Sitting of 19 April 1988

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

    School Buildings
    Mr. Pike: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what recent assessment his Department has made of the effect on educational standards of sub-standard school buildings.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Bob Dunn): Many factors may affect the educational standards achieved in schools and there is no reliable means of identifying the contribution made by any one in particular. Local education authorities are responsible for ensuring that school buildings are maintained at an appropriate standard.
    Mr. Pike: Is it not a fact that the Department's own inspectors have said that sub-standard buildings often have an adverse effect on the working conditions and education of our children? Is it not a fact also that the Department's own survey showed that £2 billion is needed by 1991 to put our schools in accessible order? When will the Government tackle this problem and put it right?
    Mr. Dunn: I may point out to the hon. Gentleman that £319 million was allocated for capital works in schools in 1988–89—26 per cent. more than in 1987–88. Taking account of capital receipts and other flexibilities, authorities' total national spending power in 1988–89 was £3·6 billion, which should enable many to start getting to grips with the problems to which the hon. Gentleman has referred.
    Mr. Pawsey: My hon. Friend's interest in this matter is considerable, and it is understandable and genuine. Can he tell the flouse whether he has had any success in persuading his colleagues to make more funds available to voluntary-aided schools to improve their buildings? I remind my hon. Friend of a visit that he made to my constituency and to St. Austin's and St. Marie's schools, and he may recall the condition of those schools. Can he hold out any hope of improving their condition reasonably soon?
    Mr. Dunn: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. I remember with great clarity and affection the visit that I made to his constituency.
    In response to the first part of his question I can tell him and the House that allocations to voluntary-aided schools for capital projects totalled £55·3 million in 1988–89—an increase of 38 per cent. over the figure for 1987–88. As a result, 32 major improvement and replacement projects are due to start.
    Mr. Ashdown: The Government recognise the implications of sub-standard buildings; hence the 1981 building regulations. However, unhappily they prevent local education authorities from doing anything about the situation by limiting their funds and loading other legal requirements on to them. I understand that if Somerset county council, for instance, were to fulfil its legal obligations for special needs, it would not be able to spend any more on decent school buildings. Does the Minister recognise that probably not one LEA in the country can meet the requirements of the 1981 building regulations by the time limits set? What will the Government do? Will they simply wash their hands and say, "It is nothing to do with us"?
    Mr. Dunn: I am grateful to the hon. Member for the moderate way in which he phrased his question. I remind him that it is for local education authorities to ensure that schools are properly maintained. The Government have made additional resources available to local education authorities—a fact which I am sure the hon. Member for
    Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) will welcome.
    Mr. Batiste: On the subject of the fabric of schools, does my hon. Friend recall the concern that I expressed in Committee on the Education Reform Bill about the incompetence of the Leeds education authority? Has he had a chance to read the letter from Councillor John Illingworth that I gave him this week? Does that letter not confirm my fears, and will my hon. Friend ask the schools inspectorate to launch an efficiency audit into the running of the authority?
    Mr. Dunn: I am sure that my hon. Friend's point will be noted by the schools inspectorate. I have received a copy of the letter sent by Councillor John Illingworth to his colleague, another Labour councillor, Councillor B. Walker. Councillor Illingworth had this to say:
    "Faced with this situation"—
    that is, school repairs and refurbishment—
    "the Group seems to have three stock responses:—

    1. Blame Mrs. Thatcher.

    2. Blame the Officers.

    3. Blame George Mudie.

    I am not sure in which order! I would like to suggest a fourth alternative: that the Group and the Party as a whole are collectively responsible for a situation which, even if it cannot be completely cured, could at least be made substantially better than it is at the moment."
    The councillor goes on to say:
    "I do not believe"—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I appeal for brief questions and briefer answers today.

    Education Reform
    Mr. Allan Roberts: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects to publish in full the details of his proposed national curriculum; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mrs. Angela Rumbold): The Government's proposals are set out in the Education Reform Bill now before Parliament.
    Mr. Roberts: When the Secretary of State publishes his proposed national curriculum, will he take account of the views expressed yesterday in the other place by Lord Joseph, that the present proposals represent too tight a straitjacket and that teachers will be testing pupils on too

    663
    many subjects, which will not allow time for other important subjects in the curriculum? If the Secretary of State cannot convince the Prime Minister of his view on the matter, is she likely to listen to the person whose protegôe she was?
    Mrs. Rumbold: I listened very carefully to the words of my right hon. and noble Friend in the other place yesterday afternoon, and I noted his concern about those children who fall into categories of lower attainment than the high fliers. I am certain, however, that as the debate proceeds in the other place and my right hon. and noble Friend learns the details proposed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, he will find and respond to the breadth and balance proposed in the national curriculum, and note the differentiation proposed by my right hon. Friend in the testing and attainment targets.
    Sir Peter Emery: When my hon. Friend publishes the national curriculum, will she draw the attention of school authorities to the desire of many people that schools should start the day in assembly or class, with a short Christian service—such as we have in the House of Commons, perhaps—featuring a prayer, a Bible reading, the Lord's Prayer and, if possible, the singing of a hymn?
    Mrs. Rumbold: I welcome my hon. Friend's comments and note his views. There has been considerable consultation and discussion with the Churches and with all the local authorities and others involved on the whole issue of school assembly. As far as possible, the Churches and the schools were agreed that some form of assembly should take place in schools. It is not always possible for such an assembly to start at the beginning of the day, however desirable that might be, but I am sure that those schools that can do so will take note of my hon. Friend's comments.
    Mr. Beggs: Does the Minister recognise that attainment testing of children of seven, eight, 11, 14 and 16 will place an increasing burden on classroom teachers? Will she endeavour to reduce the class contact hours worked by those teachers, to ensure that there is proper time not only for marking attainment tests but for preparing adequate pupil profile records? Finally, is it not time that more emphasis was placed on diagnostic testing throughout a pupil's school career, with the necessary remedial teaching?
    Mrs. Rumbold: I would commend to the hon. Gentleman Professor Paul Black's initial and interim report on testing and attainment targets. If and when he reads it, he will see that the report speaks extensively about the importance of testing. He will also note that much of what is being suggested is practice that is already being carried out with children in the classroom. The work being done on attainment targets will satisfy many people's queries and concerns about it.
    We are anxious that the work on records and profiles of achievement, which has been initiated in the schools, should continue and that teachers should find ample time to do it.
    Mr. Raison: Bearing in mind the admirable interest of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in English history, will my hon. Friend give an undertaking that if there is a move in another place to promote history to join the three core subjects in the curriculum, the Government will respond sympathetically to it?
    Mrs. Rumbold: I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend has also read Lord Joseph's speech, in which he made a special plea for British history, but I must leave these matters to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I assure hon. Members on both sides of the House that we shall expect the working group on history to look at British history and give due weight and attention to it when it comes to setting up attainment targets.
    Mr. Straw: Is the Minister aware that her arrogant dismissal of Lord Joseph's view, coming from one who lacks understanding, will do no more for the reputation of Ministers than yesterday's performance on the poll tax? How will Ministers meet Lord Joseph's view that the national curriculum is a straitjacket and too prescriptive?
    Mrs. Rumbold: The hon. Gentleman is much mistaken. Far from being arrogant about my noble Friend's remarks in another place yesterday, I listened to them with care and attention and got no impression that he was anything but highly supportive of the Government's proposals in all their measures. He voiced one or two concerns and we shall certainly take note of them.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my hon. Friend reassure Lord Joseph that children are stressed by tests only if they are excessively formally conducted and unrelated to work that they have been doing? Will she also assure the House and Lord Joseph that tests for children will be closely related to their curriculum and conducted in an informal atmosphere?
    Mrs. Rumbold: Yes, I am confident of that, and I assure my hon. Friend that it will be so.

    General Certificate of Secondary Education
    Mr. McWilliam: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received on Her Majesty's inspectors' report on the introduction of the general certificate of secondary education; and if he will make a statement.
    The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Kenneth Baker): None, Sir. The report provides reassuring evidence that the GCSE is being successfully introduced and is already leading to better teaching and learning in many schools.
    Mr. McWilliam: Is the Secretary of State aware of the great anxiety of many parents who, like me, have children who are guinea pigs in this examination this year, over the level of resourcing for the introduction of the GCSE? If he could not get the money from the Treasury this year that he needed to finance it properly, would it not have been better to phase it in over two or three years with the same resources?
    Mr. Baker: I got quite a lot of money out of the Treasury for the GCSE. The amount that was specifically provided in the year that has just ended was £115 million—the estimated amount spent on introducing the examination—and in the current year it amounts to £102 million. That is being spent on teacher training, textbooks and resources of that sort.
    Sir Dudley Smith: Does my right hon. Friend recall that when the change was made years ago from school certificate and matriculation it was done smoothly and without rancour? Is there any reason why the current change should not go through just as smoothly, allowing for political prejudice?
    Mr. Baker: I remember the change. I was one of the last of the cohort who took the old school certificate examinations. I thought that it was a good examination. As I did well in it I was rather attached to it. I understand that a change in an examination system is important. The planning for the GCSE started more than 10 years ago and the decision to go ahead with it was taken four years ago. A great deal of planning has gone into it, and I am glad that the inspectors think that it is settling in smoothly.
    Mr. Watts: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that examining boards are making adequate provision for children who suffer from dyslexia, in particular by permitting them to have teachers to read papers to them, without which facility they are placed under a severe handicap?
    Mr. Baker: I think that every examining board makes allowance for that. I am specifically asking the working groups on the national curriculum to ensure that they take into account children with special needs.
    Mr. Fatchett: The Secretary of State will know that the Labour party has been fulsome in its support in principle for the GCSE examination and that it still holds that position. Will he deal with two matters that are worrying parents? First, they are worried that the additional assessment and case work will impose great strains upon children and lead to a squeeze in the number of subjects that children may wish to take. Secondly, they are worried that the extra work may impose additional burdens upon teachers. There are suggestions that there is a need for 5,000 additional teachers. Those are real worries. Will the Secretary of State try to put some of them to rest?
    Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman spoke about extra teachers. This year there has been a continuing improvement in the pupil:teacher ratio, and it is planned to be 17:1 in 1989. That allows some flexibility.
    The hon. Gentleman also asked about children being stretched in the assessment work. There is some evidence of this. I am not too worried about children having to work a bit harder for their examinations, but I accept that it is important that they should not be overstreched. The general evidence is that this examination is going very well. One of the interesting things that we have discovered in talking to heads and to children is that, as a result of the type of teaching that goes with the GCSE, more children are now deciding to opt to stay on at school post-16. That is one of the unconvenanted blessings of this examination.
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the considerable concern that has been expressed by history teachers about the examination syllabuses and the examinations in the history curriculum? Will he arrange at the end of the first year of the GCSE for Her Majesty's Inspectorate to report on how the examination has gone?
    Mr. Baker: I am sure that Her Majesty's Inspectorate will do that. It is for the inspectorate to decide and it will almost certainly decide to do that. I assure my hon. Friend that I am also concerned about a particular aspect of history, and I shall be seeing the joint council of the GCSE examining groups in May to discuss progress.

    Higher Education
    Mr. Jim Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what discussions he has held with
    666
    local authorities about the provision and resourcing of access courses to higher education; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Robert Jackson): My right hon. Friend has not discussed this issue with local authorities. It is for each authority and for the appropriate institutions to consider how to secure adequate provision of access courses in its area. In this connection I note that the number of access courses has more than trebled over the last three years.
    Mr. Marshall: Does the Minister agree that there will be genuine concern about the future of access courses once the new funding arrangements for polytechnics and colleges of higher education come into being? To encourage people to break the cycle of educational deprivation, particularly among women, older people and ethnic minorities, will he give a categorical assurance that access quotas will continue and that funding will be guaranteed by local authorities and by the Government?
    Mr. Jackson: The Government share the hon. Gentleman's desire for the widening of educational opportunity, and we have a good record of success in this sphere. The participation of mature students has increased by 32 per cent. since 1979, and the participation of part-time students in higher education has increased by 31 per cent. since 1979. The proportion of women in higher education has risen from 38 per cent. in 1979 to 42 per cent. in 1986.
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does the Minister agree that his White Paper of 12 months ago set out the Government's commitment to more access for mature students? What initiatives have the Government taken in the past 12 months to encourage access by mature students? Does he agree that all the talk about loans to students does a great deal to put off mature students from the thought of going into higher education? Many of them are already worried about debts for housing and other things, and they would be completely put off if loans were on the agenda.
    Mr. Jackson: As the hon. Gentleman knows, discussion about access quotas and the provision of access is a rising theme in the university and higher education world. The Government are encouraging that in discussions with the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals of the Universities of the United Kingdom and with the Committee of Directors of Polytechnics. The hon. Gentleman spoke about loans. The basic fact that we must recognise is that our very expensive system of grants—the most expensive in the Western world—has not delivered very substantial access. Only 6 per cent. of university entrants came from social classes 4 and 5 in 1979, and it rose to only 8·1 per cent. in 1986. That is an increase over the period of office of the Government, but the figure is still low and it suggests that the grants system is not delivering access.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: When considering the question of people going forward to higher education, has my hon. Friend considered the A-level syllabuses? The GCSE is taking students very much towards university and the type of study that they would do there. A-levels are now rather out of line with that. Have any studies been made on that?
    Mr. Jackson: As my hon. Friend knows, a committee under the chairmanship of the vice chancellor of

    667
    Southampton university is considering the future of A-levels. Meanwhile, I should draw my hon. Friend's attention to the introduction by the Government of the AS-level, which we hope will be more widely used and will have the beneficial effects for which my hon. Friend hopes.

    Teachers
    Mr. Ashdown: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on teacher recruitment in national curriculum core and foundation subjects.
    Mr. Kenneth Baker: Recruits to initial teacher training in all subjects, including the national curriculum core and foundation subjects, were well up last year. Allocations to initial teacher training from 1990 and our energetic campaign of recruitment will both focus on the teachers' needs of the national curriculum.
    Mr. Ashdown: Does the Secretary of State agree with the Black report that proper assessment and testing in line with its recommendations, as against the crude snapshot tests preferred and favoured by the Prime Minister, will require more time for training and assessment and, therefore, less contact time with pupils? Does he accept that that will have an inevitable consequence for the pupil:teacher ratios required to deliver the national curriculum? Will he undertake to consider that matter fully when producing the figures on the number of teachers required to deliver the national curriculum, which was promised to me by the Minister of State three months ago?
    Mr. Baker: A review is being carried out on secondary staffing, but we are broadly satisfied that there are sufficient teachers within the system to deliver the national curriculum, bearing in mind that there will be a drop in secondary pupils of 280,000 over the next three years and that the school population at secondary level will not be up to this year's level again until the year 2000. We believe, therefore, that, with proper retraining and in-service training, we will be able to meet the needs of the national curriculum.
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: Does my right hon. Friend agree that teacher recruitment involves meeting a shortage of teachers in some subjects and a surplus in others? Does he also agree with Sir George Porter, president of the Royal Society, who last week said that the way to solve that problem was through a regional form of bargaining, even down to local authority level, for teachers' salaries, rather than through a nationally-based union?
    Mr. Baker: That raises very wide questions, but I agree with my hon. Friend that there is a shortage in certain key subjects—mathematics, physics and craft, design and technology. There was a substantial increase last year in the number of teachers training in those shortage subjects. For example, in CDT and business studies there was an increase of 21 and 19 per cent., and there has been an increase in the number of teachers training in mathematics and physics. That is part of our thrust, because they are key subjects.
    Mr. Duffy: Is the Secretary of State aware of the persisting fears, as revealed during the last few days, of the Catholic bishops of England and Wales that his Bill threatens the Catholic schools system? The bishops are especially anxious that the national curriculum should
    668
    make provision to enable teachers and the governors of voluntary schools to preserve and develop the distinctive ethos and character of their schools.
    Mr. Baker: I can give the hon. Gentleman an absolute assurance on that. We want to ensure that the particular ethos of Church schools, whether Catholic, Anglican, Jewish or of other faiths, is preserved. We also want to ensure that religious education is taught in the non-Church schools, and we shall bring forward amendments in the other place to ensure that religious education is part of the basic curriculum, standing alongside the foundation and core subjects, primus inter pares.
    Mr. Key: When does my right hon. Friend expect to be able to publish the report of the interim advisory committee on teachers' pay?
    Mr. Baker: I received the interim advisory committee's report on 31 March. I shall publish it later today, together with my proposals, as a basis for consultation. It is a long, detailed report, and I know that hon. Members will find it very interesting. The next step is to ensure that we enter into the consultations required under the Teachers' Pay and Conditions Act 1987 with the teacher unions, local authority associations and the Churches.
    Mrs. Clwyd: The Secretary of State is being particularly complacent in glossing over the serious difficulties facing schools in the shortage subjects. Why, according to the latest figures obtained yesterday from the central register and clearing house, are there significant shortfalls in applicants for the postgraduate certificate of education course, which starts in the autumn, compared with last year? In mathematics the number of applicants is down by 17 per cent., in physics by 20 per cent., in biology by 18 per cent, and in modern languages by 12 to 13 per cent. Surely that is a very serious situation.
    Mr. Baker: We are not in the least complacent. We have not finished computing the cycle of recruiting. We had a large advertising programme in March to encourage people to apply for teaching training, and overall there is an increase of about 3 per cent. in applications over last year—and last year was an exceptionally good year.
    Mr. Paice: In view of my right hon. Friend's statement about the shortage of mathematics and some science subject teachers, will he redouble his efforts to draw into the teaching fraternity people who have had a career either in the services or in industry, so that we can add their tremendous experience to the pool of wealth?
    Mr. Baker: I support what my hon. Friend has said. We have a scheme to encourage people who have experience in industry, commerce or the services and who wish to change their careers, because they have a great deal to offer. If they have an aptitude for teaching they can draw upon their experience and also upon their maturity, which are valuable assets in a teacher.

    Task Group on Assessment and Testing
    Ms. Armstrong: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects the Task Group on Assessment and Testing to publish its final report; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Michael: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects the Task Group on Assessment and Testing to publish its final report; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Kenneth Baker: My Department has just received the further advice I requested from the task group, and expect to publish it in due course, when I have completed my consideration of it.
    Ms. Armstrong: Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to clear up a confusion? Is it the Government's view that testing is formative and diagnostic, as the Black report recommends, or is it the Government's view that it is summative, as the Prime Minister suggests?
    Mr. Baker: If the hon. Lady reads the Black report, she will note that in some of its paragraphs it is quite scathing about the misuse of diagnostic testing. The very fact that the Black report also recognises that the results of assessment and testing, particularly testing, should be published means that that is a summative use of the results of testing and assessment.
    Mr. Michael: Is not the report of the task force at variance with the crude form of measurement favoured by the Prime Minister? Does the Secretary of State agree with the comments made by Lord Joseph in the other place, and will he reassure us that he will not create a testing industry, which would divert resources from the important task of education?
    Mr. Baker: If we have a national curriculum and attainment targets at seven, 11, 14 and 16, which is the system which we shall have, and which has received support from both sides of the House, we shall have to assess and test the children. This is what teachers need to do, what pupils want, and what parents want to know. They want to know the answer to the question, "How is my child doing at a particular age against national criteria?" That is what we shall provide.
    Mr. Latham: I warmly welcome the practical, commonsense approach of the Black report, but will my right hon. Friend confirm that it remains his view and that of his Ministers that the results of any testing at seven should be known only to the parents, the head and the class teacher?
    Mr. Baker: The Black report made it clear that there should be assessment and testing at seven, but that it would be unfair to the school and the child to publish those results. I have already expressed my considerable sympathy with that approach. Seven is too early an age at which to make judgments, because children come in at different ages and have had different levels of experience of teaching.
    Mr. Sackville: Are not some of those teachers who criticise assessment on the grounds that it will expose children of ethnic backgrounds to unfair competition failing to help those children, and even possibly damaging their future prospects?
    Mr. Baker: I agree with my hon. Friend. I have been impressed by the number of parents of ethnic children who are insistent that their children are taught the basics and should know exactly where they stand. I look upon that as a reinforcement of basic standards in our schools.
    Mr. Straw: The Secretary of State will recall that in the private letter which the Prime Minister's private secretary sent his private secretary in January, the Prime Minister expressed great concern about the "very large cost" of implementing the Black report. Has the Secretary of State
    670
    yet reached any views about the total costs of testing? If so, what are they? Do the answers on testing that he has given this afternoon have the support of the Prime Minister?
    Mr. Baker: I am quite sure that they do—[Interruption.] I might confirm it by letter. The hon. Gentleman knows well that I, too, expressed anxiety in Committee about the complexity of an assessment and testing scheme. It must not be so complex that it bears down on the administration of the school. I am also concerned about the cost. As I have told the hon. Gentleman, we have received further documents from Professor Black's group. We asked him particularly to address these points. I shall publish those documents in due course.

