary control in these cases. My noble friend Lord Mottistone agreed. I pointed out then that the precedent of the British Nationality Act 1981, where fees regulations are subject to the negative resolution procedure, is one which operated perfectly satisfactorily. It is worth pointing out that the immigration rules—the rules themselves—are subject to a parliamentary procedure which is broadly analogous to the negative resolution procedure in that they can be disapproved by either House although they do not require the formal approval of Parliament.
These arrangements which Parliament has approved in the case of the immigration rules, which after all have far greater force, are entirely appropriate, I would have thought in the case of the regulations made under Clause 8(1) which will do no more than prescribe fees for limited circumstances, and that is for settlement. I think that this amendment would introduce an unnecessary additional procedure in the making of regulations under Clause 8(1). I hope that the noble and learned Lord will appreciate that the granting of fees does not present so great a problem. Nor will it have nearly the effect which I think some noble Lords at Committee stage were concerned it might have. It would really be more appropriate to have the negative resolution procedure which after all still enables Parliament to have control.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, I am not sure whether I gathered accurately the figure of £50 stated by the Minister. He tells me it is correct, and I am much obliged to him. That is quite a considerable sum for some people seeking to come to this country, particularly refugees or those in impoverished circumstances. I do not know whether the noble Earl can give an indication of what is contemplated as being the fee payable by a child at school. That we are not told about.
The matter is left very much in the air. And that is not satisfactory. There is written into Clause 8 the

1029
requirement that no leave shall be granted, in this admittedly limited class of applicants,
"unless any fee payable in connection with the grant of that leave has been paid".
To call that an ungenerous provision is inadequate. It is a provision capable of being oppressive in the case of those with modest resources. In my submission, it is a reason for the rejection of the provision, particularly in specific reference to children, as Amendment No. 14 proposes.
Under subsection (2), the relevant regulations may make different provision for different cases, including provision for cases in which no fee is to be paid. Perhaps that contemplates a waiver of the payment of the prescribed fee. Therefore, it may be that I shall not press that matter when it is put to the House. But Amendment No. 14, I submit, raises a question of principle. It raises also a practical issue regarding that group of people seeking indefinite leave to remain in the special conditions where those conditions can be given. In the circumstances I shall invite the view of the House on Amendment No. 14.
6.49 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 14) shall he agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 66; Not-Contents, 104.

DIVISION NO. 7

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Llewelyn Davies of Hastoe, B

Ardwick, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Basnett, L.

Lockwood, B.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Bottomley, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

McNair, L. [Teller.]

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Carter, L.

Mishcon, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Molloy, L.

Cobbold, L.

Mountevans, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Mulley, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Nicol, B.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Northfield, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Ogmore, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Parry, L.

Ennals, L.

Peston, L.

Falkender, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Foot, L.

Gallacher, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Galpern, L.

Serota, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Shackleton, L.

Gregson, L.

Stedman, B.

Grey, E.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Hampton, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Tordoff, L.

Jay, L.

Underhill, L.

Jeger, B.

Wigoder, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

John-Mackie, L.

Kagan, L.

Winterbottom, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Bauer, L.

Allerton, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Arran, E. [Teller.]

Beloff, L.

Balfour, E.

Belstead, L.

1030

Bessborough, E.

Leathers, V.

Blake, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E

Boardman, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Lurgan, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Lyell, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

McFadzean, L.

Butterworth, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Caithness, E.

Mancroft, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Margadale, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Marley, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Carnock, L.

Mersey, V.

Chelwood, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Monson, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Morris, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Mottistone, L.

Cox, B.

Moyne, L.

Craigavon, V.

Munster, E.

Crickhowell, L.

Nelson, E.

Denham, L.

Norfolk, D.

Dundee, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Orkney, E.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Ferrers, E.

Pender, L.

Fisher, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Fortescue, E.

Renton, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Rochdale, V.

Grafton, D.

St. Davids, V.

Gray of Contin, L.

Salisbury, M.

Gridley, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Haddington, E.

Sharples, B.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Teviot, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Harvington, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Havers, L.

Trafford, L.

Hesketh, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hives, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hooper, B.

Waldegrave, E.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Ward of Witley, V.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Wise, L.

Kenilworth, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Kimball, L.

Wynford, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Yarborough, E.

Kitchener, E.

Young, B.

Layton, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.57 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 not moved.]
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 17:
After Clause 8, insert the following new clause:
("Repeal of Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987.
. The Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987 is hereby repealed.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the House may feel that I am emboldened at the end of this evening at this Report stage to do something which the House might not be prepared to accept because of its dramatic nature, as the amendment before us is that an Act of Parliament recently passed in your Lordships' House should be repealed.
I should immediately tell your Lordships that it will not be my intention to seek the opinion of the House upon that repeal, and that I have intentionally put the amendment down in order, when we are dealing with general immigration matters, to see that the House is properly informed of how a certain Act which has very much to do with immigration is being carried out at this particular moment.
When the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act was before the House as a Bill we ventured from these Benches to say two things. The first was that it would operate most unfairly and most unjustly upon those immigrants who were fleeing from persecution and oppression and who might, as a result of that, not have papers in order when they reached these shores; and that carriers, as a result of that, would refuse because of the penalties imposed upon them by the Bill to take the slightest risk in regard to those people, and we might be doing things of a most unmerciful kind which we would not wish consciously to do. Secondly, we said from these Benches that unless administration was particularly careful, injustices would be perpetrated upon the carriers. The Act imposes a liability—not a maximum liability; an actual liability—of £1,000 if the carrier brings to these shores, whether by aircraft or by ship, someone whose papers are not in order and who is endeavouring to become an immigrant.
I have been requested by a lawyer—obviously I shall not give your Lordships his name; you would not expect me to—in a very well-known and reputable firm of lawyers which acts for a group of carriers to bring to your Lordships' attention what is happening under the provisions of the Act which this House passed. As you would expect of me, I have given the Minister notice of the letter which I am about to read in part. I repeat, these lawyers are acting for a group of foreign carriers. This is the portion which I want to read to your Lordships:
"As you will doubtless recall, the Act requires carriers to make payments to the Secretary of State of £1,000 in respect of each passenger brought by them to the United Kingdom without proper documents. The total present liability of our clients alone exceeds £700,000 and the Treasury Solicitor is now threatening actual proceedings against some of them.
Whilst my clients have reservations about the underlying principle of the Act, they recognise that it is the function of the Home Office to implement existing legislation. Their complaint lies however, in the method of such implementation, the lack of notes and guidelines in dealing with cases falling under the Act and, above all, the failure by at least some members of the Immigration Service to allow the airlines an opportunity to avail themselves of the defences under the Act.
From the information I have received from my clients the following problems are experienced at Heathrow Airport:—

l. The way in which the airlines are dealt with under the Act varies from Terminal to Terminal and even between the immigration officials concerned. In particular, the time delay between arrival of a passenger allegedly not carrying proper documentation and notification to the airline varies considerably. In Terminal 2, for example, notification to the relevant airline of such a passenger can take anything up to two weeks. You will appreciate that this delay greatly restricts the airline's ability to carry out investigation at the point of embarkation.