    Teaching as a Second Career
    Mr. Evennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he is satisfied with the progress to date of the teaching as a second career campaign.
    Mrs. Rumbold: The Department's campaign to improve teacher recruitment, including the most recent initiatives of the teaching as a career unit and the London exhibition, have proved successful. In May we are holding a conference in London between top industrialists and educationalists to see how we can reduce teacher shortages with the help of industry.
    Mr. Evennett: I thank my hon. Friend for her reply and congratulate the Government on their efforts to get more teachers into schools. However, is my hon. Friend satisfied that there are enough candidates coming forward from industry to go into teaching, particularly those with science or technology talents and skills? Is there anything further that can be done to encourage more people with those backgrounds and interests to go into teaching?
    Mrs. Rumbold: We share my hon. Friend's anxiety to get more mature people into the teaching profession, especially those with the skills of science and technology. As a result of the advertising campaign to which my right hon. Friend referred just now we have had a most encouraging response from about 14,500 people, about half of whom are mature people. We hope that a number of mature entrants with that sort of experience will come into the teaching profession.
    Mr. Win Griffiths: Like the Minister, we appreciate the need for this campaign to be successful, but can the hon. Lady assure us that the national curriculum will not be introduced until local authorities have confirmed with the Government that there are sufficient qualified teachers to teach all subjects in the national curriculum?
    Mrs. Rumbold: The hon. Gentleman knows that it is very important for us to begin to introduce the national curriculum as soon as possible. It is therefore our intention, once the working groups on mathematics and science have reported, that those reports should be consulted upon and that the process of putting an order before the House should begin. Thereafter, we intend that children in primary schools will start to study mathematics and science under the national curriculum. The same will be true of English and technology, as the working groups are set up.
    The hon. Gentleman asked about teacher numbers. He will be very pleased to know that recruitment for primary sector teaching has increased by 10 per cent. this year.

    Universities and Polytechnics
    Mr. Cran: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what priority he attaches to the role of universities and polytechnics in regional development.
    Mr. Jackson: As national institutions, our universities, polytechnics and colleges have an important part to play in regional development by providing high quality education and training, by undertaking research and developing close links with industry.
    Mr. Cran: In the light of that answer, does my hon. Friend agree that it is indeed a strange decision by the University Grants Committee to recommend the closure of the geology department at the University of Hull, precisely because of the amount of help it gives to industry, attested to by the fact that Yorkshire and Humberside CBI has written to say exactly that? Can my hon. Friend find some inventive way of giving a signal to the UGC that it has taken a wrong decision?
    Mr. Jackson: The basic purpose of the subject rationalisation exercises that are being undertaken by the UGC is to strengthen provision nationally for teaching and research. We wish to strengthen it academically by concentrating on centres of excellence, and financially by deploying our resources in the most clearly targeted way. In such a process there will always be gainers and losers, and the losers will always dispute the criteria. Under the constitutional arrangements in this area the criteria are for the UGC to determine. With regard to regional interests, one of the half dozen major earth sciences centres projected by UGC will be in Leeds, which is not far away.
    Dr. Thomas: Will the Minister explain why the gainers tend to be in the south-east of England for higher education research as well as for other areas of public policy? Will he ensure that our new university research centres are geographically spread throughout the nations and regions of the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Jackson: I am sure that the UGC will rightly wish to continue to pursue a United Kingdom national policy in the allocation of its resources and that it will look for the areas of best advantage in terms of academic quality for the development of its research centres and for the deployment of its research resources.
    Mr. Brandon-Bravo: My hon. Friend will know that Nottingham is central to the east midlands region and that the city proudly possesses two distinguished places of higher education, Nottingham university and Trent polytechnic, the latter, of course, looking forward with great eagerness to independence under the coming legislation. Given Trent polytechnic's strong commercial and industrial links and the rapid growth of the science park at Nottingham university, will my hon. Friend bear in mind the role of the Queen of the Midlands in any discussions that his Department has on a regional technology centre?
    Mr. Jackson: I am happy to join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the good work done by Trent polytechnic and Nottingham university and I shall certainly take note of his suggestion.
    Mr. Madden: Will the Minister confirm that Bradford and Ilkley college is making a major contribution to the local and regional economy and enjoys widespread support, including that of local business, and will he find time to visit it before late September or early October? Will
    672
    he also arrange to make an early statement to remove entirely the college's uncertainty about its long-term funding?
    Mr. Jackson: I am undertaking an extensive tour of visits to universities and colleges up and down the land, and only last week I was in that area. I shall certainly take note of the hon. Gentleman's suggestion and look into the possibility of visiting the college.

    Children (Special Needs)
    Mr. Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on his Department's provision for those children assessed as having special needs.
    Mr. Dunn: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced last November that the Government would be providing for local education authorities to spend nearly £13·9 billion on education in 1988–89. Within this figure a sum is being provided for special schools. It is for local education authorities to determine whether children have special educational needs and to secure appropriate provision for them within the terms of the Education Act 1981.
    Mr. Amess: Does my hon. Friend recognise the anxiety felt by some parents, who believe that their children are not making the sort of progress at school that they would have hoped and that local education authorities also take some time to recognise that fact? Does he agree that provisions in the Education Reform Bill requiring testing will mean that assessment of and assistance for children with special educational needs will be given more quickly?
    Mr. Dunn: I understand my hon. Friend's point. Useful pointers may be derived from the way in which a child performs as a result of the application of the national curriculum. Thus, the national curriculum may provide a long stop in the identification of specific learning difficulties.
    Mr. Janner: Does the Minister accept that the Department of Education and Science and local education authorities do not have the power to provide children with the special need which many of them require most, which is physiotherapy, and that the Department of Health and Social Security has to be brought in for schools such as the Western Park school in my constituency, where some 50 children need physiotherapy and have the use of one physiotherapist for one hour each week? Is that not a disgrace?
    Mr. Dunn: The hon. and learned Gentleman will be pleased to know that all local education authorities are now operating the procedures introduced by the Education Act 1981. He rightly draws attention to a specific concern, but he knows that the employment of physiotherapists is not a matter directly for my Department.
    Mrs. Ann Winterton: Will my hon. Friend allay the fears of the parents of deaf children and give an assurance that the special needs of their children will be fully met by the proposals in the Education Reform Bill?
    Mr. Dunn: We shall be asking for and taking advice from a variety of working groups on children with special needs. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the needs of children who suffer from deafness in one form or another.
    Mr. Fatchett: Is the Minister aware of the excellent work carried out by the Inner London education authority for children with special educational needs? Is he also aware that last week parents in ILEA expressed overwhelmingly their satisfaction with the authority and their desire that it should continue? Is it the Government's policy to listen to parents only when they say what the Government want? Will they just ignore the strong wishes of Inner London parents?
    Mr. Dunn: The hon. Member is incorrect when he says that the ballot last week was of all Inner London education authority parents. It was not. I have every confidence that the London boroughs will continue to provide for children with special educational needs in the future when they become education authorities in their own right.

    Student Loans
    Sir John Farr: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he is yet in a position to make a statement on student loans.
    Mr. Jackson: No Sir. The Government will determine their policy in the light of the conclusions of the review of student support. They will publish their proposals for the future of student support in due course.
    Sir John Farr: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has said. Will he look into the possibility of introducing a pilot scheme whereby loans could be made to students whose application for a grant had been turned down by the local education authority?
    Mr. Jackson: This is certainly one of the subjects that we shall be looking at in the student support review, and I have considerable personal sympathy with my hon. Friend's suggestion.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Squire: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 19 April.
    The Prime Minister: This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Squire: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the resolution passed in the Danish Parliament on 14 April on ships visits is not compatible with our long-standing policy of neither confirming nor denying that our ships are carrying nuclear weapons? Will she further confirm that this has major implications for our commitment to Denmark if we are requested to give assistance in the future?
    The Prime Minister: Yes. That resolution, which is very similar to a New Zealand one, has very far-reaching implications for the whole of NATO policy. The Danish Folketing passed a resolution that nuclear weapons were not welcome, even on ships going into harbours in Denmark. That, in view of our policy neither to confirm nor to deny the presence of nuclear weapons on ships, means that ships cannot visit and cannot practise reinforcement exercises. It has very grave implications, which we must consider in NATO, for the whole of NATO policy.
    Mr. Kinnock: Can the Prime Minister tell us whether there has been any progress with what Ministers recognize
    674
    to be an important investigation into the serious matter of the leak of the minutes of her meeting on 11 April with the Secretary of State for the Environment and other Ministers on the poll tax and housing benefit?
    The Prime Minister: No. I have nothing further to report to the House on that matter.
    Mr. Kinnock: Does the Prime Minister regard that leak as serious because it jeopardises national security or because it exposes the organised mendacity of the Government?
    The Prime Minister: No. So long as people are prepared to receive such documents there will be some people who will pass them on.
    Mr. Kinnock: So much is understood, but as it is now clear that on 11 April the Prime Minister agreed that the poll tax concessions announced last week should be paid for by poll tax increases not announced last week and that those concessions should then be reduced by further housing benefit cuts, is it not obvious that since last Monday the Prime Minister arid other Ministers have been seeking to double-cross their Back Benchers, and that for some it has worked?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman, as usual, has only very partial information, from a received, stolen document. There were a series of meetings last week, which led to a wide discussion about the community charge and to the announced decision to reduce the rate at which benefit should be withdrawn in 1990–91 for the purposes of the community charge. The right hon. Gentleman knows that decision. Consistent with it, the rate at which housing benefit for rent payments will be withdrawn in 1989–90 will not be increased. The whole community charge rebate arrangements will, of course, be treated as one. Further meetings last week concluded that decisions on the related Exchequer grant for 1990–91 cannot be taken until the summer of 1989, in accordance with the normal procedures. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. John Carlisle: Will my right hon. Friend take time today to contact the British Amateur Athletic Board and urge it to reject the recommendation of the International Amateur Athletics Federation that Miss Zola Budd be banned for 12 months? Does she agree that this form of blackmail in international sport is totally unacceptable, particularly when the victim is completely innocent of the offence?
    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend is aware, we subscribe to the Gleneagles agreement. The particular matter to which he refers is for the British Amateur Athletic Board and the International Amateur Athletics Federation, but a number of us find it rather repugnant that so much effort is now concerned with stopping a young woman from competing in international athletics.
    Mr. Alex Carlile: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 19 April.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. and learned Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Carlile: Will the right hon. Lady follow the advice given by the DHSS of putting cooking foil under her bottom sheet and of not going shopping when she is hungry, or is that cynical advice to be reserved for middle-aged widows living on social security?
    The Prime Minister: I saw the reports of the advice to which the hon. and learned Gentleman refers. I understand that those who advise people on social security have been giving advice for a very considerable time. If one looks at the leaflet, which obviously I did after I had seen the report, because, like the hon. and learned Gentleman, I found some of it very distasteful, one finds that a great deal of the advice is very sensible. I share the hon. and learned Gentleman's views about two or three particular things, but I am informed, after inquiry, that there are people who will give advice, if asked, and that the advice has been given on the same basis, although perhaps not in the same detail, for a very long time.
    Mr. Warren: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether, following her reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire), she will consider the fact that, devoted as this country is to the nuclear deterrent within NATO, she should make it clear to the Soviet delegation to this country when she meets it later this afternoon that we are interested in making sure that there are nuclear reductions on both sides and that we are looking for substantial reductions in conventional arms in order to further the cause of peace?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. We welcome the agreement on nuclear reductions, but we are very well aware of the fact that, beyond the agreement that we hope will be reached on strategic weapons, we need to embark upon reductions in conventional weapons and chemical weapons. Proposals are being prepared for that very purpose.
    Mr. Sean Hughes: Does the Prime Minister recall the circumstances in which her folk hero, Sir Winston Churchill, came to power? It was because that the then Conservative Prime Minister had resigned because his majority had fallen to 81, with 33 Tory Members of Parliament voting against him?
    As the Prime Minister's majority slumped to 25 last night, with 38 Members voting against her, will she explain to the House why the precedent set in Winston's day does not apply now?
    The Prime Minister: I remember that one of Sir Winston Churchill's sayings was that in this House of Commons one is enough. It most certainly was for the Labour party, because it nationalised aircraft and shipbuilding by a majority of one vote, and a very questionable one, too.
    Mr. Amess: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 19 April.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Amess: Has my right hon. Friend seen a report that a 28-bed ward at St. Thomas' hospital will now remain open following an £85,000 reduction in its rates bill as a result of this Government capping Lambeth council's rates? Does it not suggest that excessive rate increases damage jobs and businesses and also damage the Health Service and health care?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. The high rates of profligate Labour authorities drive out jobs and divert resources that ought to go to health care. If the news that he has given is true, there must be
    676
    many people in Lambeth who are delighted with this Government's rate-capping policies, which have had such a good result.
    Ms. Short: Will the Prime Minister tell the House her views on the behaviour of the Israeli Government following the Palestinian uprising in the occupied territories? Will she use the influence that she has with America to arrange an international conference so that a settlement can be achieved, whereby a Palestinian state will stand side by side with an Israeli state? That is the only answer.
    The Prime Minister: We are doing everything that we possibly can to try to get negotiations going in the middle east. A vacuum is the worst thing for that part of the world. As the hon. Lady knows, we have used our influence with the United States. We also support Mr. Shultz in continuing his initiative. We support an international conference as a framework for negotiations between Israel, King Hussein of Jordan and a Palestinian delegation. It is important that efforts to that end should continue.
    Dr. Twinn: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 19 April.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Dr. Twinn: Does my right hon. Friend welcome the report of the National Association of Health Authorities in England and Wales, which states that patients who do not receive their treatment within a reasonable period of time should, at no cost to themselves, be able to turn to the private sector? The bill will then be picked up by the National Health Service.
    The Prime Minister: I know that new evidence has arrived recently, which is going to the Department of Health and Social Security. The report contains a number of valuable proposals for reform of the National Health Service. The report is particularly concerned with the waiting time for operations and contains the proposal that my hon. Friend stated. It will be considered carefully. We are most anxious that waiting time should be reduced and that the money that goes to the National Health Service should be used to maximum efficiency.
    Mr. Andrew Welsh: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 19 April.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Welsh: Is the Prime Minister aware of the loss of 28,000 electors in Scotland? That is equivalent to the disappearance of the whole of the Caithness and Sutherland constituency and is against all demographic trends. How can she explain such a massive failure to register, except in terms of the poll tax, which no one but her Government wants?
    The Prime Minister: There is a duty to register and it is up to citizens to exercise that duty. If they accept the freedom of citizenship, they should not opt out of their responsibility.
    Mr. Tredinnick: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 19 April.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Tredinnick: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the single European market, which will be introduced in 1992, offers immense opportunities to British industry? Does she also agree that if British industry is to take advantage of that agreement, it must act now?
    The Prime Minister: We have been working towards a single market in Europe for a long time. It is a market of some 320 million people. It is far larger than the market in Japan or the market in the United States. It offers great opportunities for business and commerce in this country. I agree with my hon. Friend that British industry should prepare for it now in order to get the right goods and services to meet consumer demand in that market. My right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is setting up conferences. There will be 20 regional conferences. Areas such as my hon. Friend's should he in a very good position to take advantage of that single common market.
    Mr. Stevens: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 19 April.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Stevens: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in my constituency, and in other parts of the midlands, house prices have risen substantially in recent months? The sale of houses is now comparatively easy. Does she agree that that is a reflection of the increasing prosperity in the midlands, which has been achieved through the economic policies of the Government?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I have seen the reports about house prices. There is an excellent demand for houses in
    678
    the west midlands. There are also some very good estates of new private houses being built. Unemployment is falling faster in the west midlands than in any other part of the United Kingdom and prosperity is increasing. It is good news for all.
    Mr. Mullin: May we take it that the Prime Minister is now in favour of persons who blow up oil rigs?
    The Prime Minister: I am in favour of action against those who lay mines against shipping in the Gulf—action under article 51 of the United Nations—and of not letting people get away with constantly causing extra trouble on what should be a free international seaway. I fully support the action taken by the United States.
    Mr. Hanley: To ask the Prime Minister if she wil1l list her official engagements for Tuesday 19 April.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Hanley: Will my right hon. Friend continue to do all that she can to protect the British Merchant and Royal Navy seamen in the Gulf and to serve Britain's interests in furthering world peace in that area?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, the Armilla patrol has been there for nearly eight years and will continue to be there, together with the minesweepers. We co-operate closely with the other fleets in the Gulf to ensure that that seaway is kept free and open for shipping of all nations.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I have notice of a personal statement first. Mr. Ron Brown.

Personal Statement
3.30 pm
Mr. Ron Brown: I should like to make a statement concerning an incident last evening. Of course, the media have made much of it—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman resume his seat? I advise him that he must make the statement that has been agreed with me.
Mr. Brown: I can agree many things, and if I apologise—[Interruption.]—I apologise to my hon. Friend the
Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden)—
Mr. Speaker: Order. What the hon. Gentleman is now about to do, quite correctly, is laid down in our practice. He must make the personal statement that he has agreed with me.
Mr. Brown: With respect, Mr. Speaker, that statement is not acceptable. The facts, in all fairness to yourself and to others in this place—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Brown rose—
Hon. Members: Sit down.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has agreed a statement which he wishes to make to the House—[Interruption.] Well, if the hon. Gentleman does not now wish to make it to the House, that puts a completely different complexion upon it.
Mr. Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: No, I am on my feet. If the hon. Gentleman is prepared to make the statement which has been agreed and in the proper form, I will hear him. If he seeks to qualify it in any way, I regret—it would be with regret—that I cannot hear it.
Mr. Brown: Since you know the grovelling statement, Mr. Speaker, I am not going to read it out; I am going to accept it. Right? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."]
Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that it is a grovelling statement and I ask the hon. Gentleman to make it.
Mr. Brown: All right, I will make a statement. This is the place, so they say, where precedent is so firmly established. My statement is simply this—it is only a few words—if the House is embarrassed, I must say that it is true that last evening an incident happened and I was involved. I apologise to the hon. Members—
Mr. Speaker: Order—[Interruption.] Order. Will the House please allow me to deal with this? I advise the hon. Gentleman that whatever private advice he may have received, as far as I am concerned and as far as the House is concerned, I must abide by our practice. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to make a personal statement—I hope that he does—it must be made in the form which has been agreed with me. I give him an opportunity now to do that; otherwise I am afraid that I may have to take other action.
Mr. Brown: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Can I just say to you—[HON. MEMBERS: "No".]
Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman wants to come and say anything to me, he must do so privately after he has made his statement, but he must make his statement now.
Mr. Brown: Obviously, if, really—[Interruption.] In view of the fact—[Interruption.] So be it—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I must say to the hon. Gentleman for the last time that he should make his personal statement now, without qualifications.
Mr. Brown: Mr. Speaker, I grovel, grovel and say—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a personal statement.
Mr. Brown rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman does not make his statement, I shall be forced to take other action.
Mr. Brown: May I quote, Mr. Speaker—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I wish to make a personal statement—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is making his personal statement.
Mr. Brown: With regard to the Mace—I do not know who he is—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—I apologise to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the House because I accept responsibility for any damage that was sustained by the Mace. I did not write this rubbish but you know it—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]
Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot accept that as a personal statement by the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Brown rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I must ask the hon. Gentleman now to leave the Chamber while I consider carefully what further action I shall have to take on the matter.
Mr. Brown: This is the agreed statement.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the hon. Gentleman now to leave the Chamber, otherwise I shall be forced to name him.
Mr. Brown: That was the agreed statement.
Mr. Speaker: I ask the hon. Gentleman to leave the Chamber.
The hon. Member left the Chamber.
Mr. Speaker: Ten-minute Bill. Miss Widdecombe. [Interruption.] Will the hon. Lady kindly resume her seat for one moment? If hon. Members are not remaining for the ten-minute Bill, will they please leave the Chamber quietly?
Sir Peter Tapsell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I will take the point of order after the ten-minute Bill. Miss Widdecombe.
Mr. Cranley Onslow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have already called the hon. Lady. I will take the points of order after the hon. Lady has finished.
Mr. Eric S. Heifer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I have already said to the right hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) that 1 have called the hon. Lady to move her ten—minute Bill. I will take the points of order after she has done so.