2. There is apparently no set procedure by which an airline can obtain copies of documents or inspect the complete files. Without copy documents and, in some circumstances, the passport may well be the only relevant document, it is in effect virtually impossible for the airline to carry out any investigation with a view to establishing the defences provided for in the Act.

3. In a number of instances the airline is given the opportunity to fly out a passenger, who arrives without proper documentation as soon as possible after arrival. If such opportunity is taken the fine is still levied. Further, in a majority of cases with which I am presently concerned, the passenger has been allowed into the United Kingdom".

I have finished the quotation from this letter dealing with the complaints. I merely say that it continues by confirming that this is only a brief summary of some
1032
of the main grievances which foreign airlines have at the moment operating under this Act.
The reason for bringing this matter to the attention of your Lordships is that when we are dealing with the Bill and with the carriers' liability in respect of immigrants it is right in my view that noble Lords should know of the grievances of foreign airlines, which have so much to do with immigration and especially with the immigration of those who are claiming asylum in this country. I have brought this to the attention of the Minister in the confident hope that, having seen the letter—and the noble Earl has seen it in full—he will have noted the complaints that are made. I am hoping that he will see with his wisdom and sense of fairness that the appropriate course—but that I must leave to him—is to ensure that those who have these grievances are able to meet him or some of his senior officials. Then the grievances may be properly discussed so that a fair and proper procedure is put in motion in order that the provisions of the Act which I have mentioned are carried out in the way which I believe your Lordships would want. At this stage I propose to say no more. I beg to move.
Lord Mulley: My Lords, I should like to support what my noble friend has said concerning the problems for air carriers as well as the general problems posed by this Act. I think noble Lords should first be reminded of the circumstances in which it was brought in. It is a classic example of hard cases making bad law, because the Act was brought in in great haste by the Government to deal retrospectively with the situation. It came in on 15th May with retrospective effect to March in order to deal with the problem of the Tamils who came here in circumstances of some distress, which noble Lords will remember. This led to a great many legal problems.
Secondly, the Act is an extremely bad piece of legislation because it was rushed through both Houses of Parliament on the very eve of the general election. If my recollection is not mistaken there was practically no discussion on the Bill in another place for reasons that we well appreciate on the very eve of preparations for a general election.
However, in addition to the points which my noble friend has made, I should like to recall the problems that this Act poses for the ferries, particularly the short sea ferries, regarding how they can satisfy themselves. I believe that at the time there was doubt as to whether the French authorities would permit carriers to prevent French citizens from going on to their boats, whether or not they had passports. The French view was that their citizens had such rights, and there were great difficulties.
I did not realise that this amendment was coming up in time to send details to the noble Earl, but I have had correspondence with his honourable friend the Minister of State about the problems which arose when the Act first came to be implemented on the short sea ferries. I accept my noble friend's wisdom that we should not seek that the House accept this amendment and repeal the Act this afternoon, but that there would probably be dancing in the streets of Dover and Calais were we to do so, because that would remove one of the many difficulties facing the