School Bus Passes (Revision of Regulations)
3.38 pm
Miss Ann Widdecombe: I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law relating to school bus passes to allow local authorities greater flexibility in establishing routes and charging for transporting children to school.
The reason for the Bill is that, under present regulations, as set down by section 55 of the Education Act 1944, local authorities are obliged to supply free transport passes for children over eight years who live more than three miles from their school and for children under eight years who live more than two miles from their school. The result of that is that local authorities measure the route between a child's home and school, and assess whether that child is eligible for free transport on that basis.
The route taken is the shortest and some routes are extremely hazardous. I have walked lonely country routes which are designated as the correct and proper route for a child to take, walking to school, and some of them are not safe for fully grown adults to walk, let alone children. They go through lonely fields and woods. With all the publicity that has been given to the problems of abduction and molestation, I find it incredible that we still have this provision in the Act.
According to a ruling of the Law Lords, in assessing whether a route is unduly hazardous, county councils are not obliged to take any note of whether a child travels that route alone. Yet it is unreasonable to assume that a secondary school child will be accompanied to school every day, particularly if the parents of that child must accompany younger children to school. This Bill would make it compulsory for county councils to take account of the fact that a child may be travelling a route unaccompanied when they assess whether it is unduly hazardous.
This morning, I heard my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport campaigning for greater road safety for children, but some routes that have been established as manageable for children are clearly not and present immense traffic hazards.
Furthermore, the present law throws up too many anomalies. In my constituency, an entire village has lost its entitlement to free school transport because the school gate has been moved from one side of the school to the other and, lo and behold, they are now within a few yards of the three—mile limit. Two children can stand at the same bus stop and make the same journey to school, one having to pay the full fare and the other travelling free.
Problems arise when parents want to send a child to a school of a particular denomination and that school is more than three miles from the child's home. The child is not entitled to free transport unless the child has been baptised or received into that denomination. Many parents want their children to have a traditional Christian upbringing which they can receive only in Church and Catholic schools, but there may be nearer schools on which the children's entitlement to free transport is assessed.
That makes nonsense of our wise policy of increasing parental choice, because that choice will be limited by the expenses that parents can meet. In my constituency, a child eligible for a concessionary fare—a child can have a

683
concessionary fare only if there is a bus; it is not automatic—has to pay £50 per term. One hundred pounds to send two children to school is prohibitive for some parents and will result in certain schools being removed from their area of choice.
My county council supports this measure, and in 1980 the Government tried to introduce a similar measure. It was rejected in another place because, sadly, we laid down clear rules for how we could afford the extra costs involved in providing additional free transport. If we charge everybody something, we shall be able to extend the range of transport provided, but there is no need to lay down rules for that calculation. County councils should be able to choose according to the prevailing conditions. My own has come up with a scheme which would not penalise rural schools, but would help rural communities. This Bill would give county councils the flexibility to introduce different rules for assessing hazards and charging for transport.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Miss Ann Widdecombe, Mrs. Gillian Shephard, Mr. Henry Bellingham, Mr. Julian Brazier, Mr. David Evans, Mr. David Davis, Mr. John Redwood, Mr. James Cran, Mr. Keith Mans, Mr. David Nicholson, Mr. Simon Burns and Mr. David Porter.

School Bus Passes (Revision of Regulations)
  SCHOOL BUS PASSES (REVISION OF REGULATIONS)
  Miss Ann Widdecombe accordingly presented a Bill to amend the law relating to school bus passes to allow local authorities greater flexibility in establishing routes and charging for transporting children to school: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon 13 May and to be printed. [Bill 142.]

Personal Statement (Points of Order)
3.45 pm
Mr. Cranley Onslow (Woking): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The whole House will have heard the unsatisfactory exchanges between yourself and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown), when the hon. Gentleman clearly and deliberately refused to abide by the rules of the House and make an apology in a form agreed with you, as the rules lay down, for his disgraceful action yesterday evening.
I think that the House understands that, confronted with such extraordinary defiance, it is right that you, Mr. Speaker, should have had a moment or two to reflect upon what action you could take to protect the dignity and authority of the Chair and of the House as a whole, but equally the House is now entitled to know what remedies lie in your hands and in ours, and how soon they will be proceeded with.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: I shall take the point of order to be raised by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller).
Mr. Eric S. Heifer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have just consulted the Clerks of the House and understand that the attitude that you have taken is based on "Erskine May", which says that you have to give leave. you have just given leave to the hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) to present a ten-minute Bill. Giving leave does not mean that you have to agree with what she said or what is in the Bill. As far as I can see, we have now strayed beyond what is acceptable and understandable in the House of Commons.
I always understood, contrary to what some new Members might think, that personal statements were personal statements, not statements agreed with anybody else. If the statement was not acceptable, one had to decide afterwards whether it was acceptable. But it is a personal statement. In the House, are we now reaching the stage where personal statements are no longer acceptable? [Interruption.] Let me say to hon. Members who have just come in that some of us believe in the House of Commons and its procedures. The reason we do so is that—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. The point of order is to me.
Mr. Heller: The reason is that we passionately believe in parliamentary democracy, which has been fought for over the years. I am asking how the interpretation of the paragraph in "Erskine May" means that a statement has to be agreed—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is outside the House, and he is speaking.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Heifer: I ask how a statement has to be agreed with Mr. Speaker before an hon. Member can make it, having accepted that he made a mistake in the House.
That is my point. I want an explanation. Perhaps I have been living in a fool's paradise—
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is making his point of order to me, not to Members on the Government Benches.
Mr. Heifer: If one takes the example of the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) who lifted up the Mace and wielded it above his head, almost hitting hon. Members, I always believed that his personal statement was made by him alone and was not necessarily agreed with anyone else. Where does it say that Mr. Speaker must agree with a personal statement?
Mr. Speaker: I will deal with that matter at once. It has long been a tradition in the House, and certainly it was the case in the episode that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned, that personal statements are also agreed with Mr. Speaker. It is Mr. Speaker who gives leave for a right hon. or hon. Member to make such a statement. I hoped very much that a personal statement would be made this afternoon, in the terms that had been given to me and that I had agreed. I deeply regret that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown) felt unable to do that.
Sir Hugh Rossi: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Over the years, this House has been accustomed to recognising that things may be said or done in the heat of the moment that are regretted afterwards. This House has always been extremely tolerant in accepting apologies for things that happen in the heat of the moment. On this occasion, the Mace, which is the symbol of the dignity of the House, was thrown to the floor of the House and, I understand, severely damaged.
If the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown) had expressed regret for his action, I am sure the House would have accepted his apology. It is clear from what we have heard this afternoon that the hon. Gentleman was not prepared to express his regrets; he spoke in terms of "Grovel, grovel, grovel." That is not acceptable to the House.
Some of us view with increasing anxiety the way in which some hon. Members treat the House and its traditions with increasing contempt. The time has come to put a stop to it. [HoN. MEMBERS "Hear, hear!"] We regard a five-day suspension on full pay as inadequate. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to look into the matter further and to inquire whether it is possible to ask for compensation in respect of any damage that may have been done to the Mace.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not believe that we can profitably pursue this matter by points of order. I am bound by the penalties that are described in "Erskine May". I call the Leader of the House.
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): This is a very serious matter, made worse by the events in the Chamber that we have just witnessed. I will arrange for urgent discussions to take place between the usual channels with a view to tabling a Government motion later today.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that any further points of order can arise from the remarks of the Leader of the House.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop.
Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: It is important that an incorrect statement of the practice of the House
686
should not be allowed to go unchallenged and therefore become the record. The reason why Mr. Speaker is required to give his agreement before a personal statement may be made is that the statement is neither debatable nor subject to interruption. That is why your predecessors, Mr. Speaker, have always enforced the rule of no departure from that statement. For instance, in the case of the late right hon. John Stonehouse, when he three times endeavoured to depart from the agreed personal statement, each time Mr. Speaker Lloyd recalled him very firmly to the statement that he, as Mr. Speaker, had approved. It is important that the record in this matter be stated correctly.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman was entirely correct in what he said. He said in terms of explanation what I said as a matter of fact.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown) is my parliamentary neighbour. I think that the House should understand that here is an hon. Member who has suffered an industrial injury such as most of us have been spared.
My point of order, Mr. Speaker, is succinct. I understood, having made a personal statement, that such a statement was a matter between the hon. Member concerned and Mr. Speaker. It would have been very much better if you had dealt with the situation than that my hon. Friend should be triggered off by noise. Some of us would think interruptions very vulgar and insensitive in such difficult circumstances. In all the consideration, could it be made clear that, when a personal statement is made, the whole House is silent, leaves this difficult matter to the Speaker of the House of Commons and does not start interrupting?
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: They were hounding him.
Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown) had made his statement in the form that he agreed with me, it would have been heard in silence. I agree with the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) that the House is always generous in those circumstances.
Mr. Patrick Cormack: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can you confirm that the Mace is not the property of the House, but the property of Her Majesty? Is it possible for you to ascertain and tell the House how much damage was done to that extraordinarily valuable piece of property?
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is entirely correct, and that assessment is being made.
Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can you confirm that the motion that the Government are proposing to put down will be debatable, and that it will be a three-hour debate? Can you also confirm that the time of the tabling of the motion will be displayed throughout the House on the annunciators, so that the Government do not try to slip it through the back door without hon. Members knowing?
Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that, in view of the business that is now before the House, I can deal with the matter finally by saying that, while of course I have not seen the motion that is to be put down, I can confirm to the hon. Gentleman and the House that it will certainly be debatable. I shall ensure as far as possible that the timing is well known to every hon. Member in the House.
Several Hon. Members
rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that I can take any more points of order. We are to have a debate tomorrow.

Orders of the Day

  Local Government Finance Bill
  [2nd Allotted Day]
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

  Local Government Finance Bill
    Clause 2

      PERSONS SUBJECT TO PERSONAL COMMUNITy CHARGE
      3.58 pm
      Mr. Patrick Cormack: I beg to move amendment No. 40, in page 1, line 15, after 'over', insert
      'but has not attained his 80th birthday'.
      Mr. Speaker: With this we shall take the following amendments: No. 41, in page 1, line 15, at end insert
      'provided he is not in receipt of any form of income support'.
      No. 140, in page 2, line 6, leave out subsection (3).
      No. 103, in page 76, line 7, in schedule 1, at end insert
      'or is detained on remand'.
      No. 207, in page 76, line 7, at end insert
      'or held on remand'.
      No. 202, in page 76, line 26, after 'mentally', insert 'and physically'.
      No. 125, in page 76, leave out lines 30 to 38.
      No. 203, in page 76, line 30, after 'mentally', insert 'and physically'.
      No. 126, in page 76, line 31, leave out 'certified as' and insert 'deemed to be'.
      No. 204, in page 76, line 31, after 'mentally', insert 'and physically'.
      No. 127, in page 76, line 33, leave out from 'from' to 'involves' in line 34.
      No. 208, in page 76, line 35, at end insert
      'or acquires a disability resulting in severe impairment of intelligence and social functioning through accident or disease.'
      No. 128, in page 76, line 41, at end insert
      'or is a full-time school pupil'.
      No. 129, in page 77, line 3, leave out from 'education' to end of line 5.
      No. 130, in page 77, line 5, at end insert
      'or is undergoing a course of training leading to qualification as a nurse'.
      No. 131, in page 77, line 19, at end insert
      'and
      (c) he is not liable to pay income tax.'.
      No. 132, in page 78, line 20, at beginning insert '(1)'.
      No. 1, in page 78, line 26, at end insert—
      'Members of Religious Communities
      (1)A person is an exempt individual on a particular day if he lives as a member of a religious community.
      (2)The Secretary of State shall by order define what constitutes a religious community at any particular time.'
      No. 133, in page 78, line 26, at end insert—
      "(2) For this purpose a designated dwelling shall be taken to include a nunnery or monastery or other dwelling used by members of a religious order whose members have taken vows of poverty and in such circumstances there shall be no liability for collective community charge.'
      No. 222, in page 78, line 26, at end insert—
      'Homeless People
      A person is an exempt individual on a particular day if at any time on the day his sole or main residence is not a permanent structure.'
      Mr. Dick Douglas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
      Mr. Speaker: Is it connected with this Bill? I am not taking any further points of order arising out of the former matter.
      Mr. Douglas: I accept that, Mr. Speaker. That is why I have been hesitant in raising the point.
      The House is rightly conscious of the privilege, propriety and constitutionality of the proceedings. yesterday, however, a distinct vote in the House showed a definite shift in opinion relating to the poll tax legislation. We have been made aware, through public pressure and the media, that Lord Jenkins of Hillhead is to seek leave in another place to move a motion asking the Government to take some time to reflect on what has happened here and in the country before the Second Reading debate proceeds in the other place.
      On the Order Paper for this evening and tomorrow evening are two orders relating to the poll tax legislation for Scotland. As Scotland is being made a guinea pig for this legislation before it has the whole-hearted approval of the rest of the nation, would it not be wise for the Government to desist from proceeding with any further orders to do with the Scottish legislation before this matter has been the subject of at least some deliberation in another place?
      Mr. Speaker: That is certainly not a matter for me. In this Chamber there are opportunities to amend legislation, and the House made its decision last night.
      Mr. Cormack: I want to recall one of the former hon. Members of this House whom I admired most—the noble Lord Broxbourne, who sat next to me for many years as Sir Derek Walker-Smith. He was one of the principal opponents of entry to the Common Market. He deployed his case with vigour and clarity, and always with complete courtesy and firmness. Although I did not find myself in the Lobby with him during those debates in the early 1970s, my respect for him grew with each speech that he made, because he debated as a true parliamentarian. When, at the end of the day, the House decided, against his profound convictions, that we should go into the European Community, he said that it was then his duty to try to ensure that what he had prophesied did not come to pass and that the thing worked.
      Sir Derek was one of the first and leading members of the delegated group to the European Assembly. I believe that he chaired the Legal Committee in that assembly, and he played a most constructive part in helping to mould it and direct its deliberations. It is in that spirit that I hope to approach the amendments this afternoon.
      I have never voted for the community charge or poll tax. I did not vote for it in the Scottish legislation in the last Parliament; I have not cast a single vote in its favour, nor do I intend to do so—
      Mr. Ian Gow: My hon. Friend paid a well justified tribute to our noble and learned Friend Lord Broxbourne, but so eloquent was that tribute that I must ask whether my noble Friend has died. If not, what was the purpose of the eulogy?
      Mr. Cormack: If my hon. Friend had listened a little more carefully, he would have heard me imply that I believed that the manner in which the noble Lord
      690
      approached that subject was a model and a lesson for us all. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) had such a profound conscientious objection to one aspect of Government policy that he gave up an extremely promising career in the Government to sit on the Back Benches and criticise and vote against that aspect of policy. So he, of all people, should respect those of us who cannot go along with the Government on this policy.
      The task of those of us who oppose the poll tax is now to try to take the sting out of it, to make it fairer and to remove the aspects of it that cause most concern. That there is concern no one can deny. The vote last night eloquently underlined that. No Conservative Member does not know colleagues who agonised about how they should vote and who told us—I do not criticise them for it—as we went into the Lobby at the end of the debate last night that they were with us in spirit but did not quite feel they could accompany us into the Lobby. That happens in the House from time to time. .l hazard a guess that if there was such a thing as a secret ballot here, the result last night would have been rather different.
      We now have a clear commitment by the Government to introduce the poll tax and an equally clear recognition by my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench that some of us believe the tax is still unfair. The two amendments in my name have far more simple and less far-reaching aims than the amendment we debated yesterday.
      Mr. David Winnick: I have just arrived in the Chamber, but I understand that the hon. Gentleman said that if there had been a secret, rather than a recorded vote, the new clause would probably have been carried last night. I certainly think that the Government would have been defeated on a free vote, but does he agree that, if there were a free vote in the Cabinet, it is likely that there would not be a majority for the poll tax even there?
      Mr. Cormack: I have never been in the Cabinet and my stand on this and other issues is unlikely to make my accession to that august body any more probable.
      The amendments have two simple aims, and I believe that they would make this tax fairer in the eyes of the public. The first is designed to remove people over the age of 80 from liability for the tax, and the Government have already recognised the justice of my general ambition in the second. It would take out of the tax altogether those who are in receipt of what is now called income support and what was until recently known at supplementary benefit.
      I shall deal first with the over-80s. One of the pledges in our manifesto when I was elected in 1970—it was quickly implemented, I hasten to add—and which caused most emotional support in the country was that to give pensions to people over 80 who did not receive them of right because they had not contributed. Successive Governments since the war, Labour and Conservative, had held out on the contributory principle, but between 1968 and 1969 the Conservative Party, much to its credit, decided to commit itself to giving pensions to the over-80s.
      In a particularly eloquent speech in October 1969 the then hon. Member for Finchley—now my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister—said:
      "there comes a time when a principle has to be abandoned if the reality of the situation is such that some people are suffering hardship."—[Official Report, 31 October 1969; Vol. 790, c. 591.]