1033
short sea ferry companies as the Euro-Tunnel project goes along.
Certainly those companies have plenty of problems as to how to cope in the short-term with the requirement to satisfy themselves; £1,000 per passenger can be an enormous sum. I do not know whether the Minister has any figures on this but an amendment was put to the House. In the event I do not think it was put to the test, but the amendment said that the Bill should not apply to journeys emanating in the European Community. I thought at the time that that would have resolved many of the difficulties and might have prevented us getting into further difficulties with our friends in the Community.
The Act as drafted is, if not strictly against the law of the Community, certainly against the spirit. While there is no possibility of moving such an amendment tonight, I ask the noble Earl to consider with his colleagues whether it may be proper on Third Reading to introduce such a modification, perhaps along with others, to the Act.
As my noble friend Lord Mishcon has said, we are looking at this stage at the whole field of immigration and transport. It would be a great mistake to let the opportunity go without taking action. I hope that we shall have an undertaking that the matters will be considered further before the House returns to the Bill.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, in moving the amendment the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, was kind enough to say that he would not press it. if I may say so, that is a welcome change of approach this evening. It is what he would describe as a gentle shaft of light. I am grateful to him for that. The proposal is that the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act should be repealed. That Act has been in operation since 4th March 1987.
The purpose of the Act was to close off a significant loophole in our immigration control. Serious problems had arisen because growing numbers of inadmissible passengers were arriving here without documentation. They were then resisting return by claiming asylum.
The Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act sought to ensure that people do not travel here without documents required by the immigration rules. If they do so, a charge of £ 1,000 is levied on the carrier. The Act has prevented large numbers of people arriving here without proper documents and visas. That does not mean that we have shut the door on asylum applicants. Since the Act was introduced, we have continued to accept asylum applications. For example, in January alone over 100 asylum applications were made at ports of entry. I believe that that underlines the view that the genuine refugee applicant and an absence of documentation do not necessarily go together.
I realise that the Act has caused problems for carriers. They have generally been highly responsible and co-operative on the implementation of the Act. After some initial reluctance, both air and sea carriers have accepted training packages which have been designed by the immigration service. In particular, the immigration service has joined control authorities
1034
and airlines from other countries in a joint training programme under the auspices of the International Air Transport Association. Meetings have also been held with the board of airline representatives in the United Kingdom and with the General Council of British Shipping.
Carriers have been provided with guidance on the requirements of the Act from the outset. The immigration service has been consistently prepared to help as regards training. It has also provided carriers with copies of the guidance notes which it follows in exercising discretion concerning the levy. Those guidance notes reflect the assurances which were given in both Houses during the passage of the Act. Meetings have been held in recent months between the various bodies representing carriers. The meetings have been most cordial and have resulted in a closer understanding of administrative problems which arise from time to time. Workable arrangements have been made whereby carriers can be notified of the circumstances soon after liability has been incurred. They can also see relevant documents.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, asked whether we would be prepared to discuss the operation of the Act further. My officials will be delighted to do so and the immigration service is quite willing to discuss the operation of the Act with carriers and their representatives at any time. I believe that that is the best way forward. I shall take note of the points to which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, referred in his speech, and I realise that carriers have found some areas of difficulty.
A statistical comparison relating only to passengers seeking asylum may illustrate the effect of the Act. The noble Lord, Lord Mulley, suggested that the Act should be amended or altered. However, immediately before the introduction of the Act, asylum-seekers were arriving here at an average rate of 66 per week. Once the provisions of the Act were applied, the rate dropped to an average of just under 26 per week. The Act was not aimed at reducing the number of genuine asylum applications. It was aimed at a new phenomenon which was being experienced in that migrants from a number of under-developed countries avoided removal from the United Kingdom by a combination of arriving without documentation or with inadequate documentation and claiming asylum.
The noble Lord, Lord Mulley, asked whether we had figures showing what had happened. Up to 31st March 1988 around 5,600 notices of liability were served on carriers. Discretion was subsequently exercised in about 1,000 cases and demands for payment were issued in the remaining 4,600 or so cases. Of the debt of £4.6 million which the demands represented, £1.8 million or about 39 per cent. has been paid, leaving £2.8 million outstanding.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Mulley: My Lords, can the noble Earl tell the House how those figures are divided between short journeys within Europe and those further afield? I believe that the European problem is quite different from that of migrants seeking asylum, to which he referred.
Earl Ferrers: No, my Lords, I cannot do so without notice.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I hope that your Lordships will think that I have carried out a proper duty in bringing these matters to the attention of the House. They are serious and there is a sense of grievance, whatever the Minister may say—and say with great sincerity. There is great grievance among foreign carriers who feel that they are being unjustly and wrongly treated under the provisions of the Act.
The Minister has been good enough to say that he welcomes meetings between his officials and carriers in order to see whether the problems can be properly dealt with. Knowing him as we all do, I am sure that he will take a personal interest in the outcome of such discussions. I am grateful to him for the gracious way in which he has dealt with the amendment. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 11 [Short title, interpretation, commencement and extent]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 5, line 31, after ("3") insert ("(Members of diplomatic missions)").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to Amendment No. 18 when I spoke to Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule [Minor amendments]:
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 7, line 18, after ("them") insert ("within a stated period")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have four amendments to draw to the attention of your Lordships. I propose to move Amendment No. 19, and to speak to Amendments Nos. 20, 21 and 22 together and subsequently.
The subjects covered by the amendments were raised briefly in Committee without the actual amendments. The first amendment relates to the fact that a carrier stands to have potentially unlimited liability, both in time and amount, in respect of repatriation costs which it may incur with regard to any traveller it brings to the United Kingdom. It is not good accounting practice for a company to have to carry such potential liabilities in their accounts for an indefinite period of time. This amendment provides that a time limit—decided at the immigration officer's discretion—has to be imposed with regard to the notification to the carrier of the liability.
At Committee stage my noble friend Lord Ferrers said that he recognised that point. He said:
"We recognise that it is difficult for carriers to plan adequately to the extent that the financial commitment imposed upon them is completely unknown. Therefore, we have undertaken to conduct regular reviews of long-running individual cases to make sure that carriers are not faced at short notice with a substantial bill".—[Official Report, 22/3/88; col. 161.]
1036
I like to think that my Amendment No. 19 gives what one might call practical effect to the spirit behind my noble friend's comment. Therefore, I hope that even if at this stage he feels that he cannot accept it he might give me a favourable indication on that particular point. I think it is one that could well be included in the Bill without either spoiling the Bill or being at variance with what my noble friend said in Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Mulley: My Lords, I should like to support the amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone. As he said, we had some discussion on this question in Committee. The Minister gave an undertaking then that there would be a meeting between the General Council of British Shipping and his colleague the Minister of State, Mr. Renton, who deals largely with immigration matters. The meeting took place. I gather the shipping company representatives were received with great courtesy and there was a useful but not very positive discussion. In my experience the Minister of State is a man of great originality, often excessively so; and I was rather surprised to learn that he, or his officials, produced all the usual reasons—which I think must be contained in some form of note to officials—as to why they should take no action.
First, it was apparently argued that it would be a bad precedent because what was done for shipping would have to be done for aviation. In a moment I shall explain how both can be done without any difficulty at all. Secondly—again a frequent excuse for not putting law right—the officials said that there have been a number of cases in the House of Lords. As the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, has mentioned, there have been severe cases in which the carrier had to fork out to take back someone whose illegal entry had been discovered several years after it took place and which have been mitigated by action in your Lordships' House sitting in its judicial capacity. That is not a very good reason for not bringing up to date the 1971 Act as this Bill purports to do, which is all we are asking for. It is not a good reason to say that they can go to the courts and perhaps if they come to this place in its judicial capacity their case will be favourably considered. Surely these matters should be put right because they are unjust.
In particular, Amendment No. 19 deals with the question of false papers. It relates to cases in which carriers have carried passengers in good faith and the immigration officials have admitted them and it is later discovered that they have entered on the basis of false documentation. In fact the one good thing—
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, will the noble Lord permit me to intervene? I am specifically talking only to Amendment No. 19. He is going on to the other areas, which I shall take separately.
Lord Mulley: My Lords, I am sorry. I understood that the noble Lord was to take all these amendments together. If that is not so, I shall not press this particular matter. However, I stress to the Minister that I know from past experience that one of the objections which officials always raise to accepting amendments is that if a Bill gets through the

1037
Committee stage without any amendments it means that it does not have to go back to another place. This afternoon at the invitation of the Minister we have made two amendments to the Bill so that it will have to go hack to another place in any case. I do not think that our colleagues there would find any difficulty in accepting the amendments which the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, has put before your Lordships.
I know that it could be argued—and I am sure that with his great experience and understanding of the House the noble Earl will not do so tonight—that the amendments are not very well drafted. It is well known that when a parliamentary draftsman drafts an amendment for you and the parliamentary draftsman responsible for the Bill does not know that it was drafted by one of his colleagues he would be bound to say that it would need some amendment and could not be accepted in the form in which the noble Lord or honourable Member put it down. Since the Bill must go through another stage in this House, I am sure that the Minister will undertake to put right any technical difficulty there might be with the amendments.
Since we are dealing only with the first amendment, I shall reserve my observations on the last amendments until the appropriate time.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I shall accede to the request of the noble Lord, Lord Mulley, not to say that the amendment is not properly drafted. I am grateful to my noble friend for having put down the amendment. I accept that there is a real difficulty here. When a person is refused entry to the country for whatever reason and has to be removed, someone has to pick up the bill. For many years it has been accepted that that should fall upon the carriers for the simple reason that there has been a contract between the carrier and the person who has been carried. At that point the United Kingdom has not been involved at all. Its only involvement is when it seeks to prevent entry into the country by someone whose only connection with the country is his inability to qualify to enter.
If that principle were removed, and I can see that there are some who might wish it to be removed, the cost would fall on the taxpayer. Our practice of requiring carriers to bear the cost of removing people who do not qualify for admission has been followed for many years. It is in line with what has been done elsewhere in the world. The principle involved is generally accepted by the carriers even though I realise that they may not find it particularly charming.
My noble friend's amendment addresses a concern that there are cases in which carriers think that they are unfairly treated. Amendment No. 19 seeks to amend paragraph 9 of the schedule to the Bill so that when a carrier is served with a notice of intention to give removal directions a time limit must be set within which specific directions must be served. That would ensure that carriers have a firm indication of the period for which a potential liability is to be outstanding. I appreciate the desire of the carriers to avoid what they might otherwise consider to be an open-ended commitment. However, if the principle which I described is accepted, there is no reason why
1038
at a particular point the taxpayer should suddenly be responsible for bearing the cost of a case just because it has taken some time to bring it to a conclusion.
If there is any force in the principle—and I believe that there is—it is not weakened in any way by the simple passage of time. I think that the proper way to remedy the carriers' sense that the present system is unfair is through discussion. My honourable friend the Minister of State in another place recently had a meeting with the ferry operators at which that and other points were discussed. That meeting resulted in a better understanding on all sides of the issues which are involved and in agreement on the need for closer co-operation between ferry operators and the immigration service.
For example, it was agreed that where it is not possible to serve specific directions within two months, cases will be regularly reviewed and the carrier advised of the present position, including whether liability has lapsed. I think that that represents the most constructive solution to the problem raised in my noble friend's amendment. However, I realise that there are difficulties and I hope that he can agree that the best way to try to resolve them is through discussion.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, the answer is no. Obviously discussion has not been as fruitful as it might have been. I do not think that discussion will be the complete answer. I had rather hoped in identifying separately Amendment No. 19 that my noble friend might have seen his way to accepting it even if he could not accept the other amendments. Clearly he feels that he cannot accept it and I shall have to come back to this matter. I do not propose to take the question to a Division because that would not be the sensible thing to do. We might lose the amendment. We have seen many amendments lost today and perhaps more than is reasonable. So that would not be an answer. In any case, my noble friend is right. He was kind enough to make the point that there is a very serious problem here which is not answered by discussions and reviews. There is a need for the law to be altered. However, at this stage I shall certainly withdraw Amendment No. 19.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 7, line 39, at end insert—
("Removal directions
11. After paragraph 8(2) of Schedule 2 there shall be inserted—
"(2A) No direction shall be given under the paragraph in respect of a person brought to the United Kingdom under the direction of another country's service.".")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 20, I should like also to speak to Amendments Nos. 21 and 22. Amendments Nos. 20 and 21 are separate points and Amendment No. 22 is consequential upon them.
Amendment No. 20 seeks to cover those cases where the carrier is directed by another country's immigration service to bring a person to the United Kingdom. For example, a person arriving in the United Kingdom by air may be given leave to enter

1039
the UK for a limited period of time. He then chooses to outstay his welcome and sometime after the expiry of that leave to enter he may be cleared by the immigration service on his way out of the country, perhaps on a day excursion to Calais. If the French authorities refuse that person leave to enter, the carrier is directed to return the person to the United Kingdom where he is again refused entry and the ferry operator can then be directed to return that person to some far flung part of the world. Thus, in return for as little as a £5 day excursion ticket, the ferry operator may have to find a hundred times that amount for an airline ticket. That is patently unjust.
I turn to Amendment No. 21, which covers those cases in which a person enters the United Kingdom by deceiving the carrier with regard to any document checks introduced at the port of embarkation as a result of the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act, and also by deceiving experienced immigration officers at the port or place of entry. It is unjust that the carrier should be liable for any removal expenses if the falsity of the documents becomes apparent some time after the person has obtained entry into the country and if the immigration officers have themselves been fooled by the falsity of the documents.
The amendment does no more than bring the provisions of the Immigration Act into line with the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987 which does not impose any penalty on the carrier for failing to detect a potential illegal entrant if his travel documents are such as to deceive even an experienced immigration officer. The wording of this amendment parallels the wording of that Act which states:
"A document should be regarded as being what it purports to be unless its falsity is reasonably apparent".
So we are only taking it to that point.
My noble friend makes the point, and he has made it before, that it is wrong for the taxpayer to bear the cost. I suggest that it is not reasonable to view the taxpayer as a special individual who will hand over the money to someone. The taxpayer is in exactly the same position in relation to the Government as a shareholder is in relation to a company. If an immigration officer makes a mistake and fails to identify the falsity of a document, the Government would be responsible in the same way as a company takes responsibility for errors on the part of its employees.
If a company is required to make some restitution when an error on the part of one of its employees is revealed and it has to pay out some money, it does not say to the world or to the people concerned, "Oh, that's unfair on my shareholders". I am afraid that most companies do not think enough of their shareholders to do that. The taxpayer is just like a shareholder in that respect. It is quite wrong of the Government, as the employer of the immigration service and other people, to behave as though they are standing back and looking after the interests of the shareholders. They are not doing anything of the sort. They are simply trying to get out of paying a charge which would naturally fall upon them if they were a commercial organisation. It does not seem to me to be right and it is something that ought to be
1040
tackled again. I hope that my noble friend will be able to come up with a proposal which at least acknowledges that this is not a straightforward matter which can be disposed of just by the argument that it is wrong for the taxpayer to pay for that kind of error. How this matter is tackled later on depends very much on my noble friend's reply.
Amendment No. 22 merely gives effect to placing with the Secretary of State the responsibility for the cost of removal in the cases uncovered by Amendments Nos. 20 and 21. I beg to move.
Lord Mulley: My Lords, I should like to add a few words to the excellent case made by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone. In Amendment No. 21 we seek to ensure that the same provision—Section 1(4) in the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987, which is restricted to the operation of that particular Act—should be made general in terms of the 1971 Act.
As has been pointed out with great clarity, when false documents are of such a character as will deceive a trained immigration officer, it is grossly unfair to expect the carrrier (whether by air or by sea) to have a superior knowledge and way of detecting fraud than do the immigration officers themselves. As the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, said, in the normal way of business the company or its proprietor has to take responsibility if its servants make such mistakes.
But how does the fact that the taxpayer pays justify the inclusion of Section 1(4) in the 1987 Act? If the taxpayer is prepared to cough up the money for that—which I should have thought is likely to prove much more expensive because clearly more people make the short journey across the Channel by the sea ferries than are likely to travel on vessels which come under the provisions mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone—I cannot believe that one can distinguish as regards the taxpayer's liability in respect of the two pieces of legislation. The noble Earl ought to look at this point between now and the Third Reading of the Bill with a view to bringing the two measures into line.
Lord Colnbrook: My Lords, I too should like to urge my noble friend the Minister to look again at this point. I find myself very much in support of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, particularly in regard to Amendment No. 21. It seems to me that we are in an absurd situation because the companies which bring people by air or sea to this country are now expected to do the Government's job for them. There is nothing new in that. Throughout the centuries governments have required private citizens to collect taxes for them, and so on. We believe that the operating companies should act as immigration officers and should be able to do the job of immigration officers before they accept a passenger.
A few moment's ago, in replying to another amendment, my noble friend the Minister spoke about the guidance notes that are issued and indeed the training that is given to employees of the companies by the immigration services in order to help them to do this job. However, it seems wrong that the Government should expect the companies to be better at that job than their own servants, because