      691
      That is as classic an enunciation of the non-doctrinaire, pragmatic, Conservative approach to social services as I have ever heard. It is a policy that still guides my right hon. Friend and her colleagues, and they could remind themselves of it now with profit.
      People who are over 80 form a group that includes a large percentage of elderly relatives—mothers, fathers, uncles and grandparents—whom younger people have taken into their homes and are looking after. They are providing that loving family place that all hon. Members ought to regard with genuine respect and admiration, because it is a true family unit. Such old people will have to pay the community charge, the poll tax, if amendments such as this one are not accepted.
      In order to help and encourage younger people who play this sustaining and often costly role, there is real merit in what I am suggesting. I know that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister who piloted the Bill with great eloquence and skill through the Committee will argue that many of these old people will be helped. That is true, and it is right that it should be so, but they will not be totally helped. They will all still have to pay something, and not a few of them will have to pay the whole whack, because they will not qualify for help.
      Last week we discussed the £6,000 cut-off limit that many of us thought was far too low in the context of 1988 and when measured against our exhortations to prudence and thrift. yesterday, in his speech in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates), my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment made a clear, unequivocal and total acknowledgment of the fact that such concessions as are available to the elderly in the Bill will be linked to the system, and that the £6,000 limit will apply.
      Many people over the age of 80 therefore will not qualify for help and although I do not think that there can be many families who consider these matters in mercenary terms that will be a real financial deterrent to some people. It may make them say that the cost of conversion of a room and all the other things that go with it make it impossible for them to take in a mother or a granny or whoever it might be. If such an old person who is no longer able to look after himself or herself has to go into some form of care, then within a measurable period, if not immediately, the cost to public funds will be infinitely greater than any concession that might be made by my right hon. Friend. We should look at these things in that light.
      Mr. Ralph Howell: I sympathise with my hon. Friend's proposition, but surely he realises that not all people over the age of 80 are in need of help. The people that he is concerned with are the over-80s who are not very affluent, but some old people over the age of 80 are not in that category. May I commend to my hon. Friend my new clause 5? It would transfer the raising of funds for local authorities to a VAT supplement. That would mean that people over 80 who had little income would pay a very small community charge, but people who were richer would pay considerably more.
      Mr. Cormack: I am sure that my hon. Friend and I are aiming to achieve similar ends. However, I am speaking not to new clause 5 but to amendment No. 40. That
      692
      amendment has one overriding and commendable virtue, if I may say so without immodesty. It is that it is simple, easy to understand and totally clear. My hon. Friend was right when he said that some people over the age of 80 are affluent and will not need the sort of support that I am suggesting. We are back to the child benefit argument. Most of those people will be paying high income tax on unearned income.
      In order to benefit those in genuine need who will not be affected by the concessions that have already been made, we should allow the so-called affluent over-80s to have a tax holiday—that is what it amounts to—for a small amount of tax. Those who have worked hard and saved, and who have made a real contribution to our economy, deserve a tax holiday at the end of their lives. In a spirit of general benevolence, there would be nothing to criticise in a Government who decided to award those people such a modest bonus.
      4.15 pm
      Mr. Tony Marlow: My hon. Friend is a very compassionate man and we all want to show compassion. Has my hon. Friend worked out roughly how much this will cost? How many people are there over the age of 80? It is 1 million or so, is it not—and at £200 each that is £200 million. My hon. Friend has pointed out the problem of elderly people taken in by and staying with their families. Would it not be more satisfactory if one were spending this sort of money to target expenditure particularly to those over 80 who are staying with their families rather than to over-80s in total? After all, some ex-Members of Parliament on index-linked pensions may not require this munificence.
      Mr. Cormack: If when he replies to this debate my hon. and learned Friend the Minister, in a spirit of conciliation, says that he will ensure that all those living with their families will be exempt, then I shall consider very carefully whether it might be better to accept that rather than the whole of that for which I am asking.I am a reasonable and moderate person and I like to encourage my right hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench to behave in a similar manner.
      It would not be in the interests of the House for me to accede to other interventions because I know that other hon. Members are anxious to speak. I should like to make one last point on this group of elderly people. It is one about which we should all remind ourselves from time to time—that inflation, at whatever level, always benefits to some degree the earners but never the savers or those who no longer have any earning capacity.
      I should now like to come to the second of my two amendments, No. 41. It deals with people who are in receipt of income support or, as it was so recently called, supplementary benefit. I readily acknowledge that the Government have gone to considerable trouble to try to ensure that those for whom the poll tax will be a real imposition will be cushioned from the blow. One does not have to be a great student of these matters, nor does one have to read every line of the Committee Hansard, to realise that the system that has been devised with skill and care, as I frankly acknowledge, is exceptionally complicated and very difficult to understand.
      Even the extra and welcome concession made on Thursday last is so complicated that I was stopped several times at the weekend and asked precisely what it meant. I

      693
      was not asked that question by people of low intelligence. [Interruption.] There is merit in simplicity; unlike one of my hon. Friends who is muttering, not all my constituents are fellows of All Souls. He would obviously grace its common room and high table, but not many of my constituents would be able to emulate him. Perhaps my hon. and learned Friend the Minister would reflect for a moment on the point that I sought to make in an intervention during yesterday's debate. I said that, if anyone had suggested a uniform domestic rate and that, without any regard for the location, size, character or condition of the property, the rich man in his castle and the poor man at his gate should all pay the same, he would have been laughed out of court.
      However, we are now being confronted, not on a property basis, but on a personal basis, with precisely that recommendation. It is for that simple reason, and because I believe that the proposal flies in the face of a long and honourable tenet of Tory social policy, that I cannot go along with the Bill, as I hope I have always made plain.
      However, if we consider the most needy in our community, we see that most, if not all, of them are either qualified for or receive income support. Instead of making them quake at the thought of forms and devising a most elaborate system to try to bring their contribution down to about 20 per cent.—even if we help some of them with that—it would be a simple and proper gesture to remove those people from liability for tax. That gesture would be entirely in accord with the principle enunciated by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister when she made her plea for pensions for the over-80s.
      In the past nine years, this country has prospered greatly. It has done so—I do not expect Opposition Members to agree with me—largely as a result of the courageous and determined leadership of the Government. But we are in danger of creating a society in which those least able to fend for themselves are not accorded the same recognition and regard as those who, by their efforts and ability, prosper and progress. I am all for incentives and encouraging people, and I am against punitive taxation, but hon. Members, especially on this side of the House, have a particular duty to consider those people.
      Our social services have been created by those in all parties. The invaluable contribution of the Christian Socialists in the last century and earlier this century should never be forgotten; nor should we forget the contribution of Lord Beveridge and those others in the Liberal party who played their part. However, neither should we forget the contribution of those hon. Members who sat on this side of the House and were proud to be members of the Conservative party, as I am today.
      Mr. Allan Rogers: They are different now.
      Mr. Cormack: Every generation has different priorities. Every generation of government has different tasks to accomplish. This generation of government has had peculiarly difficult tasks to accomplish.
      Mr. Rogers: They are not gentlemen now.
      Mr. Cormack: I ask the hon. Gentleman to contain himself a little.
      I implore my hon. and learned Friend the Minister to consider a little further this group of people, who are the most needy in our society and among whom are numbered
      694
      the elderly, the handicapped, the infirm and single parents struggling to bring up families. They have many domestic problems with which many of us would find it difficult to cope.
      When the Minister has considered that, I hope that he will agree that instead of an elaborate system of concessions and rebates, which make people feel that they are receiving state-administered charity which they have to go through so many processes to obtain, those people deserve extra help. Some of them will be permanently deserving, but for others it will be a helping hand to put them back on the road to earning a living. We should remove them from that tax liability.
      I do not believe that the acceptance of either amendment or both would make perfect what I still consider to be a bad tax, but it would help enormously. It would be popular in the country, but, far more important, it would be right and would show that there had been a clear and unequivocal recognition of those deserving groups.
      Of course anomalies would remain. The flat rate would remain. Someone living in a small house would still pay as much as someone living in a large house. But, in a spirit of true compromise, we would have grasped one particular nettle.
      I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will recognise that there is justice, reason and real purpose in what I am seeking to advocate. I sincerely hope that, at the end of the debate, there will be need not for a Division, but rather for thanks and acclamation.
      Mr. Tam Dalyell: I shall be brief, as I wish to ask only two questions. First, in response to the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack ), who presented his amendment very movingly, I must point out that we in Scotland are rather nearer the situation than people in England. Decisions are being made in homes in my constituency and in every other Scottish constituency as to whether granny or mother-in-law and others can remain any longer. Most people, come the poll tax, will decide that they do not take the decision on the basis of the poll tax. It is no good overegging and exaggerating a case because that damages it.
      However, another situation may arise if the decision is whether mother-in-law, granny or auntie should come to live with a young or middle-aged couple. The fact that the poll tax will have to be paid then enters into the equation and into the decision as to whether to take in the person.
      Perhaps the Minister will tell us whether there has been any assessment at the Department of the Environment in respect of the number of extra people who will now have to be paid for, as the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South suggested, in old people's homes, which is far more expensive to the state, and does not take into account the loss in terms of loving care. Have any calculations been made as to the effect of those measures on the number of people who will have to be accepted into publicly financed homes and, if not, why not?
      Secondly, I should like to ask the Minister a question, following the written question that I put to the Secretary of State for Scotland yesterday as to
      "how many extra posts will be created in the Scottish courts administration in 1988, 1989, 1990 as a result of the community charge legislation".

      695
      The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) replied:
      "The explanatory and financial memorandum to the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Bill estimated that up to 40 additional staff will be required. This estimate remains unchanged and additional staff will be deployed to the courts as and when required."—[Official Report, 18 April 1988; Vol. 131, c. 324.]
      We have to face up to it that in the categories mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, as in every other category, there will be many borderline situations and there will be matters that can be resolved only in the courts. The Scottish courts are making preparations for this. What estimate has the Department of the Environment made of the extra number of courts and administrators that will be needed as a result of this legislation? Those are my two brief questions.
      4.30 pm
      Mr. Edward Leigh: I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) will forgive me if I comment briefly on his eloquent speech. We all sympathise with his caring attitude to those in need, particularly the elderly, but I am afraid that I cannot go along with what he had to say. First, he repeatedly referred to the community charge as a poll tax. It is not that, because already enshrined in the Bill are a number or exemptions and rebates. My argument with my hon. Friend is fundamental. I do not believe that we as a society should force members of our society with slender means into a kind of sub-culture where they are given money by society and not asked to make any contributions. That is not fair to them.
      Mr. Cormack: Is my hon. Friend suggesting that those who are in receipt, sometimes as a result of great misfortune or tragedy, of income support have not made a contribution to society? Some of them have made notable contributions. The logic of his argument is that they should get nothing.
      Mr. Leigh: No, that is not the logic of my argument. My hon. Friend has not heard the rest of my argument. If somebody is short of funds, rather than saying, "We shall put you on one side, we do not expect you to pay anything and we do not think you are part of society." is it not fairer to say, "We ask you to pay a modest contribution towards your community charge, say 20 per cent., and we will give you money, if necessary, to pay that contribution"? We shall not be pushing those people out of society and we shall recognise that they are part of society and involve them in the decision-making process. That is what the Bill does. It is dangerous to say to whole sections of the community, "Thou shalt not pay." I would rather deal with people in need through the rebate system.
      We all sympathise with what my hon. Friend said about those aged over 80. They have made an immense contribution over the years, and what he said will, I am sure, be popular in the country. However, we as a legislature also have a duty to consider the country's needs. Is it a good idea to argue that someone who is over 80, however wealthy, should make no contribution towards the cost of local government?
      Mr. Cormack: Does my hon. Friend not believe in the old adage, "No taxation without representation"?
      Mr. Leigh: Of course I believe in it. That is why I want to involve all members in our society, whatever their age or the extent of their personal finances, in the decision-making and taxation processes. Therefore, I cannot accept any exemption, whether it is that in amendment No. 40 or that in amendment No. 41, which drives away whole sections of the community from the principle of paying taxes.
      My hon. Friend said that he might be prepared to withdraw his amendments if my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Local Government gave a commitment that those aged over 80 who stay with their families should not pay. Unfortunately, a commitment has already been given that those living in residential homes shall not pay.
      Mr.Dick Douglas(Dunfermline,West): Unfortunately?
      Mr. Leigh: I do not think it is unfortunate, and I shall explain why. In Committee, I was not the only person who said this. My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) said the same thing. It was brave of him to do so, because in his constituency there are many people living in residential homes who vote for him. He argued that we were giving those living in residential homes an unfair advantage, and so argued against the amendment.
      One cannot solve a political problem simply by exempting one section of the community or rebating another section. We have to abide by what we believe in, and we believe that, generally speaking, everybody should be made to make some contribution to local government because everybody uses the services of local government. One of the major faults of the present rating system is that many people are not being asked to make any contribution and that is why the voting turn-out in local government elections is so small.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South is trying to drive a spear into the heart of the Bill by setting up new exemptions which will defeat the fundamental purpose of the Bill. For that reason I cannot support his amendments.
      Mr. Terry Davis: There is more in common between the hon. Members for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) and for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) than the latter has just suggested. He is at least being logical. He wants to scrap the exemption for people living in residential homes, whether those homes are private or run by the local council, and I give him credit for that logic. The hon. Member for Staffordshire, South, my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and I also wish to be logical. We wish to extend the exemption, so we have something in common, although we differ about the point to which it brings us.
      However, there is no logic about the Government's position, because they wish to exempt those people living in residential homes, whatever their income or wealth, simply by virtue of the fact that they live in residential homes. The hon. Member for Staffordshire, South, my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and I agree with the Government on that, but we wish to extend it to those who live with families in the community. That is because we recognise that the way in which the Government have framed the Bill has led to there being a fiscal disincentive to remaining in the community. The Government's policy

      697
      in a different sector is to encourage care in the community. It is nonsense to say that one wishes to encourage care in the community when one then imposes a tax that will be paid only by those who live with their families in the community.
      In practice, I suspect that in most cases the tax will be paid not by the elderly person living in the community but by the son or daughter of the family. In many cases, the elderly person will not be told and will not have to bother about it. In the same way, the family at present pays the rates for the dwelling in which the elderly person lives with the rest of the family. It is not true to say that these elderly people are not taxed, because they are. Everybody who lives in a house is taxed through the rating system. The hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle is nodding, so he accepts my logic. The only difference between us is where this argument takes us.
      I am disappointed that the hon. Gentleman has not followed his logic through by tabling an amendment to scrap the exemption for people who live in residential homes, which is what we want to do. The hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill), who is not with us—I am sure he has an excellent reason for that—expressed reservations about this in Committee. However, he, too, has failed to take the opportunity to amend the Bill to put into effect his logic and that of the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle.
      We are debating an amendment that has been tabled by the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South, and I wish to support that amendment. However, there is a difference between us. There is some merit in the point put to him in an intervention—that not all people over 80 need help. The answer to that is that not all people in residential homes need help. The hon. Member for Staffordshire, South should take another point into account. There is a weakness in his argument because it is not only people over 80 who need help. Many other people need help, and many pensioners between the ages of 60–65 and 80 will find themselves in similar and distressing circumstances. By introducing the threshold of over 80, he is discriminating between the two groups of pensioners.
      Mr. Cormack: I am trying to get something out of the Government, but the hon. Gentleman will readily acknowledge, just as I acknowledge the arbitrary nature of any age limit, that amendment No. 41 would catch many of those people, and would help them. I have not entirely neglected his point in tabling my amendments.
      Mr. Davis: I regard amendment No. 40 as the most important because it exempts completely those above the age of 80. However, coming to the hon. Gentleman's defence, there is a precedent for his amendment. The age allowance within our taxation system provides an extra personal allowance for those over the age of retirement, and it is increased for those over the age of 80. The hon. Gentleman could have produced that as a precedent if he had made a longer speech. Therefore, I follow his logic. I would support the hon. Gentleman's amendment this evening if he decided to press it to a Division.
      To cure the anomaly relating to elderly people I would settle for exemption at 80; I would settle for half a loaf if I could not get the whole. This anomaly might be amended by future Governments. I have no doubt that there will he great pressure and many campaigns, especially from pensioners' organisations, to reduce the age at which
      698
      exemption from poll tax comes into effect. We may well find that hon. Members on the Labour side of the House will be supporting such campaigns.
      There are other anomalies in the exemptions described in clause 2 and schedule I, as they have come from the Standing Committee, particularly in relation to prisoners. The Government wish to exempt those who have been convicted and serving sentences in prison, but those on remand awaiting trial will not be exempt from the poll tax.
      Many hon. Members know that people wait for months for their trials. Some of my constituents have waited for as long as a year. if such people are in prison, after being remanded in custody awaiting trial, they are still liable to poll tax. However, if they are found guilty, as many people are after having been remanded in custody, they will be exempt from poll tax during their future sentence and for the period that they have served on remand already. However, if they are found innocent, as many of them are, and released from prison, not only have they been deprived of their liberty during the period of remand but they have to pay the poll tax because they are not exempt. That is a ridiculous anomaly. Many Members on both sides of the Standing Committee recognised that as a silly anomaly. Therefore, I commend to the House amendment No. 103, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), as it would exempt everyone who is on remand in custody. That would mean that people deprived of their liberty will be treated in exactly the same way.
      I also commend to the House amendment No. 125, which would exempt those who are physically disabled and put them on the same basis as the mentally disabled. The Bill at present exempts people who are severely mentally disabled. Many of us in Standing Committee would have liked to widen the exem ption to include the mentally disabled as well as the severely mentally disabled, but we lost that amendment in Committee. There is an important point to make about whether people who are mentally disabled and people who are physically disabled should be treated in the same way. I certainly support the amendment No. 125 tabled by my hon. Friends, which would remove that discrimination between mental and physical disability. If amendment No. 125 is accepted by the House, those who are mentally or physically severely disabled will be put on the same footing and will be exempt from poll tax.
      Therefore, I commend all three amendments to the House.
      4.45pm
      Mr. William O'Brien: This group of amendments is extensive. In view of the guillotine that has been applied to it, I shall not detain the House long, as I am sure there are other important amendments to discuss.
      Amendment No. 140 and other amendments tabled by my hon. Friend require attention. We ask the Minister to consider the amendments seriously and carefully as they involve much interest and principle. We consider that amendment No. 140 cannot operate because of the number of people without a main residence, as we saw with the intervention of Mother Teresa in "cardboard city". It is difficult to understand how such people will be registered for the poll tax and who will collect it from them. We consider that clause 2(3) should be left out of the Bill, as it will not work.

      699
      Likewise, amendment No. 222 refers to homeless people. There is much concern about the numbers of homeless. A person should be exempt from paying poll tax on any particular day if at any time on that day his sole or main residence is not a permanent structure. If these two amendments, referring to the collection of a charge from people who are not resident in accommodation that is a main structure, are not accepted, the Minister should explain how the poll tax will apply to the homeless and those without any main residence.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis) touched briefly on amendments Nos. 125 to 127, which refer to the severely mentally handicapped and the question of certified people who would be exempt. This does not go far enough. The Bill in its present form provides for exemption from the community charge only for individuals who are suffering from
      "arrested or incomplete development of mind."
      In other words, the congenitally mentally handicapped. We consider that lines 30 to 38 in schedule 1 ought to be deleted, because numerous people suffer similar levels of mental disability through accident or disease. They are just as much disabled as those who have developed this condition of mind.
      It is inequitable that someone who attains mental maturity only to lose it through an accident or disease cannot be exempt from paying a community charge while someone with a similar disability who has never achieved full development of mind receives exemption. This unequal approach to the exemption of the severely mentally handicapped should be changed. We hope that the Minister will make a statement to the effect that some consideration will be shown for people who have developed this condition through accident or disease.
      Perhaps this is an example of the Government trying to restrict the concession that they have promised. We understand that promises have been made about certain concessions. If provision is not made for the numerous people who suffer mental disability through accident or disease, the Government will be seen as trying to restrict the promised concessions.
      In relation to amendment No. 126, we suggest leaving out the word "certified" and inserting "deemed to be". Again, "certified" has an unacceptable inference, particularly in relation to the mentally handicapped. Its use is also contrary to accepted social service practice. To require such formalisation of the status of an individual is anti-social. The word "certified" should be taken out of this part of the Bill. The phrase "deemed to be" is more acceptable in our opinion and may allow a more flexible approach to be adopted by medical practitioners. In other words, we are of the view—and I am sure that hon.Members on the Government Benches will accept it—that consideration should be given to erasing anti-social references, such as "certified", from the Bill. We offer an alternative that we consider is more acceptable to the medical profession and those who have to deal with the mentally disabled.
      Amendments Nos. 128 to 132 relate to people in full-time education, such as pupils in schools and students, including student nurses. We are still waiting for a definition of "student". There has been some question about what constitutes a person in full-time educat ion. Should people who go on Manpower Services Commission
      700
      courses after leaving school or who are engaged in community work be treated as being in full-time education, or even as students? Exemption should also be considered for people on vocational or professional training. A similar situation applies to people undergoing apprenticeships or clerkships or studying for articles in various services.
      I hope that the Minister will give serious consideration to the exemption of people in full—time education and students. If students are to be exempt, a large group of the population, which is committed to vocational training, should also enjoy a similar exemption. Therefore, we would ask the Minister to take into consideration the differences between the principles being applied to the various people in full-time education who can be classed as students.
      We understand that the exemption from payment of people who are continuing full-time education depends on whether child benefit is payable. Will a 19-year-old person who is continuing in full-time education but for whom no child benefit is payable also be exempt? I hope that the Minister will consider that carefully and give us some explanation or agree with the point made in the amendment.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Hodge Hill referred to amendment No. 103, which deals with people detained on remand. Such people do not receive services, cannot work and are not entitled to any benefit while in detention or custody, which, as has been pointed out, could continue for some considerable time. A similar situation applies to people detained for immigration reasons or awaiting deportation. Such people have no income, yet their liability to poll tax increases each day that they are detained. A person held on remand and convicted would have the time spent on remand taken into consideration when he was sentenced. We hope that the Minister will clarify such anomalies.
      A question also arises with regard to the benefit payable to the partner or spouse of a person held on remand, particularly in the light of the recent changes in benefits which leave a lot to be desired. We should like the Minister to clarify how a spouse or partner will fare while a person is on remand or in custody.
      In Committee, hon. Members on both sides referred to the position of people in holy orders. The Government gave undertakings to alleviate the impact of the community charge on nuns and monks. There is still no evidence that the Government intend to move on that matter. Nuns and monks are still not included in the list of exemptions. What do the Government intend to do about that?
      As time is fugit and several hon. Members want to speak on other amendments, I simply ask the Minister to reply to the points that I have made on behalf of my hon. Friends, and, if possible, to give assurances that the people to whom I have referred will receive the exemption accorded to other categories referred to in the Bill.
      Mr. John Hannam: I shall be brief because of the constraints on time. I want to say a few words in support of amendments Nos. 202, 203 and 204 which stand in my name. As has been pointed out, their essence is covered by the Opposition's amendment No. 125 and partly by amendment No. 41 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack).

      701
      I fully take on board the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) that we must be careful not to extend exemptions or tax reliefs so far across the board that they undermine the essence of the original system. I see the danger of that, but this debate is dealing with categories of exemptions and I would wish to see the severely physically disabled included in the category of the severely mentally handicapped for exemption from the community charge.
      I am sure that no hon. Member is unaware of the problems that the severely physically disabled face in everyday living. Their severe handicaps generally mean that a greater burden is placed upon them in seeking to live the everyday lives that we all want to see them have, and upon those who care for them. They face greater financial burdens than we have ever been able to provide for in our social security system. Even now, after the introduction of the new incomes support system, we have only a temporary bridging arrangement for the severely disabled through the trust fund being set up by the Disablement Income Group, and that is for the already most severely handicapped, not for those who will become severely disabled or handicapped after the introduction of the new scheme. Therefore, the future problems for the severely disabled are unknown and extremely worrying. Such people are unsure of their future position.
      We have always hoped that by now we would have achieved a substantial general disablement costs allowance which would at least provide for all the extra costs incurred by disabled people—medical treatment, clothing, transport and care in the home. All those essential requirements are costly and place additional burdens on those who try to overcome their disabilities. We have not reached that stage and I am anxious that the community charge should not be another burden which would be counter-productive to our aim to encourage disabled people to stay in the community at home rather than in institutionalised care.
      5 pm
      I do not think that I need to elaborate any further today on the needs of disabled people. They are well known to all Members of the House. But it is important to remember that until the early 1970s the disabled were a basically forgotten sector of the community, living out of sight and unassisted through our systems of social provision. It has been only in the last 10 or 15 years that major efforts have been made to help them come out from behind those closed doors into everyday life, to work where possible, to join in recreational activities, to have social contacts and, above all, to live at home rather than in institutionalised care. I desperately want this progress to continue and I hope that the Minister will give sympathetic consideration to including the severely disabled in the community charge exemption category for the severely mentally handicapped.
      The Minister for Local Government (Mr. Michael Howard): All the amendments in this large group seek to exempt groups of individuals from the personal community charge. Before turning to the individual amendments, it may be helpful if I say a word or two about the Government's general policy on the subject and explain why wholesale exemptions of the kind proposed are unacceptable.
      One of our principal aims in abolishing domestic rates and introducing the community charge is to restore local
      702
      accountability. Local accountability must be restored and the only way to do it is to spread much more widely the burden of paying for community services. The community charge will achieve that aim by giving almost every member of the electorate a direct stake in how local authorities spend their money.
      Of course, we accept that there are some groups of people whose circumstances are special and who should be exempted from the community charge. For the most part they are people such as the severely mentally handicapped, for whom the process of local accountability cannot satisfactorily operate. But it is quite clear, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh), that widespread exemptions are counterproductive because they reduce the number of people who pay and therefore erode local accountability. For this reason, it is imperative that the number of exemptions is kept to a minimum.
      That is not to say, of course, that help should not be made available to those who would have difficulty in paying the full community charge. We are firmly committed to giving such help, but the right way to give it is through rebates, not through exemptions. The distinction lies in the fact that even those in receipt of the maximum rebate will make a small direct contribution towards the services that they receive, and the result will be that local accountability is preserved.
      Having stressed the importance of preserving local accountability, and therefore having explained our reluctance to accept further exemptions, I turn to the amendments in this group. I begin with the amendments to which reference was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack). My hon. Friend began his speech with a happy reference to Lord Broxbourne. I was delighted to hear that, because before I entered the House I was privileged to be in a professional association with Lord Broxbourne. Indeed, I thought at one stage that the reason for my hon. Friend's reference to Lord Broxbourne was not that mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) but the fact that our noble Friend is within two years of the age at which he will qualify for the exemption from the community charge that was pressed upon the House by my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South. That was clearly a powerful additional point in support of his argument.
      Nevertheless, although I understand why my hon. Friend should have tabled such an amendment, and despite the fact that it was reinforced by that additional powerful consideration, I cannot, I fear, accede to his request. I hope, however, that I can reassure him that it is unnecessary.
      It is, of course, important that those on low incomes, and particularly the over-80s on low incomes, should receive assistance in paying the community charge. Our proposals give that assistance, both through rebates and through the increase in income support to reflect the minimum 20 per cent. contribution. In fact, as my hon. Friend will know, pensioners, and the over-80s in particular, are more generously treated under the income support and rebate systems than younger people, and quite properly so, because their needs are greater. A single person aged 80 or over receives a special premium of £13·05 a week in the current financial year on top of the basic income support payment, and a couple with one partner, or both partners, aged 80 or over, receive a

      703
      premium of £18·60 a week. These extra payments mean that for the over-80s the full 80 per cent. rebate will be available at significantly higher levels of income, and the rebate taper will extend further up the income scale than for others.
      I think that it is clear that we have paid special attention to the needs of the over-80s. I firmly believe that the correct way to recognise those needs is through the combination of rebate and extra income support rather than through total exemption. Our preferred approach targets help more precisely to those who need it and ensures that local accountability is preserved.
      Mr. Cormack: Could I just make two very brief points? First, I hope that the forms will be readily comprehensible. Secondly, and rather more seriously, would my hon. and learned Friend confirm that if even a married couple have savings of more than £6,000 they will not have the benefits to which he has referred?
      Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend need not belittle the importance of the first point, because it is a very serious one. I very much hope that the forms that will be available will be simple and comprehensible to those whom they are designed to help. On his second point, confirmation was given during the debate yesterday, at which I know my hon. Friend was present, that that is indeed the position.
      It was argued, although in a modest way, by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), among others, that the exemption for old people in homes creates an anomaly and a disincentive to care in the community. This is an argument to which I responded in Committee, and I am glad to explain once again why we do not believe that it will pose a problem.
      The first point to bear in mind is that those in residential care in nursing homes receive special treatment at present. Most receive rate relief, which is not available to old people living in their own homes. When the Abolition of Domestic Rates (Scotland) Act 1987 was considered in Parliament there was strong pressure for continuing that special treatment. In response, the Government agreed that those being cared for in such institutions should be exempted from liability to pay the personal community charge. If there is a disincentive effect, therefore, it is one that operates at present.
      I do not believe that there will be such an effect. Arguably, if an elderly person with a low income had to pay the full community charge in his home and pay nothing in an institution, that might influence the decision whether to stay within the community. But that is not the choice that most elderly, infirm or disabled people will face. Those on low incomes who remain resident in the community will be eligible for rebates. A single pensioner or a pensioner couple, for example, with no income other than the state retirement pension would qualify for an 80 per cent. rebate, plus an increase in income support payment to reflect the 20 per cent. contribution. That means that, in an area with the average community charge, there would be no financial incentive whatever.
      Mr. Brian Wilson: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Howard: If the hon. Gentleman will wait until I have finished my explanation, I will give way to him.
      704
      In an area with the average community charge there would be no financial incentive whatever, one way or the other. In a high-spending area there might be a relatively small advantage in removing to an institution, but in a low-spending area there would be a slight advantage the other way. But it is most unlikely, as the hon. Member for Linlithgow, I think, acknowledged, that this tiny financial advantage would influence the choice between care within the community and care in an institution.
      The hon. Gentleman sought to suggest that there might be a deterrent to those who were considering welcoming into their homes an aunt or uncle, or a relative of that kind. I believe that that point, too, was misconceived because, as he will be aware, the 20 per cent. community charge for someone on income support would be personal to that individual and would not fall on other members of the family in the way that the hon. Gentleman was suggesting.
      In the case of the better-off over-80s also a community charge liability is most unlikely to play any part in this decision. A pensioner with a small occupational pension, for example, would be most unlikely to gain in any way as a result of moving into a residential care home since he or she would have to contribute virtually all his or her income towards the cost of the care and accommodation in the home. Any gain from being exempt from the community charge would be dwarfed by the overall financial consequences of the decision to move into the home. For all those reasons, I do not think that there would be any significant effect whatever on this decision.
      Mr. Wilson: Will the Minister accept that he misrepresents the position in two ways? First, he misrepresents it by suggesting that a typical elderly person living with a family would be eligible for the maximum rebate. Will he confirm that someone who had an elderly person living in the family home and fairly modest personal assets would be liable for the full community charge, and that therefore there would be a considerable incentive for someone at present paying domestic rates to get that elderly person into residential accommodation?
      Secondly, does the Minister accept that it is again a misrepresentation to imply that there is no difference between the present position, in that there will be no rates to pay in residential accommodation, and the new position? If a couple and an elderly relative are living together in a family home, they are not put at a disadvantage, compared with residential accommodation, but the poll tax, when they will have three charges to pay rather than one, will create a disincentive. The Churches and everybody who is concerned with the care of the elderly has acknowledged that the Bill contains a strong incentive to get elderly people out of the family home and into residential accommodation. That is part of the reason why the poll tax is an anti-family tax.
      Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman is wrong on both counts. If there is concern, it is based on a misunderstanding. He is wrong about his first question. If a pensioner had assets, when he or she moved into a residential home his assets would be required to be applied towards discharging the costs of the care and accommodation that he received in that home. There would not, therefore, be any incentive of the kind to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

      705
      The hon. Gentleman is also wrong about his second point, for the reason that I gave earlier: that it is the pensioner and the pensioner alone who would be liable for any liability there may be to the community charge, be it 20 per cent. or greater. That liability would not fall on other members of the family.
      Mr. Wilson: Does the Minister not accept that he is using theory to justify legislation but that the reality is very different? If the Minister believes that an elderly person within the family unit makes that payment as an individual and does not realise that it forms part of the household calculations, he is living in a different world from that in which I and most elderly people live.
      Mr. Howard: I am glad that on this occasion I gave way to the hon. Gentleman. His question highlights one of the ways in which the Government's proposals are being fundamentally misrepresented. When those misrepresentations are corrected, as I have sought to do in the last few minutes, the answer from the Opposition is not that the Government's position is inaccurate but that it is a matter of theory. That is absurd. The answers that I gave the hon. Gentleman were not in any sense based on theory; they were based on the precise provisions of this legislation. It is only by departing from and misrepresenting the Government's legislative provisions that the Opposition have been able to engender the concern and the anxiety on which they rely in opposing the proposals.
      Mr. Terry Davis: Will the Minister confirm that if an elderly person now goes to live with another member of his family there is no increase in rates or in any other form of taxation but that if in future an elderly person goes to live with another member of his family there will be an increase in tax because that elderly person will be liable to the poll tax? If, however, that elderly person went into residential accommodation that was provided either by his council or privately he would not be liable to the poll tax.
      Mr. Howard: The answer is that there will be no increase for those who are already resident in that property. That is the relevant point, if we are considering deterrence.
      Mr. Terry Davis: Answer the question.
      Mr. Howard: I must answer the two questions that were put to me by the hon. Member for Linlithgow. It follows from the fact, as I have demonstrated, that there is no incentive of the kind to which he referred that no estimate has been made of the additional number of people who will move into residential homes. We do not think that that will arise. The hon. Gentleman also asked specifically about the effect on the courts. In England and Wales, disputes as to whether a person should be registered for the personal community charge will be matters for the tribunals—the local valuation courts, reconstituted under the relevant schedule to the Bill as valuation and community charge tribunals. In the explanatory and financial memorandum to the Bill we estimate that tribunals might need an additional 160 staff. They will be needed to deal with the effects of the non-domestic revaluation as well as matters concerning the community charge.
      5.15 pm
      As for the second of the exemptions that my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South wants, he seeks an exemption from the personal community charge
      706
      for those in receipt of income support. Again we think that an exemption of that kind would be unnecessary and counter-productive. It would undermine local accountability. Comprehensive assistance will be available to all those in receipt of income support.
      Without exception, all those in receipt of income support will be entitled to a reduction of 80 per cent. of their full community charge liability. They will therefore have to pay only 20 per cent. of the charge set by their local authority. What is more, income support levels will be increased to help recipients pay their 20 per cent. contribution. That increase will be based on the national average community charge. In areas such as that which my hon. Friend represents, where the community charge is lower than the national average, income support recipients will be slightly better off under the Government's proposals than they would be under the full exemption. That is a point upon which my hon. Friend will have to reflect.
      The hon. Members for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis) and for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) referred to the position of prisoners held on remand. There was a vigorous Committee debate on this subject. Since then we have been reflecting on the arguments that were put to us and on the arguments that have been presented this afternoon. The case is not so clear-cut as has sometimes been suggested by the Opposition, but I accept that in some quarters there is considerable disquiet on the point. I shall therefore consider the points that have been made in the debate and will consult my colleagues and then report back to the House on the possibility of extending the exemption to cover prisoners on remand.
      Amendments Nos. 125 to 137, 202 to 204 and 208 are all concerned with the mentally or physically handicapped. Again these matters were exhaustively debated in Committee. We accept that those who are severely mentally handicapped and for whom accountability, the touchstone of this Bill, cannot operate should be exempt. There is a question as to how the phrase "severely mentally handicapped" should be defined for this purpose. As drafted, the Bill limits the definition to those who are
      "suffering from a state of arrested or incomplete development of mind."
      Strong concern was voiced in Committee that this definition was too narrow and that it did not cover those who become severely mentally handicapped in adulthood.
      In view of the concern that was expressed in Committee, I said that I would reconsider the definition in consultation with my colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Security and the Scottish Office. Discussions are continuing between the Departments concerned. It is a difficult issue and we need to make sure that we get it absolutely right. I am afraid, therefore, that I am not in a position to announce the Government's decision on that matter today, but I shall do so as soon as possible.
      Mr. O'Brien: In addition to the DHSS representatives, does the Minister intend to consult the organisations that are looking after the mentally and physically handicapped?
      Mr. Howard: The proper way forward is for the Government to produce their formula. When we come before Parliament with that formula, I am sure that those organisations will make their views known, and that at that stage they will be taken fully into account.

      707
      Amendment No. 126 also deals with a point that I agreed in Committee to consider. We envisage that one of the requirements that would have to be met before exemption could be claimed is a doctor's certificate. In Committee, however, hostility was expressed to the wording of paragraph 4(1)(c), which refers not specifically to a certificate but to someone being
      "certified as severely mentally handicapped."
      I said that we would look again at the wording of that phrase. We shall certainly do so. But it seems sensible first to see what the definition of "severely mentally handicapped" should be and what the criteria might be for claiming the exemption and then to look at the form of words used.
      Amendment No. 125 is rather wider in scope and I am afraid that I cannot extend to that amendment my offer of consideration that I made on the other two points. Amendment 125 seeks to exempt all those who are receiving severe disablement allowance. Because that allowance is paid to the physically handicapped, as well as those who are mentally handicapped, the amendment would change the whole purpose of the exemption. Amendments 202, 203 and 204 would also have the effect of exempting the physically handicapped, and must also—as I hope to persuade the House, despite the very persuasive advocacy to the contrary of my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam)—be rejected.
      As I explained in Committee, we do not believe it would be right to exempt the physically handicapped from the community charge. The community charge is specifically intended to extend to all adults. The exemptions are tightly drawn, and are—as I have already explained—based on the criterion of accountability. It would be untrue and, indeed, demeaning to those affected to claim that, because someone was physically handicapped, he or she could not play a full part in the widening of accountability which the community charge will bring.
      Mr. Wilson: How can the Minister defend what he is doing to the physically handicapped on the ground that it would demean them not to be able to pay a charge which many of them are not in a position to earn? Why in this section of the debate has he started talking about "the disabled" as a generic term rather than with the distinction—however odious it is to some of us—which has been drawn in terms of the mentally handicapped? It is surely possible within the legislation for the most severely physically handicapped people in our society not to be subjected to this charge. How can the Minister suggest that he is doing these people a favour by making them pay?
      Mr. Howard: I do not think that extending exemptions, which are related to the touchstone of accountability, would be the right thing to do for many of the disabled who are able to play a full part in local and national politics. It is no good the hon. Gentleman protesting in the way in which he does. He knows perfectly well that people who are disabled in this way are in receipt of special help, and their means will be taken into account in assessing their ability to pay the community charge and their entitlement to rebate. They will have their particular circumstances fully taken into account in that way, which is a more effective way than full exemption.
      708
      The hon. Member for Normanton referred to those amendments which seek to provide an exemption for members of religious communities. The hon. Gentleman may not have seen it, but we have already announced in a written answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) on 31 March that we intend to provide for just such an exemption.
      The amendment, which we intend to bring forward in another place, will exempt from the community charge members of religious communities, the principal occupation of which is prayer, contemplation, the relief of suffering, education, or such other activities as may be prescribed. The exemption will extend only to those members of religious communities who have no income or capital of their own. A similar amendment will be brought forward to take account of religious communities in Scotland.
      The hon. Member for Normanton also referred to people who were in receipt of occupational training. He suggested that they should be regarded as being in a similar category—if I have understood him correctly—to those people who were still at school. I do not think that that would be a sensible course to take, because of the obvious differences between the two categories.
      Those people who are still at school but are over the age of 19 are in a very similar position—usually they are retaking A-levels or something of that kind—to other full-time students who, instead of staying at school, go to college to retake their examinations. They will almost certainly be eligible for the maximum rebate. They play a full part in the democratic process and we think that is a sensible way of dealing with them. Those who remain at school, and are under the age of 19, will be exempt in accordance with the provisions which are already in the legislation.
      Finally, I come to amendments Nos. 140 and 222, which would delete the provision that a person can be subject to the personal community charge whether or not he lives in a building, and add a provision that a person is exempt if his sole or main residence is not a permanent structure.
      These amendments would be unfair and discriminatory in their operation. They might, for example, result in an exemption for people who have their sole or main residence in mobile homes. Such a result would be intolerable. Most local authority services relate to people—not to property. That is one reason why we have decided to introduce a personal charge in place of a property tax. That is why I urge the house to reject that amendment also.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: This is a bit like the afternoon after the night before. The voices are calmer, the sense of tension is less and we hope that perhaps the Minister feels less under attack and a little more generous. He has told us a couple of things about the proposals, which he said in Committee he would accept, and on which he would announce his decisions today. He has now told us that these decisions have been deferred, although they will be made. We are grateful for that, but we need to push on the substance behind the amendments which we have been debating. The issue, although it has been approached in a different way from last night, is again: who should pay and who should not? Exemptions are about who should not. The Government are still