1041
that is the situation at the moment. Someone arrives with false documents. The immigration officer, who has undergone long training at public expense and who has worked at his job for many years before being given the right to make decisions of his own, is deceived. Yet apparently the law says that the company ought to be better at the job than he is. That does not seem a fair situation. The business of the company is to carry passengers. It has now to be an immigration officer; but it ought not to be a superior immigration officer.
On the question of paying—and in so many cases, as we know, the issue comes down to who pays—I support what the noble Lord, Lord Mulley, said. If a mistake is made by a government servant—that is, an immigration officer—how can the Government say that somebody else ought to pay? It does not seem fair. Everyone wants the law to be fair. I do not believe that this is fair. I hope very much that the Minister will say that he will consider what he can do to make the position fairer.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, in these amendments my noble friend seeks to enable the carriers to ensure that they will not have to meet the costs of the removal of people in two circumstances: first, where the people concerned have previously succeeded in deceiving an immigration officer into admitting them; and, secondly, where someone arrives back in this country having been refused admission to another country and returned here.
As they are presently drafted, obviously the amendments would have some very undesirable and damaging practical consequences. For example, Amendment No. 20 is worded so loosely that it could apply to people who had never been in this country but who were brought here,
"under the direction of another country's service".
It sometimes happens that foreign nationals being removed from a third country have to travel in transit through the United Kingdom on the way home. This amendment would make the British taxpayer responsible for hearing the cost of transporting those people to their ultimate destination, even though they have never actually been in this country. Obviously, that would be wrong.
I realise the carriers believe that in some ways the traditional approach treats them harshly. On the previous amendment I tried to explain our approach to this. I do not believe it is right to weaken the principle by the amendments, in particular when they would additionally involve inflicting serious damage on our system of immigration control. However, I recognise that there is a problem. My noble friend Lord Colnbrook says that we are asking the carrier to do a better job than the immigration officers. With respect, I do not think that that is quite true, although I see the point that he tries to make.
If one considers the facts quite rationally, someone has been transported to this country and seeks to enter it with no right of entry. Someone has to pay the bill. In equity one might say that the cost should be paid by the person who has so travelled. However, on the principle that the person is probably unable to pay, he has to be removed. I am bound to come back
1042
to the argument that I know both my noble friends and the noble Lord, Lord Mulley, find fairly unacceptable. If someone is going to come into this country, until the point at which he enters the country the United Kingdom has no connection with him. The carrier has a connection. The carrier had a contractual liability to bring him. Therefore if it brings someone who proves to have been incorrectly brought, then we believe it is right that the carrier should accept the responsibility of taking him back. That principle has been accepted for quite a long while.
I know that the principle has harsh consequences. But I find it hard to say that because a person has arrived in this country who should not have arrived, trying to get in when he should not get in, and who then has to be removed, that the British taxpayer should pick up the bill. All one has done is to say that this person has no right to enter here. I realise that it has harsh consequences but it is a principle which immigration, and the carrying of immigrants, has adopted in the past. I believe that it ought to continue.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, perhaps I may leave this thought with my noble friend. He says that the practice of expecting the final carrier to bear the cost of the commitment—whatever it is—has been accepted for many years. No doubt there was a period when it did not matter very much. There was not a great deal of air travel because it was too expensive or did not exist, and people travelled only in ships. It is only within the last 20 years that there has been extensive air travel. Many people who used to come to the Isle of Wight on holiday now go to Spain instead. That is disastrous; but it is another story.
We are saying to the Government that what was necessarily the correct practice under a totally different system—when there was only sea transport and not very much air transport—needs further consideration. One needs figures to show what costs are involved. I suspect that some companies are more heavily burdened than others. The Government need to give further consideration to this subject to allow for the fact that the pattern of travel has changed. What may have been fair in the 1950s will not be fair in the 1990s.
If my noble friend can remember that factor, perhaps we can discuss this further at Third Reading with some suitable amendments. Perhaps we may talk to each other in the meantime on this issue. However, at this stage I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 20.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 21 and 22 not moved.]

Town and Country Planning (Compensation for Restrictions on Mineral Working) (Amendment) Regulations 1988
7.46 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness rose to move, That the regulations laid before the House on 7th March be approved [20th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the purpose of these regulations, on which there has been formal consultation, is a very simple one. It is to make a technical amendment to the 1985 mineral compensation regulations to take account of a recent change in the base date of the retail prices index.
The 1985 regulations modify the basis of compensation payable in certain circumstances following the making of orders under Part III of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 to update old mineral permissions. They also contain detailed provisions for reducing compensation. The principles of abatement and the circumstances in which it may be made were extensively considered by Parliament in 1981 during the passage of the Town and Country Planning (Minerals) Act and the regulations were themselves debated in both Houses in 1985.
Calculation of the amount of abatement depends on an indexation factor derived from the RPI to ensure automatic uprating in line with inflation. The base date of the RPI was changed earlier this year, so it is necessary to amend the indexation factor in accordance with the regulations laid before your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the regulations laid before the House on 7th March be approved [20th Report from the Joint Committee].—(The Earl of Caithness.)
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we must be grateful to the noble Earl for the way in which he has introduced these regulations. It is the duty of the Opposition to oppose. One duty of the Opposition as legislation is being passed is to demand that regulations which are proposed by the Government to require negative resolutions should become affirmative resolutions. This seems a classic case where we have an affirmative resolution which ought to be a negative resolution. If I learn either on the passage of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 or the Town and Country Planning (Minerals) Act 1981 that affirmative resolutions were inserted on the insistence of the Labour Opposition, I shall be deeply embarrassed. However, we can find no reason to object either to the principle or the detail of these regulations.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I join the noble Lord in expressing our gratitude to the Minister for the clear way in which he expressed what are in effect on the explanatory notes to these regulations. I also express my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, for what he has said. With his willingness, and with the willingness of your Lordships, I propose to adopt everything that he said as part of my presentation this evening.
There is one matter which has been raised and I suppose that I should declare an interest. I know nothing about the law on town and country planning, but I sought the advice of my son-in-law, Daniel Robbins, a Silk at the town and country planning Bar. He introduced me to the delightful intricacies of Section 178A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 and we could find no question of ultra vires. We thought that we might be able to raise questions such as that even at this stage, but we found nothing.
1044
My son-in-law suggested that I should ask the Minister one little question. I hope I am right on my dates. The Town and Country Planning (Compensation for Restrictions on Mineral Working) Regulations 1985—I believe that I was concerned with those regulations or at any rate a Bill dealing with compensation where people had built over areas from which all had been extracted—included provisions for a calculation factor relating to the base of the retail prices index. It was a factor of about 1 per cent. I need not go into the details of how it operated. The retail prices index was re-based two years later on 1st January 1987. But the regulation for the purposes of calculating compensation, of which these regulations are the subject, has been increased fourfold to approximately 4 per cent.
I wonder why it has been over a year from bringing the regulations to the notice of Parliament, and also there has been this fourfold increase in the calculation of compensation. I wonder whether anybody has lost money in this period and, if so, whether compensation in the circumstances can be backdated. I know the difficulties about retrospective actions, but there is no real time as to when these regulations will go through both Houses of Parliament. Article 1 says when:
"they are approved by resolution of each House of Parliament".
That may be tomorrow or in several months' time; I do not know.
My simple question is, why was the compensatory factor in the 1985 regulations of about 1 per cent. not increased immediately after the retail prices index was re-based on 1st January 1987? There seems to be a period of well over a year where the factor of about 1 per cent. operated, whereas after the Bill goes through it will be 4 per cent. It is purely a question of arithmetic. To help the Minister while he is getting information about this matter, I presumed to put the point to his advisers earlier this evening, though it was very late; just before 7.20 p.m.
These regulations amend the factor that takes account mathematically of the re-basing. Why was the factor not introduced at an earlier date? That is my point.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful for the welcome given by the noble Lords, Lord McIntosh and Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, to these regulations. I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that as far as I can elucidate in the short time that is available to me he has no need to be embarrassed. As we consider these regulations over the next couple of years or so, perhaps I will take on board the points he made about it being a negative resolution in the future.
The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, raised the matter of the retail prices index. It has been a recent change that the base date of the RPI has been set at 1st January 1987. That is why the appropriate factor has to be amended. As I am sure the noble Lord is aware, the new factor is obtained by dividing the RPI for January 1987 with that for April 1973, in both cases using the previous series, and then dividing by 100. I am sure that if the noble Lord