      709
      holding their position—with certain exemptions which they admit—that everyone should pay a flat rate. They say that that is necessary for accountability, and that that is the principle that they believe to be right.
      The Government have already accepted 10 categories of exemption. They are contained in schedule 1. Some of these amendments, which the Minister has not yet accepted—including some which stand in my name and
      the names of my hon. Friends—are tabled to clear up anomalies that arise from these definitions. There is an anomaly, for example, relating to prisoners. My belief is that, if there is a fair system, one would not continually need to add further categories of exemption. I agree largely with the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) that the way to deal with how people should be taxed should not always be to look for categories which one thinks it is either politic or in another way expedient to exempt. That manifests the unfairness of the proposal as a whole. Therefore, I do not argue for general political or expedient exemptions for large categories and, indeed, I have not tabled any amendments to do that. I have sought to tidy up some of the anomalies in the exemptions which have been put forward by the Government. I do not otherwise create great groups of people who should be exempt from the system.
      5.30 pm
      I say to the Minister—and it is interesting that this was the area on which most time was spent—that although, with his colleagues, he was resisting the banded community charge, it would perhaps help his colleagues, and his party generally, to look at the system that I and my colleagues propose—local income tax. The Minister may have seen in the papers yesterday that we have produced our response to his figures, which were produced a couple of months ago. In that response, we explain how local income tax should work. I have brought this response to the House for the Minister's consideration. Perhaps I can leave it with him. I am serious about asking the Minister to look at that response, and I am sure that he will. I shall not go into a great explanation, but the key point is that many of the assumptions in the Government's proposals are their own and would not apply under a properly worked out system.
      I will now illustrate relatively briefly the important points about exemptions, as opposed to people who will pay. Often in this House the best one can do is to choose examples which are relatively parochial to oneself. I shall compare some of the exemptions that are not to be granted with some of the figures that people will pay. I shall take my own borough because, as the Minister knows, it is relevant.
      On the Government's figures, the average poll tax will be £570 per person, which is the sixth highest projected poll tax in the country. That is based on current expenditure. Using that figure as the starting point, one can then look at how the tax will affect certain categories of people in a borough such as Southwark. I do not need to continue in great length, but it is a borough with great social problems and discrepancies in wealth and income. Southwark contains people in all the categories that we are discussing today.
      I want to put to the Minister, in more graphic form, concern that has been expressed about the way in which the exemptions and the full rates would work as presently
      710
      proposed. I refer to an unsolicited letter that was written to me by somebody in Rotherhithe. The letter, dated 11 February, states:
      "As one of your constituents, I am writing to ask you just how my family and I will stand in the event of the poll tax being passed. I am a widow with two daughters, who are both over 18 and working, and one son who will be leaving school this year.
      I have read that the poll tax could be as much as £500 per person in Southwark. That would make £1,500 from this household."
      That is an underestimate because, as I have stated, the poll tax would be more than £500. The letter continues:
      "Could you confirm that these figures are correct, and what, if anything, can be done to stop the Bill being passed"
      The answer to that second question is now more apparent. The letter then states:
      "To say that I am concerned is an understatement."
      That is the sort of concern that people have about the way in which the system, as currently proposed, will work. The result will be the sort of figures that I shall give for both the actual poll tax and the exemptions. My hon. Friends and I would argue that one could propose a local income tax rate of 6·8 per cent. On that basis, allowing for the rebate that the Government have conceded, a student nurse would pay a poll tax of £511. I should point out that there are many student nurses in Southwark at Guy's hospital. I repeat that that is allowing for the rebates. However, under the alternative system that we propose, that student nurse could pay £164. Under the Government's proposals, a one-earner couple would pay £1,140 in poll tax; we say that that need be only £362.
      I now give three examples of hon. Members who live in Southwark and who are appropriate examples. On the basis of my parliamentary salary of £22,548, I would pay £570 in poll tax. My local income tax would be £1,368. The hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), who has just moved into my constituency and lives in a property that is about four times the value of mine, would pay, with his wife, a poll tax of £1,140. I am told that his local income tax would be £1,275. The Prime Minister, who has a salary of £51,068—she does not take the additional amount; only the Cabinet salary—would, with her husband, pay £1,140 in poll tax, just like the hon. Member for Dagenham and his wife, whereas under any fair system of income tax the Prime Minister and her husband would pay about £3,215—more than the hon. Member for Dagenham, myself, the student nurse or the one-earner couple. I do not think that anybody would object to that or criticise it as being unfair.
      We should compare that with the position of the people whom we seek to exempt. A debate will follow shortly on our first proposal relating to student nurses. I know that the Minister is making some concessions on that. I take the view not that all student nurses should be exempt, but that all those in training should be treated in the same way.I know that there is a later amendment, tabled by the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) and his hon. Friends, and I shall support it. Such exemptions should apply across the board. There is an anomaly at the moment because some people studying some subjects will be exempt or will qualify for the 80 per cent. rebate, but others will not.
      Mr. Leigh: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
      Mr. Hughes: Perhaps we can come to the hon. Gentleman's point in the next but one debate, which is specifically about that matter.
      Mr. Leigh rose—
      Mr. Hughes: I should like to deal with the other exemptions.
      There is still an anomaly about people who have been severely disabled in accidents. The Minister said that he would think about that, but he did undertake to have done so by today. I ask the Minister to consider my amendment seriously, because it seems completely unfair that somebody whose disability is not congenital but derives from an accident, such as a motor or industrial accident, should be treated differently from other disabled people. If people are to be exempt because they have a disability and cannot profit from or contribute to the process of democracy in the same way as anyone else, I ask that all such people be given the same treatment.
      The hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis) made a point about remand prisoners. There is a strong argument for saying that somebody who is in prison does not benefit from local authority services in any way because he or she benefits from other services. However, if that person is then let off as a remand prisoner, it is ludicrous that he or she should have to pay the poll tax when a person who is convicted at the same time would not have to pay.
      The Minister has suggested that people in religious orders, in the categories that he defined, will be exempt. There is an amendment in my name to that effect, and I am grateful to the Minister for what he said. That seems entirely consistent with the argument that if one does not have any money, one should not have to pay. We are referring to people who, by their vows and profession, do not have the money to pay.
      The last category, which the Minister has so far resisted, is that of homeless people. My colleagues and I take the view that if someone does not have the ability to pay, he or she should not be within the system. I accept that there may be a drafting problem with that, but the Government's proposal would include people—not those in mobile homes, but others, examples of whom were given in Committee—who are homeless and who sleep in the underground subway at the Elephant and Castle or by the dustbins of the Tooley street hostel, which is on the other side of the river from the City, and people who do not have a place of residence. They cannot be expected to pay the poll tax, although they are at present. It is currently proposed that inspectors should be sent to collect the poll tax from people sleeping in doorways, who, even if they were found and identified, would hardly be likely to have anything in their pocket to contribute in the first place.
      Mr. Leigh rose—
      Mr. Hughes: No, I shall not give way. I should like to proceed quickly, because I know that other hon. Members wish to contribute.
      So far as the other amendments are concerned, it follows consistently that my attitude and that of my colleagues is that we should not exempt all those over 80. Some people over 80 have an adequate ability to pay. However, I support the amendment of the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) that those in receipt of income support should be exempt because, by
      712
      definition, they do not have enough income from any source to enable them to do without support from the state. The Minister knows—he has suggested this today, but I want to repeat it so that he understands it as a practicality—that in my borough, which will probably be the sixth highest poll tax-paying borough in the country, we shall have a higher than average rate. The 80 per cent. rebate will cover those on income support who are at the bottom of the income scale and there will be assistance on the basis of the average across the country, but that will leave a shortfall. The Minister knows that that means that everybody in a borough such as mine will have to pay a poll tax bill, however small their income and however much it has been accepted in the past that they will have support from the state because they cannot afford to pay more.
      Full-time school pupils should be exempt because they are not in the category of adult contributor to and beneficiaries from the community. Those who do not pay income tax should not pay the poll tax because they come in an income level below those from whom we think that society should take. The principle seems clear. I hope that at the end of the debate, and at the end of the series of debates on exemptions, we can re-establish the principle that exemptions should be not just for those who cannot contribute to the process, but for those who cannot afford to pay for the process in which, for the time being, they are beneficiaries.
      I ask the Minister to look specificially at the two remaining amendments which have not yet received his confirmation and approbation—the amendments relating to remand prisoners and those who become disabled later in life but who are not disabled from birth.
      We still look to the Government to accede to the view that we should still change the Bill, but it should still be made into a legislative framework for raising money for local services on the basis of ability to pay.
      I conclude with two sentences from a letter from another constituent who knows what the Government are proposing. The letter states:
      "Dear Mr. Hughes
      I would like to express my concern about the proposed poll tax … The Government ie Mrs. Thatcher seems to bulldoze her every whim on the British public!"
      My constituents understand. I hope that the Minister will understand that he needs to respond in good time, not just for the sake of people in Southwark, but possibly for many Conservative Members who are listening to the debate.
      Mr. Ralph Howell: While I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) on the motives behind his amendment and fully understand what he is trying to do to help those who are over 80 who have not got great resources, I am unable to support him. No category like that should be excluded because it includes all sorts of people, like the late Sir Charles Clore and Paul Getty, who would not have needed help.
      My principal reason for intervening is to try to persuade Ministers to think again about the whole concept of the unfairness of the community charge and to commend to them amendment No. 5 which I tabled. Then they would be able to sleep peacefully in their beds—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman is about to deal with an amendment which has not been selected because it is out

      713
      of order. I am sure that with his ingenuity he will be able to bring his remarks within the scope of the amendments which have been selected for debate.
      Mr. Howell: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was trying to say that rather than go down the route which my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South has suggested, there is a way in which we could solve the problem without these strange demarcation lines and exemptions.
      I do not believe that there should be exemptions. That is why I suggest to my hon. Friends on the Front Bench a system which would solve the problem. I hope that I am in order if I discuss a proposition for a supplement on VAT. It might be called a local government tax. I understand that we would need about 6 per cent. extra on VAT, making it 21 per cent., to raise the amount of money which the Government wish to collect from the community charge—a system which will work unfairly in the opinion of hon. Members on both sides of the House. Under the system which I propose there would be no need for exemptions, extra staff, registration or prosecutions because there would be no fraud. The system would be painless. It would mean that we could abolish the unsatisfactory rating system which we have and also avoid the even more unsatisfactory system which is proposed by the Government.
      Mr. David Winnick: What the Minister has said is not likely to satisfy the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack). I would describe the Minister's speech as a cogent form of Ridleyspeak. It is always more interesting to listen to the Minister than to the Secretary of State; nevertheless, the Minister made it clear that there is to be no concession. If there had been a free vote on the principle of the poll tax, no doubt the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) would have supported the Government, but he would have been in a minority. If he wishes to take my remarks as a compliment, he may do so.
      If the amendment relating to the over-80s were accepted, there would be anomalies. Some people over 80 have substantial means, but the large majority have not. The position is made much worse because anyone who happens to have accumulated over £6,000 is denied assistance. That is almost impossible to believe. Since the war, and probably before the war too, successive Governments have urged people to save. Yet what happens? If, having reached retirement age, they have accumulated the tremendous sum of just over £6,000, which may include redundancy money and which may have meant many sacrifices, they are denied housing benefit, and they will be denied assistance with the poll tax. That is why it is unacceptable.
      I am totally opposed to the poll tax. That will come as no surprise to the Minister and his colleagues. However, I will support any amendment such as that moved by the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South, which would make the poll tax that bit less offensive, obnoxious and less likely to cause hardship to people in need.
      5.45 pm
      The hon. Member for Staffordshire, South should be careful. According to some of the newspapers on Sunday, the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates), which was debated yesterday, was described as a sinister plot for power
      714
      initiated by the right hon. Member for Henley (M r. Heseltine). It could not, I think, have been a coincidence.
      The Observer story said:
      "Poll tax rift is plot for power."
      That was one newspaper. When I got to The Sunday Times, it had virtually the same story. It stated:
      "Ministers alleged yesterday that the rebels were motivated by hostility to the Government and that Michael Heseltine was the prime influence behind the uprising."
      I can only conclude that No. 10 had been very active over the weekend, that Mr. Bernard Ingham was doing overtime, that there was a co-ordinated attempt to smear anyone on the Government side who was critical of the poll tax and that the obvious way of undermining the potential revolt was to describe it as a sinister plot by the right hon. Member for Henley to get into No. 10. It did not work yesterday. The Government had their smallest majority in this Parliament, and they cannot be happy about what happened.
      There is tremendous fear among people, not least the elderly, about what the poll tax will mean. Much of that fear is justified. The whole concept of a tax without account being taken of people's ability to pay is novel and wrong. As I have said, I am only too willing to support any amendment which will help to ensure protection for people who will be penalised by the poll tax.
      What an odd position it is. Before the Government came to office, it would have been unthinkable that any Government would introduce a tax which would require a pensioner to pay the same as a multi-millionaire, with the pensioner not being allowed any assistance if he had savings of over £6,000.
      Mr. Nicholas Bennett: What about road fund tax?
      Mr. Winnick: This is a form of taxation. The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) makes the weakest possible case. If he believes that the poll tax is right and proper, surely the next step for him is to suggest that everyone should pay the same rate of income tax. The hon. Member for Pembroke could not persuade many of his colleagues to support the Government last night. If there were a free vote, clearly he would be in a minority on his side.
      I hope that the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South will put his amendment to the vote. If he does, I will support it. It is a step in the right direction. Anything which would protect people from this obnoxious tax should be supported.
      Mr. Cormack: With the leave of the House, I can assure the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) that neither the Patronage Secretary nor any of his colleagues has been anything other than courteous to me. Not one has sought to dissuade me from my long-held personal convictions expressed over a long period on this issue.
      We have had an interesting debate and I know that it is the wish of the House to proceed to debates on other subjects of importance. I understand that the Opposition would prefer not to take up time by dividing on this; I understand that, because the guillotine places great constraints on us. It would be dishonest of me to seek leave to withdraw the amendment, because my hon. and learned Friend the Minister, who gave a typically courteous reply, did not meet any of the points that I advanced.
      The spectre of £6,000 will haunt the Government until something is done about it. As on many previous

      715
      occasions, I am content to say that our help is in the Lords and to allow the amendment to be negatived, but I am not content to seek leave to withdraw it.
      Amendment negatived

    Clause 5

      PERSONS SUBJECT TO COLLECTIVE COMMUNITY CHARGE
      Dr. John Cunningham: I beg to move, amendment No. 141, in page 4, line 45, at end insert—
      '(8) A registration officer shall seek only such information as he may reasonably require in connection with his functions.'.
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd):With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 142, in clause 6, page 5, line 2, at beginning insert
      'After consulting his employing charging authority as to the implications for civil liberties of compiling and maintaining a community charge register and having regard to any code or codes of practice which may be issued by the local authority associations and the National Council for Civil Liberties,'.
      No. 2, in page 5, line 2, after 'Or, insert,
      'In accordance with subsection (IA) below.'.
      No. 3, in page 5, line 4, at end insert,
      '(1 A) The registration officer shall perform his duties under this section in accordance with a code of practice drawn up by the Secretary of State in consultation with local authority representatives and the National Council for Civil Liberties.'.
      No. 210, in page 5, line 35, leave out from 'duty' to end of line 36 and insert
      'to take all reasonable steps to obtain such information as is reasonably required by him.'
      No. 153, new schedule—Personal Data—

      '1. Information in the form of personal data which is held by the Registration Officer shall be obtained and processed fairly and lawfully.

      2.Information in the form of personal data which is held by the Registration Officer shall be held only for the purposes of this Act.

      3.Information in the form of personal data which is held by the Registration Officer shall not be used or disclosed in any manner incompatible with the purposes of this Act.

      4.Information in the form of personal data which is held by the Registration Officer shall be adequate, relevant and not excessive in relation to the purposes of this Act.

      5.Information in the form of personal data which is held by the Registration Officer shall be accurate and, where necessary, up to date and shall not be kept for any longer than is necessary for the purposes of this Act.

      6.Appropriate security measures shall be taken against unauthorised access to, or alteration, or disclosure or destruction of, information which is in the form of personal data and which is held by the Registration Officer and against accidental loss or destruction of such information.

      7.An individual shall be entitled—

      (a) at reasonable intervals and without undue delay or expense—

      (i) to be informed by the Registration Office whether he holds information in the form of personal data of which the individual is the subject; and

      (ii) to access to any such information held by the Registration Officer save that such access may be refused where necessary for the purposes of the prevention or detection of crime.

      8.The Registration Officer shall neither request nor hold information in the form of personal data, which falls within the following description of information—

      (i) Police or criminal records,

      (ii) Medical records,

      (iii) Social work records,

      (iv) Education records,

      (v) Employment records,

      (vi) records of any individual under the age of 18, or

      (vii) information relating to housing benefit or housing allocation which is of a sensitive personal nature.

      No. 211, in page 5, line 36, at end add—
      '(9) The registration officer shall be responsible for ensuring that the register remains the property of the charging authority and that no part of it is sold by the charging authority or any of its employees.'.
      No. 212, in page 5, line 6, at end add—
      '(9) A registration officer's duty to compile and maintain a register shall not include the power to cross reference the register with any electoral register.'.
      No. 152, in clause 21, page 13, line 33, at end insert—
      '(3) Schedule (Personal Data) below (which contains provisions about the collection, retention and disclosure of information) shall have effect.'
      No. 167, in schedule 2, page 82, line 3, leave out 'any' and insert 'the'.
      No. 167A, in page 82, line 3, after 'information' insert
      'set out in paragraph 16'.
      No. 138, in page 82, line 29, leave out paragraph 11.
      No. 213, in page 84, line 6, at end insert—
      '(1A) The regulations may include provision that a person shown in a charging authority's register may have access to any supporting files or documentary evidence regarding themselves held by the registration officer for the purposes of determining that person's liability to a community charge of the authority.'.
      No. 149, in page 84, leave out lines 10 to 16 and insert—
      '(3) The extract and list shall not be copied and supplied to any person for any purpose other than for the purpose of administering the collection of the community charge and related purposes specified in this Act.'.
      No. 139, in page 85, line 5, at end insert—
      '21. In the course of carrying out his duties under the provisions of this Act a Registration officer shall not request or record the following descriptions of information—

      (i) police or criminal records,

      (ii) social work records,

      (iii) records held by the health authorities,

      (iv) Inland Revenue records,

      (v) records on the local authorities own employees held for employment purposes, and records of job applicants.'.