1045
quickly does that sum in his head (which I am sure he is capable of) he will come down to the figures in the regulations.
As I understand it, no one has lost money because in the interim there have been no claims.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for the assurance that no one has lost money as a result of the delay in introducing this new factor.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Criminal Injuries (Compensation) (Northern Ireland) Order 1988
7.55 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Lyell)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Lyell) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 1st February be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this order will introduce a number of amendments to the criminal injuries compensation scheme, taking account of some recent changes in civil compensation law in Northern Ireland and of changes, actual or planned, in the Great Britain scheme administered by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. We have also taken the opportunity to remedy some of the practical difficulties which have been experienced in the operation of the Criminal Injuries (Compensation) (Northern Ireland) Order 1977 from which most of the provisions of this order derive without change. Your Lordships will agree with me if I refer only to the principal changes since 1977 made by the order.
Article 2 extends the definition of "relative" to include, among others, a common law partner. This change reflects what is already the position in civil compensation actions.
Article 3 introduces a bereavement award on the same conditions as are provided for in an action under the Fatal Accidents (Northern Ireland) Order 1977, which was amended by the Administration of Justice Act 1982. It also introduces an additional award which may be paid where as a consequence of rape a child is born and is kept by the victim. This is similar to the arrangements being made for the rest of the United Kingdom.
Article 5 is a key article in the order. Paragraph (2) enables compensation to be paid, as is already the case under the Great Britain scheme, to the innocent victims of domestic violence, but subject to certain conditions. This is a most difficult area which hitherto has been excluded from the compensation arrangements because of the problems which attach to the investigation of the circumstances of such incidents including the identification of degrees of provocation and the elimination of any possibility of collusion. The conditions which are contained in this provision are essential to safeguard the public interest.
Article 5(5) requires that an application for compensation must be lodged within three years from the date on which the criminal injury was
1046
sustained. By virtue of Article 5(6) this time limit does not apply in the case of injury sustained by a minor who may if reasonable cause for the delay is shown lodge a claim within three years of attaining the age of majority.
Article 5(12) restricts the payment of compensation in respect of impairment of a person's mental condition to those cases where the applicant was present when the act which caused the criminal injury was committed. It further provides that such impairment must amount to a serious and disabling mental disorder. In Northern Ireland there is something of a tradition of innovative litigation and in no area of law has it been more successfully pursued than in what is commonly referred to as nervous shock. The £1,000 threshold on such injuries which was introduced in the 1977 order successfully curbed the proliferation of nervous shock claims which had been previously experienced.
But with the passage of time the position has been eroded and claims for compensation for impairment of mental condition are once again commonplace, often in conjunction with a claim for physical injury. Unfortunately some further restriction is necessary if the system is not to be overwhelmed.
An increase in the threshold was considered but rejected as it might exclude very deserving cases particularly among the more elderly or disadvantaged parts of the community. The changes which are introduced are intended to eliminate those cases which are but remotely connected to the criminal act or which have not been shown to have had a marked effect on the applicant.
Article 5(15) also brings one of the Northern Ireland compensation provisions into line with what has been the arrangement in the rest of the United Kingdom since 1979. It excludes from compensation accidental injuries sustained during the arrest or attempted arrest of an offender or the prevention or attempted prevention of an offence unless the applicant was at the time taking an exceptional risk. This is another area where the boundaries have over the course of years been extended to require the payment of compensation in circumstances which could scarcely have been contemplated when the legislation was originally drafted. The amendment aims to redress the balance and will affect only a small number of claims annually, principally made by police officers.
Article 6(1) contains another important provision which brings the Northern Ireland scheme into greater parity with the rest of the United Kingdom. It requires the Secretary of State in determining what, if any, compensation is payable to have regard to the character and way of life of the victim or applicant. This will not involve the making of moral judgments but will be decided only on the basis of the record of convictions by the victim or applicant for criminal offences. To ensure that there is equality of treatment the Secretary of State will operate within the guidelines used by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board.
Article 6(7), reflecting Section 5 of the Administration of Justice Act 1982, allows for any saving which results from maintenance at public expense in a hospital or similar institution to be taken

1047
into account in assessing compensation. However, to avoid having to account for every short spell in hospital, this order provides by virtue of Article 6(8) for any saving in the first eight weeks to be disregarded.
In Article 10(1) the Secretary of State's power to make discretionary payments to widows is extended to include widowers.
Finally in Article 16 there are two changes of substance. First, the period within which an appeal may be lodged is extended from six weeks to 10 weeks. Secondly, the introduction of fresh evidence on the hearing of an appeal will not be admissible, except with the consent of the Secretary of State, unless notice of the evidence is served on the Secretary of State at least seven days before the date of hearing.
As I indicated at the outset, this order deals with a very important subject in considerable detail which is mostly unchanged from the 1977 order. The changes which I have outlined briefly are designed to extend the scope of the scheme and to adjust its direction. I commend the order to your Lordships and I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 1st February be approved.—(Lord Lyell.)
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I should like to begin by welcoming the order, which, as the noble Lord explained, gives more generous consideration to the victims of violent offences. As the crime rate has grown, there has been a growing public concern about the manner in which the innocent victims of crime are treated by the law. Therefore there has been a growing demand in Northern Ireland, as in the rest of the United Kingdom, that the scope of the current criminal injuries compensation scheme should be expanded.
On this occasion I am particularly grateful to the Minister for explaining the main provisions of the order and the changes because I found it not all that easy to understand. That must be a weakness, because a compensation scheme should be presented in a manner which can be easily understood by a layman. Does the department intend to publish a popular version of the scheme or to publish guidelines? If not will it consider the desirability of doing so? I believe that that would be helpful for the layman.
It would also be helpful if the Minister could confirm whether the criminal injuries compensation scheme in Northern Ireland will be different in any material respect from the scheme proposed in Schedules 6 and 7 of the Criminal Justice Bill which has recently been before your Lordships' House. Again it would be helpful if he could tell the House whether the scheme complies in general with the Council of Europe's report on compensation for victims of violent crimes. That report was published in 1984.
I note that the Great Britain scheme set out in the Criminal Justice Bill requires the injury to be "caused by" the violent offence. Those key words are to be found in Section 107. On the other hand, the
1048
Northern Ireland scheme requires the injury to be "directly attributable" to the violent offence. Is there any good reason why the two schemes—one operative in Northern Ireland and the other in the rest of the United Kingdom—should not employ the same terminology in defining the relationship between the injury and the offence?
Much could be said about the details of the scheme but I propose to confine my comments and questions to Articles 3, 5(9), 6, 5(12) and to one omission from Article 12. Article 3 sets out the matters in respect of which compensation is payable. Can the Minister confirm whether that includes loss or damage to clothing of the victim? I appreciate that that would not be a large item but it would be helpful if he could confirm that the article is intended to include damage to clothing.
We have some doubts about Article 5(9), which provides that no compensation shall be paid to a person who has been at any time a member of an unlawful association. There is no public sympathy for victims who are members of such an association, but is there a practical argument for excluding from compensation a person who ceased to be a member of such an organisation many years ago? He may well have ceased to be a member 20 or 30 years ago, and I believe that there could be a great deal of public sympathy for such a person, who would be outside the ambit of the scheme because of his conduct so long ago.
We also have reservations about Article 6, which directs that the Secretary of State can have regard to the character and way of life of the applicant. I appreciate that this is a vexed question, but "character and way of life" is not term of art. One wonders whether the introduction of that criterion may contribute significantly to uncertainty over the scope of the order. Can the Minister explain to the House the theoretical justification for the provision? Is it merely because it is thought that there will be no public sympathy for applicants who possess such unfortunate characteristics?
We have reservations about Article 5(12), which deals with compensation for mental stress. I noted carefully what was said by the Minister about this paragraph but the reservation remains notwithstanding his explanation. As I understand it, compensation will not be paid for the trauma of being an innocent eye witness to a brutal act of terrorism unless the mental injury amounts to,
"a serious and disabling mental disorder".
The claim will not be entertained unless the compensation would have been not less than £1,000. What precisely is meant by the term:
"serious and disabling mental disorder"?
Must the disorder continue for a given period of time before it becomes "serious and disabling"? Again, should not the limit of £1,000 be reduced to £400, which I believe applies generally? Otherwise, the threshold of £1,000 produces a considerable compensation gap. One would have thought—and I think the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, suggested this—that there would have been pressure in Northern Ireland to broaden the scope of the scheme and not to restrict it in this particular respect so that