      717
      9. Any individual who suffers damage or distress as a result of the breach of any of the provisions of paragraphs 1 to 9 of this Schedule shall be entitled to compensation from the Registration Officer for that damage or distress unless the Registration Officer was not negligent in permitting or causing the breach.
      10. For the purposes of this Schedule "personal data" means information—howsoever recorded—which relates to a living individual who can be identified from that information (or from that and other information in the possession of the Registration Officer), including any expression of opinion about the individual.
      11. Nothing in this Schedule shall affect the rights of any data subject under the Data Protection Act 1984, as defined by that Act, save that for the purposes of that Act the Community Charge is not a tax.'.
      Dr. Cunningham: I shall also address my remarks to amendments Nos. 142 and 152, which is a paving amendment for amendment No. 153, which is the major amendment in this group. It sets out a new schedule embodying our views about privacy, personal data and the need to have some comprehensive safeguards written into the Bill to protect individuals and families from unnecessary intrusion into their personal lives and personal affairs, and to protect them from the use of these sensitive data by other people when the poll tax register is compiled, and perhaps available for sale for commercial purposes. Amendment No. 153 embodies the data protection issues which we should like to see written into the Bill.
      Many British people have always objected to personal information relating to them or their families being collected and held by anyone, whether by Government, local government or an agency. It is felt, understandably, to be an invasion of privacy that someone else can read about the details of our private lives. Such information should be kept only when absolutely essential for the proper administration of our affairs. Only those with good reason to hold such information should be able to do so or to have access to it.
      In particular, many people think it undesirable that the state should know the private details of the lives of individual citizens. There is a further closely related objection to holding large amounts of personal data, which is that the use of the information can, either intentionally or otherwise, cause distress or harm to the person to whom it relates.
      For many years, many organisations, political parties and individual Members of Parliament—first and foremost in this is the National Council for Civil Liberties—have received complaints from people who have suffered as a result of the information about them being disclosed without their consent, often without them having any knowledge of such disclosures. Obviously, I know of that from my experience, as I expect other hon. Members do, of seeing in my surgery constituents who have suffered in exactly this way. Notwithstanding yesterday's vote, the Government seem hellbent on proceeding with this awful legislation. That is all the more reason why some specific and detailed safeguard on these issues should be written into the Bill.
      The public are well aware of the threat that these proposals pose to them. Recently, Marketing Opinion Research International carried out a survey of opinion on this matter for Manchester city council, which showed that 76 per cent. of those questioned believed that the poll tax would involve officials snooping and intruding into their personal affairs and family lives.
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us in what precise terms the question was posed?
      Dr. Cunningham: No. I cannot—[Laughter.] Hon. Members laugh, but I was about to say that I cannot give the hon. Lady that specific reply now but that I can furnish her with a full copy of the survey and the results, if she wishes. That shows that one should bring with one every document to which one refers. I hope that she will accept that the survey was properly conducted with a large sample and I assure her that the reputation and professional standing of the company is beyond question. It was a properly conducted survey of opinion carried out professionally.
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: By whom?
      Dr. Cunningham: The hon. Lady cannot have been listening to me. I said that the survey was carried out by Market Opinion Research International, which is MORI for short. I am more than happy to let her see a copy of the full document if it will help to convince her of the result.
      We know that the poll tax will not be a tax or duty within the meaning of section 28 of the Data Protection Act 1984.That assurance was given to us in Committee by the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment. Therefore, it is pertinent to ask why the Government do not agree that the data protection principles should be enshrined in the Bill in a declaratory manner, as we are suggesting. That is what amendment No. 153 is mainly about.
      In addition, paragraph 8 of the new schedule ensures :
      "The Registration Officer shall neither request nor hold information in the form of personal data, which falls within the following description of information—

      (i) Police or criminal records,

      (ii) Medical records,

      (iii) Social work records,

      (iv) Education records,

      (v) Employment records,

      (vi) records of any individual under the age of 18, or

      (vii) information relating to housing benefit or housing allocations which is of a sensitive personal nature."

      The Government have given us no assurances on those matters. Ministers say that these matters will be covered by secondary legislation which will come before the Houss in due course. I cannot see the argument for proceeding in that way, and it remains unconvincing. What is the argument against writing these guarantees of personal privacy into the Bill? There is an overwhelming case for saying that the House should do so.
      The Department of the Environment and Welsh Office yellow document, "The Community Charge", was published in December 1986. Page 10, paragraph 32, states:
      "The only sources of local authority information that will not be accessible to the registration officer will be those that contain material of great personal sensitivity—social workers' casework files, for example, and information held by the police."

      719
      That is a much narrower statement than what is set out in paragraph 8 of the new schedule, but even the assurance that the Government gave in that publication is not in the Bill itself.
      6 pm
      We know from other disclosures since the Bill left Committee that other interference in privacy and civil liberties is guaranteed by what the Government propose to do. In a recent letter to me, the Minister for Local Government confirmed that, so that students can be "correctly and readily identified" for the purposes of the poll tax, they will have to carry personal identity cards. That is a serious step down a dangerous road.
      We know that Ministers are under pressure from their own colleagues in local government—that is, Conservative councilors—to ensure that every adult over 18 is personally identified in some way by the allocation of either a personal identity number or a card. That information was contained in the minutes of a meeting of the Conservative-controlled Association of District Councils policy committee on 20 January this year. So we know that pressure is building up in the Conservative party for more and more information to be held about people and for more and more national means of identifying and checking on them for the purposes of poll tax collection and registration.
      It has even been suggested by the same group of Conservative councillors and others that people presenting themselves with applications for benefit under the new social security system will have to demonstrate that they are registered for poll tax before they can even be allowed to have benefit. That is another intrusion into people's privacy.
      All those matters need to be dealt with and safeguards need to be given to people by specifically writing guarantees into the legislation. I do not believe that it is acceptable or even sensible for those things to be dealt with in a piecemeal way and for those matters to come before the House in dribs and drabs, as Ministers apparently intend. They should be put into the Bill itself before it leaves this House.
      Mr. Bruce Grocott: I strongly support amendment No. 153, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham).
      The House should be concernd, as it has been on occasions, about the relationship between any information collected for poll tax purposes and information that is already available on the electoral register—hence the name "poll tax", which will be attached to the tax for as long as it is in existence. I am concerned about the security of the information that may be collected for the poll tax register because at present the security for information on electoral registers is inadequate. Electoral registers are available to any type of organisation that wants to buy and use them for any purpose.
      The House may be interested to know that last year I took part in a survey that was directed at about one fifth of local authorities—84 in total, including London boroughs, metropolitan, Welsh and English districts. The survey tried to discover what use people made of the electoral registers, other than for the agreed purpose of establishing people's entitlement to vote. It will not come
      720
      as a surprise to any hon. Member who has ever taken an interest in these matters that no fewer than 93 per cent. of the local authorities that we surveyed sold their electoral registers indiscriminately.
      We all know what electoral registers can be used for. They are used for junk mail or by debt collection agencies. We know well enough some of the methods used by those agencies. The registers are used by private detective agencies and by a whole range of other groups and people who find it convenient to get hold of electoral registers as a cheap means of establishing the people who live in certain areas.
      I raised that matter because the present law is uncertain. Regulation 54 of the Representation of the People Regulations 1986 states:
      "So long as there are sufficient copies available after allowing for the number which may be required for his registration duties … the registration officer shall supply to any person copies of any part or parts of the electors lists on payment—".
      If that happens with electoral registers, we need to ensure that it does not happen with the poll tax registers. Until we have proper safeguards for the use of electoral registers, to protect the privacy of those who fill in their forms in good faith, we should be keen to support amendments such as the one tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland to protect people's privacy when the poll tax registers are compiled.
      The simple principle is that, when people fill in their electoral registration forms, they do so with one purpose in mind—to establish their entitlement to vote. If the local authority uses the register for any other purpose whatever, that is a gross infringement of the privacy that people assume they have when they fill in their forms. It is clear that that information should not in any circumstances be sold commercially or used by private commercial companies for matters that are totally unrelated to the democratic process, which is what the electoral register is for.
      We know about the flaws in the electoral register system and we know about the ambiguity of the law. So far, the Home Secretary has taken no action in that respect. It is unacceptable for the House to propose further uncontrolled registers—in this case the poll tax register—before we have dealt with the more immediate problem of the electoral register. At the very least, we would support the amendment proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland.
      Mr. Dalyell: I thank the Minister for his courtesy in answering my previous question. In relation to the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) and my worries, I can only say that the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. We shall not be able to tell who is right until we have experience of the operation of the scheme.
      I ask the Minister to answer another question, which concerns the personal identity card mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham). There is real worry in the universities about the implications of a student identity card. In a sense, once again, the Scots are the guinea pigs. It has become a real issue in the university of Edinburgh. I do not normally refer to personal circumstances, but I have two children, both of whom are at that university at the moment. The students are extremely concerned about the implications of a personal identity card. Incidentally, I do not see how one can operate a poll tax at all without a personal identity

      721
      card because, by their nature, students are for ever changing lodgings. How one can keep track of students' situations without a personal identity card, I know not.
      My question is very precise and it is simple to ask, though possibly not so simple to answer. What is the Government's philosophy in respect of personal identity cards in any university, but particularly in the big urban universities?
      Mr. Simon Hughes: I rise briefly to speak to the amendments in my name and those of my hon. Friends, which in the group selected by Mr. Speaker are amendments Nos. 2, 3, 210, 211 and 212. This is an important debate because one of the express concerns, which is an unusual one in connection with local government finance, is that of civil liberties. That is what this series of amendments seeks to cover.
      Amendment No. 210 seeks to apply the same test in England and Wales as that which already exists in the Scottish legislation. A similar amendment has been tabled by the Labour party. It is important to make sure that the powers of registration officers to seek information are only those reasonably required. That test, as people know, has been well tried in the courts.
      Clause 6, if left unamended, would be nothing less than a snooper's charter. The Secretary of State, when the matter was put to him in a radio interview, accepted that as an appropriate description for the sort of activity that would be carried out by people chasing up information. The clause would allow registration officers
      "to take reasonable steps to obtain information."
      That phrase is much wider than that which the Scottish legislation uses and which we as a society have accepted is appropriate to govern the activities of officials. Registration officers could subjectively justify their activities.
      As someone who worked as a lawyer before I entered this House, I know, as do most right hon. and hon. Members, the difference between a subjective and an objective test. Some crimes one may commit irrespective of one's intentions and one's own views. One may commit other crimes whether or not one has any understanding of what the crime is. That is the crucial difference. I should like to hear the Minister explain why we must accept this version of the Scottish wording and not correct what is an anomaly.
      Mr. Douglas: The hon. Gentleman should not go away with the idea that section 17 of the Scottish Act offers any great safeguard. I hope he is not trying to indicate to this House that the provisions of the Scottish Act protect civil liberties. We know only too well, as has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), that for the poll tax legislation to work, every official who falls within its provisions will need personal identification.
      Mr. Hughes: The next point I want to make is that the Bill has become law in Scotland and that people there are now having to face the reality of it. We are seeing what happens in Strathclyde, with the way in which people have been going around with protection in order to collect information. The law as it applies to Scotland is not acceptable. All the implications of a local authority poll tax are that there will be intrusion into people's privacy all the time. The intrusion to which we already object in
      722
      respect of Scotland is grossly worse in the proposal for England and Wales, without any further justification: I cannot think of any.
      People need to be alert to the fact that we have in this legislation a limitless list of opportunities for people to look for information. They may refer to the housing department, season ticket records, library records, bus pass applications, and records of home improvement grants. When CIPFA reported in the context of the Scottish Bill a couple of years ago, it produced a list of 12 categories. They were the rent rolls of housing bodies; housing waiting lists; housing benefit records; registers of births, marriages and deaths; education authority records, including grants; planning and building control records; health authority records, except medical records which are protected—
      Mr. Irvine Patnick rose—
      6.15 pm
      Mr. Hughes: No, I will not give way because the list needs to be read in its entirety. It is a great long list of records, all of which will be available to snoopers who want information about people who have registered their names for poll tax. Those who hold those records will then be able to sell them.
      The remaining categories are the records of national utilities, such as electricity and telephone companies; local authority payroll records; insurance claims; estate agents and private data sources. That is the list.
      What happens if, as occurred in Strathclyde, the person canvassed is not totally willing to give information of a type that the person feels he should not have to give? The Government's original proposal in the Green Paper was:
      "Local authorities will be able to develop new techniques to meet the new circumstances that they will face."
      That will hardly encourage those who are concerned about civil liberties.
      Then there is the information that comes in the form of tittle-tattle from neighbours and unsigned notes delivered to the rates office. There will also be general surveillance of the kind undertaken by the DHSS, particularly if cohabitees are now to be treated as husbands and wives: who comes in through the back door after dark?
      Mr. Patnick rose—
      Mr. Hughes: I will give way in a moment.
      All that intrusion into civil liberties will of course cost a fortune. The administrative costs will be enormous. It will also mean that there will be available commercially a register compiled with the utmost "Nineteen Eighty-Four" mentality—the brave new world—and sold off so that almost everybody and the whole commercial world will be able to share that information.
      I now give way, because I shall be interested to hear the hon. Gentleman's defence.
      Mr. Patnick: I cannot understand the hon. Gentleman's logic. Much of the information is already available and, as has been discussed before in another place, is transmitted between various authorities. It is already being shoved around the country. Even under the right-to-buy provisions, one can claim benefit from another authority; other authorities are able to obtain such information. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the commerical sale of such information is wrong?
      Mr. Hughes: I object to its commercial sale, but I object also to a society in which all the information provided on every form one completes ends up a single place, in one computer, where there is a great master record. I know that the Government are determined to take over everything, but we now face significant implications in respect of the mass collection of information.
      We as a country have always resisted the notion that the Inland Revenue should be able to pass information to the DHSS just at the request of the DHSS. We have always objected to there being one computer network controlled by the state. Our country is meant to defend the liberty of the individual and not the rights of the state. That is why it is vital that we do not allow individual items of information to be collected by people—in a very undesirable job—going around and locking one up if, being unsure of one's rights, one does not give that information.
      I ask the Minister specifically to consider also amendment No. 213. If enacted it would provide that
      "the regulations may include provision that a person shown in a charging authority's register may have access to any supporting files or documentary evidence".
      In order to compile the register, the registration officer may draw on anecdotal evidence, including letters. People will have the right to examine the register but, just as in other areas, they may want to go further than that and wish to know why it is that their name is on the register. Unless one sees the supporting documentation, one needs access to the files and not just to the register itself.
      Even if the Minister does not at this stage accept our proposal that the sale of registers should be forbidden, I hope he will at least accept the concern felt by somebody who happens to represent the NCCL as its constituency Member of Parliament but who also believes in the rights of ordinary people, who know nothing about the law but who believe at the end of the day that the minimum information about them, and not the maximum, should be given to either central or local government.
      Mr. Peter L. Pike: I wish to speak to this important group of amendments because they protect the rights of individuals in society, including their right to privacy, which many of us see as vital.
      The lead amendment in the group is very simple but very important. It expresses our belief that the community charge registration officer should have only the information that is reasonably required for the purposes of collecting the poll tax. It has a good deal to commend it, and we feel that the Government should be prepared to move in that direction.
      The Government have repeatedly claimed that this is not a tax to vote, and therefore disclaim the name "poll tax". But, as I said many times in Committee, the position is even worse. It is not merely a tax to vote, but a tax on putting one's name down on the register to vote, for it is not even necessary for a person to use his vote. As has been made clear throughout our proceedings, the registration officer will have the right to check the electoral register. It stands to reason that, immediately a person places his name on the register so that he can vote in local or parliamentary elections, he will be charged the poll tax. This is a tax for claiming the right to vote, a right that we have upheld for many years. It is not so many years since it was extended to 18-year-olds. Obviously, we want to protect a right that is so important in our society.
      724
      The tax will prove both unpopular and difficult to collect. As well as creating a register for its collection, the legislation will enable that register to be sold. We must add provisions to stop that. The Government have said that they have made no decision on the matter, but we hope that they will be prepared to amend the Bill to prohibit such sales.
      We are also concerned about the sources from which the registration officer can obtain information. On 9 February in Committee, the Under-Secretary of State said:
      "the Secretary of State will have power to place prescribed information off limits to registration officers. We have made it clear that the power will be used to ensure that registration officers do not have access, for example, to social work case files and national sources of data, such as Inland Revenue records and health records. There is a danger of becoming embroiled in a debate on sensitive information when the basic information required by the registration officer will be simply the names and addresses of adults resident in his area. It will be unnecessary for him to have access to more sensitive information."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 9 February 1988; c. 484.]
      If that is what the Government intend to do, and if they intend to do it by regulation, it is no good telling hon. Members that the Secretary of State will have the power to put certain sources of information "off limits". If the Government believe that those sources of information should be off limits, they should be prepared to accept some of the amendments.
      Amendment No. 139 refers to police and criminal records, social work records, health authority records and Inland Revenue records. That would seem to go along with the wording used by the Under-Secretary in Committee, and the Minister has used similar words on a number of occasions. If the Government are saying that they agree with us that those sources of information should not be available to the registration officer, they should be prepared at least to accept amendment No. 139.
      We believe that the legislation will result in an intrusion on privacy. The danger of it is that the Government recognise that the tax will be extremely difficult to collect, and are therefore leaving open as many doors as possible. They want to use every behind-the-scenes method. They may use snoopers, or intrusion on records here, there and everywhere. They know that if they have not the sources of the information, they will not obtain it, and will then find it extremely difficult to make the tax work.
      If the Government were convinced that the legislation was fair, and a better system than that which it replaces, the people would be prepared to accept it. It is because the system is wrong that the Government have had to include these provisions. I hope that they recognise the need to safeguard the information that is required, the way in which it is required and the way in which it can then be used. That is very important if we are to protect the rights of our citizens.
      Mr. John Butterfill: Much of what we have heard from the Opposition today reflects what we heard in Standing Committee. It seems to indicate a degree of paranoia among certain Opposition Members about what is required under the legislation.
      The community charge registration officer requires only to know names and addresses to compile the register. He does not need large amounts of sensitive information, as is being suggested by some Opposition Members. There is no necessity for him to acquire such information, nor, even if