1049
compensation would be payable to an innnocent eye-witness of an act of terrorism. Again, one would wish to know what is the theoretical justification for imposing these restrictive conditions on this particular claim.
The application for compensation and the amount of compensation are to be determined by the Secretary of State with a right of appeal to the county court. However, according to the order, the Secretary of State does not have to give reasons for not making an award. Would it not have been advisable and more helpful, certainly to a claimant, if the Secretary of State were to give reasons for refusing an award? If the applicant has been refused an award because of the Secretary of State's assessment of his character and lifestyle, should this not be made known to the applicant so that he knows precisely the case that he has to answer on appeal? Perhaps the Minister can tell the House what kind of reasons, apart from the one that I have just mentioned, would justify the Secretary of State in not making an award.
Those are the only questions I wish to address to the Minister. But it would be helpful if he could tell the House how well the current scheme is being administered; how many claims are being received and processed; and how long it takes on average to process a claim. Is there a backlog of claims? And what is the cost of administering the present scheme? We trust that the new scheme will bring greater support to innocent victims of crimes of violence and that it will bring within its ambit some hitherto borderline cases.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, we are very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, for the care with which he has gone through the order before us this evening. He asked me a number of very relevant points and I shall do my best to cover his curiosity this evening. However, there is one point on which I may have to write to him; namely, the compliance of the order before us this evening with the European Convention on Compensation. I should like to give that matter a little more detailed, careful thought than I am able to give from the notes which I have. The notes are quite comprehensive; but I hope that he will forgive me this evening because a letter on the subject may extend to two pages.
The noble Lord asked me a number of questions of an opening nature. First, I am sure that the noble Lord is not alone in finding the order somewhat complicated to a non-lawyer; but a leaflet of an explanatory nature is available and it will be updated to take account of the changes in the draft order and I believe that this leaflet is referring to the 1977 order to which I have been referring.
The noble Lord also asked about the compensation provisions in Northern Ireland and how they compared with the provisions in Great Britain. Provisions in the draft order before us this evening would bring the rules for paying compensation in Northern Ireland broadly in line with those operating in Great Britain. If I say "broadly in line" that will give the noble Lord some indication. However, there will be some significant procedural differences between the two schemes
1050
which arise from the development of these particular schemes. The main difference is that in Northern Ireland it is the Secretary of State who determines the claim but the applicant has wide grounds for appeal and wide rights of appeal to the court if he is dissatisfied in any way with my right honourable friend's decision.
These traditional arrangements which will continue in Northern Ireland have stood the test of time, particularly in the circumstances which are prevalent in Northern Ireland. We believe that they command widespread public confidence and that they should remain, and indeed they provide a very valuable and valid safeguard to members of the public.
The noble Lord also asked about payment for clothing or physical aids. The basic argument against the inclusion of these particular items in Article 3 is that it would be anomalous to pay for damage to items of property in a scheme designed—and I have to stress this—to compensate for personal injury. Secondly, we believe it would create an unfair distinction between victims of an attack based on whether or not they had suffered actual injury during the incident. Thirdly, there would be a problem—and I believe the noble Lord will agree with me on this—in verifying and assessing the value of the items of the clothing and so on at the time of the damage, which might take account of wear and tear and other factors.
The noble Lord also asked me about membership of an unlawful association and the character of a claimant. A lifelong exclusion for membership of an unlawful association would appear to be a draconian measure, but when the original measure was introduced in 1977, the view of the Government was that anyone whose intent appeared to be the destruction of society and the infliction of suffering on others through involvement in terrorism had forfeited any right to compensation under a scheme which is, I stress again, intended to assist innocent victims of violence as a mark of public sympathy.
However, we recognised then (and still do) that there may be cases where the application of this principle would be unduly harsh, and I believe those are the ones to which the noble Lord is pointing. That is why my noble friend the Secretary of State has the authority to make discretionary payments wherever he considers it is in the public interest so to do. When one mentions the public interest, I am not producing a needless smokescreen. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, will accept that there may be grounds where it would be imprudent and wrong for my right honourable friend to give his decision or to indicate what were the grounds. But I know that my right honourable friend would wish me to say that he will exercise this discretion so far as he is able, above all in the public interest and in line with what we have proposed.
The noble Lord pressed me a little further on the justification for the character and way of life provision in Article 6. We believe the introduction of this provision is justified and is based on the argument that there is no appropriate way under any measure in your Lordships' House to make awards out of public funds to those who have perpetrated

1051
serious crimes on their fellow citizens; for example, drug trafficking or habitual thuggery. Once again, I stress that compensation is considered to be an expression of public sympathy for the innocent victims of violence and that is the main driving force behind the order this evening.
We know that Article 6 applies even where there is no connection between the victim's way of life and the incident out of which the criminal injury arose. Its application will be determined by reference to previous criminal convictions and only serious or persistent offenders will be affected by the measures in Article 6 which give the noble Lord some concern.
I return briefly to Article 5. The noble Lord raised the question of the lower limit for what we like to call nervous shock cases. There is a problem with nervous shock cases. The victim's mental reaction to an incident is difficult to assess in an objective way. It is frequently the subject of conflicting opinion by psychiatrists.
This difficulty is even more pronounced in claims where the degree of mental impairment—I believe this is a somewhat technical term but I am sure that the noble Lord will be at one with me in this—is relatively slight. The opinion of the psychiatrist has to rely heavily on the applicant's account of his condition. In these circumstances it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to separate the genuine claims from the false ones with any degree of certainty. It leaves the scheme open to abuse.
The proliferation of what we call nervous shock claims in the early 1970s led to the introduction in 1977 of the £1,000 limit which effectively restricted payment of compensation to cases of serious mental disorder. This is a measure which has survived from 1977 and we believe that it provides a reasonable limit even in the conditions in Northern Ireland.
The noble Lord asked me about nervous shock and the phrase "directly attributable". The interpretation by the courts of this expression has become much more liberal and generous than it was originally intended to be. It has reached such a pitch that it no longer conveys the need for a close and immediate link between the offence and the injury. We have found that an increasing number of claims are now being received which previously would not have qualified for compensation. The trend is very pronounced in nervous shock claims where we find it very difficult to prove or disprove the link between the injury and the offence.
The new provision, which requires that the applicant must have been present at the scene of the offence to be eligible for compensation, is intended to strengthen the meaning of the expression "directly attributable". A notice of determination which is issued by the Secretary of State will give reasons, and it always does give them, but it is not a statutory requirement.
I hope that that has covered the points raised by the noble Lord. As I promised, I shall certainly write to him on the European Convention on Compensation. That reply may be a little longer than the one I can give tonight. I am very grateful to the noble Lord for the care with which he has studied this
1052
order. It is complicated but it is important. We have examined it and I hope I have explained to your Lordships that we believe it is reasonable and that it meets the needs of the time.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Minors' Contracts (Northern Ireland) Order 1988
8.23 p.m.
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 16th March be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the draft order, which corresponds to the Minors' Contracts Act 1987, will implement in Northern Ireland the recommendations of the Law Commission's Report on Minors' Contracts (No. 134). The proposed legislation will remove certain restrictions which the present law places on the enforceability of contracts entered into by minors.
Minors' contracts are for the most part governed by the rules of common law. The basic principle of this is that a minors' contract is enforceable by, but not against, him. There are a number of exceptions to this principle, notably that contracts for what we call "necessaries" (contracts of employment and contracts involving certain lasting property rights or obligations) are enforceable against a minor. A common feature of these type of contracts is that they are likely to be of benefit to the minor.
The rules of common law have been affected by statute and in particular by two measures: first, the Infants Relief Act 1874, and, secondly—I am not joking—the Betting and Loans (Infants) Act 1892. I will not go into the reasons why infants would be taking part in this particular activity; we will leave that for another day.
By virtue of Section 1 of the 1874 Act contracts entered into by a minor, which are already unenforceable at common law, are rendered "absolutely void". One of the main effects of this is to invalidate adult guarantees on minors' contracts which come within the scope of the section. Under Section 2 of that Act ratification by an adult of a contract entered into during his minority is unenforceable and under Section 5 of the 1892 Act an agreement made by an adult to repay a loan made to him during minority is invalid.
These provisions have caused difficulty and uncertainty in the courts and the Law Commission recommended their repeal. The commission further pointed out the potential source of injustice arising from the present position whereby a minor can retain goods for which he is not liable to pay unless he had induced the transaction by fraud. Here the commission recommended that restitution should be possible in certain circumstances. The Law Commission's report focused on these defects and their possible remedy. The proposed draft order, like the Minors' Contracts Act 1987, closely follows the draft Bill which accompanied the Law Commission proposals.
I turn now to the main provisions of the order. Article 3 disapplies the Infants Relief Act 1874 and

1053
Section 5 of the Betting and Loans (Infants) Act 1892 in relation to contracts entered into after the order comes into operation. The main effect of this is to permit adults to ratify unenforceable contracts entered into during their minority. Article 4 provides that a guarantee on a minor's contract should be capable of being effective. Article 5 extends the power of the court to order restitution in respect of property acquired under an unenforceable contract to cases which do not involve fraudulent inducement on the part of a minor. Article 6 provides for the consequential amendment of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (linked to the treatment of guarantees in Article 4) and for the repeal of the 1874 and 1892 Acts.
The order before us is a modest law reform measure which improves this area of contract law and which has been welcomed on consultation in Northern Ireland. With that commendation, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 16th March be approved.—(Lord Lyell.)
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for introducing this short order. This is again a complex field and he has explained with clarity the background and the main features of the order. It is very much in line with the recommendations of the 134th report of the Law Commission and the provisions of the Minors' Contracts Act 1987. It is not controversial and we welcome its provisions. I have no questions to ask on the order itself but I am prompted to raise one matter.
This order comes before the House at a time when the Northern Ireland Law Society is pressing the case for a law reform commission to be established for Northern Ireland to be directly involved in the workings of the Law Reform Commission for England and Wales. It is felt by many lawyers in Northern Ireland that the Province may be losing out by not having its own law reform commission or at least by not having a presence within the present commission for England and Wales. This unease has been raised in your Lordships' House before now. I am wondering whether the Minister is in a position this evening to make a statement about the Government's response to the representations which have been made by the Northern Ireland Law Society that Northern Ireland should be more directly associated with the law reform machinery. I have no other questions.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, once again I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving considerable attention to the order, and for the remarks he made about it. He pointed to one or two of the concerns that have been shown by the Law Reform Commission and the Northern Ireland Law Society. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State and my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor are currently considering a number of options in regard to law reform in Northern Ireland. From that the noble Lord will be able to adduce that the aspect before us this evening will be within the ambit of the
1054
discussions. Whichever course we choose it will reflect the Government's commitment to improving the law reform machinery in the Province. In the discussions and talks we will have in considering the options and the suggestions made to us, the improvement of the law reform machinery will be first and foremost in our minds. A meeting is scheduled to take place later this month—within two-and-a-half weeks—between my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and the Northern Ireland Law Society to discuss law reform machinery.
The Minors' Contracts (Northern Ireland) Order is simple but important. Tonight of all nights I shall forbear from going through a very interesting Scottish case which I had to study in some detail. It concerned a young Irishman not from the Province of Ulster but from County Leitrim. He came to Glasgow and his case provided no fewer than 18 pages in the Session cases of 1913. The great case of M 'Feetridge v. Stewarts and Lloyds Limited has stuck with me still. However, we leave that case to another occasion when the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, may care to tempt me.
I hope that I have covered all the points. I guarantee that the law reform machinery will be considered closely by my right honourable friend. I have no doubt that the department of my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack will also be heavily involved in those discussions. We look forward to the improvement of law reform machinery. I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-seven minutes before nine o'clock.

  NORTH REPORT: TRAFFIC LAW REVIEW
  NORTH REPORT: TRAFFIC LAW REVIEW
  VEHICLE EXCISE DUTY EVASION: ACTION
  VEHICLE EXCISE DUTY EVASION: ACTION
  NATO SATELLITE LAUNCHERS: BIDS
  NATO SATELLITE LAUNCHERS: BIDS
  DIABETICS: PRESCRIPTION CHARGES
  DIABETICS: PRESCRIPTION CHARGES
  SUMMER TIME
  SUMMER TIME
  PASSPORTS
  PASSPORTS