      725
      he were able to acquire it, would he be able to sell it. All that he would be selling would be a list of names and addresses.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: Our concern is that we should not give the power for the information to be obtained. We should limit what is obtainable to the minimum that is necessary. We could then preclude any chance of the information being available. As the Bill is now worded, it is available, and people will be able to ask for it.
      Mr. Butterfill: The point has been made a number of times. The problem is where the registration officer should go. It was suggested in Committee that he should not be permitted to ask the police for the information. That strikes me as ludicrous. Opposition Members cannot have it both ways. In yesterday's debate on new clause 1, they were suggesting that there was not a problem. My hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates) said, I recall, that 99 per cent. of the British public were law-abiding. If that is the case, we are talking merely about catching up with the odd 1 per cent. I suspect that it may be rather more than 1 per cent., and I also suspect that some Opposition Members agree with that. Nevertheless, a minority of people will have to be pursued for their names and addresses—people who would otherwise try to evade the tax. It seems to me entirely reasonable that the officer concerned should have power to obtain from other Government Departments the information that he needs, names and whereabouts of those people, in the execution of his duties. If he is entitled to do that, he has no real interest in their medical or social welfare records. All he wants to know is where they are in order to perform his statutory duty.
      6.30 pm
      Mr. Simon Hughes: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the real objection is that for the first time ever—not just in our lifetime—registers will be compiled for people's right to vote which will automatically allow them then to be taxed? Even if no further information is sought, that is the fundamental objection and that practice must be wrong. People will have a disincentive to use their vote because as soon as they are registered to vote they will be liable to pay the tax.
      Mr. Butterfill: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. The purpose of the register that we are discussing is not for voting but for the collection of the community charge. There is no relationship between the electoral register and this register. Of course it is true that the electoral register will be one other source of information for the community charge registration officer, in as much as it is also a source of information—
      Mr. Douglas rose—
      Mr. Butterfill: If I have not already answered the hon. Gentleman's point by then, I shall give way to him later.
      All of the things we are discussing and about which the House is concerned are sources of information, of which the electoral register is only one. It is quite wrong for the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) to single it out and make a crucial connection between the two registers. Of course, some people will try to evade the charge; some may go as far as to deprive
      726
      themselves of social security benefits in an effort to do so—but I doubt it. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey is making far more of this than is necessary.
      Mr. Douglas: The hon. Gentleman will recall that in yesterday's debate the Secretary of State for the Environment pleaded in aid and asserted the fact that the Inland Revenue did not know where everyone lived, and defended the idea that it should not. For the first time in our history there will be an inter-relationship between registers and information being collected for the purpose of making people pay a tax, as the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said. So the tax is directly related to the right to vote and if Conservative Members do not object to that, God help our individual liberties.
      Mr. Butterfill: It is not directly related; it is indirectly related, in the same way as any other personal particulars that have been registered are related to the tax. The register is merely another source of information.
      Secondly, I wish to correct the hon. Gentleman. My right hon. Friend did not defend, as the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) suggested, the principle that the Inland Revenue should not have the right to know where people live. It has that right and often knows that information. The difference is that the Inland Revenue does not always know because it deals with people who live outside the districts in which they work—it deals with them in their places of work rather than where they live. Unless the Inland Revenue has a person's reference number, it is extremely difficult for it to trace an
      individual because he may well work miles from where he lives. That is the point that my right hon. Friend made yesterday.
      Mr. Patnick: I wonder whether my hon. Friend remembers what our hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates) said yesterday?
      "We would have to give the local authority power to send to the Inland Revenue a random selection of answers received from the taxpayers, stating that Mr. X has stated that he is".—[Official Report, 18 April 1988; Vol. 131, c. 576.]
      We heard nothing yesterday from Opposition Members about that invasion of privacy, but today the game has changed.
      Mr. Butterfill: I thank my hon. Friend for his valuable point and contribution to the debate.
      We say that someone should have a right to obtain the
      information that he needs to perform his duties. He does
      not need any of the other extraneous information that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey suggested—
      Mr. Simon Hughes: He might.
      Mr. Butterfill: I cannot conceive of circumstances in which he might. Still less can I conceive of a new breed of local authority official who, for his own amusement or private profit, compiles detailed registers on private citizens in some sort of nefarious and conspiratorial way. That would not happen and the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey well knows it.
      Finally, I turn to the other point to which I object—
      Mrs. Audrey Wise rose—
      Mr. Butterfill: I object to the inclusion in the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Southwark

      727
      and Bermondsey of the National Council for Civil Liberties. That is in no way to denigrate that body or to decry the excellent work that it does in many areas. My objection is that the hon. Gentleman proposes to enshrine in statute a body that is not democratically accountable, or accountable to this place. It may be internally democratic, but it is not accountable to the British public. It is fundamentally wrong to enshrine in legislation any body, however admirable it may be, that is not accountable to this place through ministerial responsibility.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: The hon. Gentleman has misread the amendment. The responsibility resides with the Government; it is only a duty to consult with local authorities and the NCCL. Surely that cannot be objectionable.
      Mr. Butterfill: It is objectionable that we are singling out a body that is not democratically accountable. Local authorities may be so, and there may be an argument in their case, although I disagree with it. They are at least democratically accountable to their electorate. I object to singling out a body that is not thus accountable.
      Mr. Terry Davis: The hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) gave a hostage to fortune, and he may find his last point quoted back at him in the future when we talk about consultation with the representatives of British industry and business.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) will be shocked to know that when the issue of identity cards was raised in Standing Committee several Conservative Members had the greatest difficulty—to understate the case—in understanding the concern expressed by Labour Members about identity cards. Several of them looked forward to the day when we would have identity cards in this country and advocated the system as being one that already worked satisfactorily in some continental countries.
      Mr. Butterfill: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that I for one will welcome the day when we introduce identity cards in this country.
      Mr. Davis: The hon. Gentleman has identified himself; there were others. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow will share my concern about such tendencies appearing among Conservative Members. To be fair to the Government, they did not advocate identity cards. I am sure that the Minister for Local Government will deny any responsibility for them—the Government will leave it to local authorities, and they have made that clear. Local authorities will introduce a system of identity cards, if we have one, so the Minister's point was that of Pontius Pilate.
      Mr. Tim Devlin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Davis: The hon. Gentleman voted for the guillotine. Many of my hon. Friends want to take part in the debate; I shall not give way.
      I share the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) about the sale of these registers. This information is collected for the purpose of taxation. The Secretary of State said on the radio this morning that this was a taxation measure, and objected on those
      728
      grounds to the House of Lords amending it. He denied that point in Standing Committee, but at least he has accepted it now. We shall have a register that is collected, established and available for the purpose of taxation and the Government want to make it available to the public and allow it to be sold to them. The Government have made it clear that they intend to keep people's names on the register for two years after they have died, at the address at which they lived before they died. All hon. Members have had the experience, while canvassing during an election, of knocking on doors and asking for the votes of people who had died a few months before.
      After the death of a partner, widows and widowers will be bombarded for two years with junk mail addressed to people who have died. Everybody should be able to understand the distress that is caused to widows and widowers on receiving that sort of mail. We have seen people upset because they have received an election address for somebody who died a few weeks before, but for two years people will be subjected to uninvited letters from every Tom, Dick and Harry in all sorts of businesses addressed to people who are deceased. That is one of the most reprehensible but also one of the most avoidable aspects of the Bill.
      It should be possible for us to ensure that the register is not made available. Information collected for income tax purposes is not available to anybody—I believe not even to Ministers unless the taxpayer wishes it. Quite rightly, it is kept confidential. For the purpose of this register inquiries will be made about who is living where, for how long, and on which nights. We can all see the intrusion that that involves into people's privacy. It is time someone said that it is not necessary for the Government to authorise registration officers over the length and breadth of the country to inquire into who slept where, on what night. and for how long. That is an intolerable intrusion into personal relationships.
      The hon. Member for Bournemouth, West says that it is not an issue and that, according to one of his hon. Friends, 99 per cent. of our people are law-abiding and that this will apply to only 1 per cent. The point is that the information would be sought and inquiries would be made not of 1 per cent. of the population but of 100 per cent. of the population. Everybody will be required to give this information.
      The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) says that this is nothing new and that local authorities already transfer this information from one local authority to another. The hon. Gentleman gave as an example the right to buy. The hon. Gentleman does not appreciate that the only basis on which that information is transferred from one local authority to another is where the person asks for that to be done. He does it because he is seeking to obtain a right, to increase his discount on the purchase of a house, and therefore asks the local authority to transfer the information. There is a great difference between that situation, between someone claiming income support or a tax allowance—something for which a person has to provide information—and having that information obtained from one's relatives, one's family, and neighbours. It is that to which I and my hon. Friends object.
      At the moment information obtained by the Inland Revenue is not made available. I would go further than some of my hon. Friends and make this register private. I

      729
      do not see why the information should be made available at all and that is why I urge all hon. Members to support amendment No. 141.
      Mr. Bob Cryer: I want to make a few brief comments on this important area of legislation, and especially on amendment No. 141 which modifies the registration officer's powers. Without that amendment the Bill is a snooper's charter, and with an extreme Right-wing Government in power we can be sure that those powers will be used.
      Clause 25 gives the Minister power to issue a directive to require further information from the registration officer. That directive is not subject to any affirmative resolution or to any scrutiny by the House. We must look extremely carefully at that power. In addition, we have the Scottish experience, because, in its 18th report, the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments, an all-party Committee with a Tory majority, said that the Secretary of State for Scotland was abusing his power and trampling on the rights of Parliament by granting himself powers additional to those provided by the primary legislation. The registration officer was provided with powers of sub-delegation to enable him to ask any questions that he liked without any modification by the primary legislation, although the primary legislation limited the powers that he had.
      6.45 pm
      The Secretary of State for Scotland has decided that the registration officer can demand documents, even though the primary legislation does not give him that power and says that he can only request information. With that very recent background, the statutory instrument was pushed through the House only a few weeks ago. We should say yes to amendment No. 141 which would modify the registration officer's powers and provide some clear guidance in the legislation that the registration officer's powers are not unlimited.
      Amendment No. 142 invokes a code of practice. A code of practice is not a legislative instrument. It does not require an absolute provision, as is the case with a statutory instrument or primary legislation. But at least it is some safeguard against the jackboot powers of the Minister given to him in clause 25. That clause gives the Minister power to issue a directive to the registration officer, saying that if he believes that information has not been collected he can demand further information. At least the registration officer could rely on a code of practice to offer some safeguard about his code of conduct.
      The new schedule, amendment No. 153, lists many safeguards. I do not have time to go into them, but I should like to emphasise what has been said about the prevention of the sale of information from what is essentially a private register. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis), who emphasised that the register should be private. It is appalling that the register will be considered to be in the public domain. Recently the Yorkshire water authority included in its demand note advertisements by moneylenders so that hard-pressed people could immerse themselves even further in the debt-ridden society created by this wretched Tory Government. No doubt that is the sort of enterprise culture of which the Government would approve. We are opposed to private information obtained
      730
      from citizens being hawked around to organisations that have nothing more to do than to sell to people and in some cases to immerse them in even greater debt.
      The last point that I want to emphasise is that, although it is not covered by the amendment, clause 25 gives the Secretary of State enormous power to issue directives to the registration officer in relation to the poll tax. If the Secretary of State is not satisfied, and if he has only a belief—he does not even have to entertain any evidence about that belief—he can demand further information. Even a registration officer seeking balanced information can be made subject to the Secretary of State's demand and fiat. For that reason, we ought to build into the legislation adequate safeguards to protect the ordinary citizen from this vicious snooper's charter and the jackboot heel of this wretched Government who want to invade people's civil liberties—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) can sneer, but there will be snoopers knocking on doors and demanding information, and) behind them they will have the imprimatur of the Secretary of State. We hope that the amendments will be accepted because they provide a modest safeguard against this intrusion.
      Mr. Patnick: I listened closely to the speech by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis) and found that he seemed to have double standards. As I said in an intervention during the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill), there was very little protest when yesterday my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates) suggested that three extra questions should be included on the form. They were, "Are you a higher taxpayer, a basic taxpayer, or a non-taxpayer?".
      Mr. Allan Roberts rose—
      Mr. Patnick: I assure the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) that I shall be brief and will speak for four minutes or less. When my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, East suggested asking for information, there was not a word from the Opposition. Now they say different.
      Mr. Howard: This is a large and important group of amendments covering many aspects of information-gathering for the purposes of the community charge, the powers of the registration officer, data protection and the rights of the individual. We debated all those issues in some detail in Committee, and I shall endeavour to respond to the points raised in the short time that is available.
      As hon. Members who served on the Committee will know, I alway attempt to adopt a conciliatory tone. Therefore, I shall begin my reply to the debate on this group of amendments by adopting a conciliatory attitude towards amendments Nos. 141 and 210. Those amendmens were addressed by the hon. Members for Burnley (Mr. Pike) and for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). They seek to restrict the information officer to obtaining information that he "reasonably requires"—the phrase that is in the Bill.
      We had a long discussion on that point in Committee and I explained then that the Government's intention on this point was exactly the same as that of the Opposition—that registration officers should not be permitted to ask for information, other than that which was clearly needed

      731
      for the purpose of maintaining the register. I said that we believed that the Bill, as presently drafted, achieved that result. Having reflected on the points made in Committee and listened to the points made today, I shall certainly look at the matter again to see whether an amendment can be made which would make even clearer the policy that we all wish to see followed.
      The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey referred to the amendments that would require registration officers to have regard to the civil liberties implications of registration and, in particular, to the codes of practice drawn up by or in consultation with the National Council for Civil Liberties. I have no desire whatever to cast aspersions on the aims and objectives of the NCCL, but I do not accept the suggestion that the NCCL should have a formal role in determining what should or should not be permissible under the law. That is the responsibility of Parliament, Government and the courts. As I made clear in Committee, the Government take very seriously the anxieties that have been expressed about the protection of privacy. It was with those concerns in mind that I met the Data Protection Registrar in February and agreed to draw up guidance, with his participation, on compliance with the data protection principles. I suggest that guidance of that kind is the correct way forward and is preferable to the issue of the NCCL codes of guidance, as proposed in the amendments.
      Amendments Nos. 211 and 149 seek to limit or restrict the supply of any part of the community charges register. I shall attempt to deal with this question quickly, as it was also discussed at considerable length in Committee. Paragraph 18 of schedule 2 empowers my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to make regulations requiring the sale of an extract from the community charge register and a list of dwellings designated for the purposes of the collective community charge. We have made it clear that we have not taken a final decision on the sale of the extract and list, or, indeed, on the question of allowing people to opt out before the extract is sold. We have received a number of representations on this issue, all of which we shall consider carefully before a decision is reached. There is nothing more that I can usefully say at this stage, although I would remind the House that the extract will consist only of a list of addresses and names and that it will in any case be available for public inspection.
      Mrs. Alice Mahon: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Howard: I shall not give way, as I do not have time.
      The hon. Members for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) and for Burnley spoke to amendments which seek to prevent the registration officer from cross-checking his register against the electoral register. There is a simple and obvious response to that suggestion, which I have given on many occasions. I am surprised that it has not yet been grasped by Opposition Members. The electoral register is a public document. It is available to the public and it would be absurd to suggest that it should not be available to the community charge registration officer.
      Amendments Nos. 152 and 153 seek to impose a schedule of restrictions on registration officers, most of them derived from the Data Protection Act. A similar amendment was discussed in Committee. I said then that
      732
      I saw no point in repeating the provisions of one piece of legislation in another. Registration officers will, of course, observe the provisions of the Data Protection Act—both the data protection principles enshrined in the Act and the exemptions which it provides. There is no need whatever to restate or amend the Data Protection Act for the purposes of this Bill. We also noted the points made by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey in respect of amendment No. 213, which seeks to give registered individuals the right to inspect any information held by registration officers on backing files. That amendment is not necessary, as people who are registered already have a right to inspect the whole of their register entry under paragraph 17(1) of schedule 2. Under the Data Protection Act, individuals have additional rights to see any personal data held by a data user. That right of inspection under the Data Protection Act will extend to community charge backing files.
      Amendments Nos. 139, 167 and 167A are concerned with sensitive information, to which registration officers should be denied access. Amendment No. 139 seeks to specify on the face of the statute that police, social work, health authority, Inland Revenue and employment records are "off limits"to registration officers. That proposal is similar to one in the new schedule proposed in amendment No. 153.
      We accept that there are certain records to which registration officers should not have access only, and we have made provision accordingly, both by stipulating that registration officers should have access to local sources of data and by providing that even some locally held records should be withheld from registration officers. In the light of these provisions, I do not believe that anything would be gained by accepting the amendments before us.
      Let me consider in turn the sources of data set out in amendment No. 139. It refers to health authority and Inland Revenue records. I can assure the House that there is no need to place those records "off limits", as the Bill does not authorise registration officers to obtain information from those sources. So far as those records are concerned, therefore, the amendment is unnecessary. It also refers to police and social work records, yet we have already made clear that we intend to use the power conferred under paragraph 9(d) of schedule 2 to prevent registration officers having access to any police records and to the most sensitive social service records.
      In other words, the only real effect of amendment No. 139 would be to deny registration officers access to non-sensitive social service records and employment records. I can see nothing objectionable in allowing registration officers access to information of that kind, and I therefore urge hon. Members to reject the amendment. I remind the House that the only information that registration officers will require is a list of names and addresses. They will not need, and will not therefore be authorised to ask for, any other information which is not relevant to their functions. As all adults will in any case by under a duty to supply their names and addresses to the registration officer, I can see no objection whatever to names and addresses being checked against non-sensitive local authority records.
      The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) raised a point regarding student identity cards. The provisions that we are introducing into the Bill relate to certificates for the status of students which will enable them to obtain the advantage of the special arrangements for students

      733
      pursuant to the provisions of the legislation. I do not believe that it can be properly characterised as a student identity card any more than the card which entitles students to concessionary rail travel, or the National Union of Students card which students customarily carry with them. Indeed, the Committee of Vice Chancellors and Principals has said that it is content with our proposals.
      The hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis) sought to make a number of rather surprising points in view of the fact that he served on the Standing Committee and must have known that both the points to which I am about to refer were nonsense. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the registration officer will not want to know whether someone spends a night away from home. All that he will need to know is the address of someone's sole or main residence and when that residence changes.
      The hon. Gentleman also made an entirely misconceived point about the names of people who have been dead for two years. The register will contain names and addresses for up to two years after people die, but, as we made clear—
      Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend said precisely that.
      Mr. Howard: No, he did not say that. The hon. Gentleman intervenes from a sedentary position, but, if he will wait for a moment, he will see how misconceived was the point made by his hon. Friend the Member for Hodge Hill. We made it clear in Committee that the public extract from the register would show only people currently subject to the charge. It is the public extract that may be sold, so that point was nonsense.
      I accept that there are legitimate concerns about the implications of the community charge for data protection. Our aim, both here and in Committee, has been to allay those concerns, not to dismiss them. It has always been our policy that the new system should be fully consistent with the provisions of the Data Protection Act, but it is astounding that we should have to listen to complaints from the Opposition about the civil liberties implications of the community charge, when a far greater threat to privacy would be posed by a local income tax, which is now part of the policy proposed by the official Opposition and the whole policy put forward by the Social and Liberal Democrats.
      Mr. Cryer rose—
      Mr. Howard: No, I shall not give way.
      Let me compare the exchanges of data needed for community charge purposes with those needed for the purposes of a local income tax. For the community charge, the registration officer needs to know the name and address of every person subject to the charge. For a local income tax, the local authority would need to know not only the name and address of each person liable to pay, but comprehensive details of every person's income. I ask the House to consider what represents—
      It being Seven o'clock, Mr. Deputy Speaker, proceeded, pursuant to the Orders [22 February and 13 April] and the Resolution yesterday, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from Chair.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 220, Noes 331.

      Division No. 263]

      [7.00 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

      Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

      Foster, Derek

      Allen, Graham

      Foulkes, George

      Alton, David

      Fraser, John

      Anderson, Donald

      Fyfe, Maria

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Galbraith, Sam

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Galloway, George

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      Garrett, John (Norwich South)

      Ashton, Joe

      Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      George, Bruce

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Barron, Kevin

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Battle, John

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      Beckett, Margaret

      Gordon, Mildred

      Beggs, Roy

      Gould, Bryan

      Bell, Stuart

      Graham, Thomas

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

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Blair, Tony

      Grocott, Bruce

      Blunkett, David

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Boateng, Paul

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Boyes, Roland

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Bradley, Keith

      Henderson, Doug

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Hinchliffe, David

      Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      Holland, Stuart

      Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

      Home Robertson, John

      Buchan, Norman

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Caborn, Richard

      Howells, Geraint

      Callaghan, Jim

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Canavan, Dennis

      Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

      Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Cartwright, John

      Illsley, Eric

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Janner, Greville

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      John, Brynmor

      Clay, Bob

      Johnston, Sir Russell

      Clelland, David

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Jones, leuan (Ynys MÔn)

      Cohen, Harry

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

      Coleman, Donald

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Lambie, David

      Corbett, Robin

      Leighton, Ron

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Cousins, Jim

      Lewis, Terry

      Crowther, Stan

      Litherland, Robert

      Cryer, Bob

      Livingstone, Ken

      Cummings, John

      Livsey, Richard

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Cunningham, Dr John

      Loyden, Eddie

      Dalyell, Tarn

      McAllion, John

      Darling, Alistair

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      McCartney, Ian

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      McFall, John

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

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      Dixon, Don

      McKelvey, William

      Dobson, Frank

      McLeish, Henry

      Doran, Frank

      McNamara, Kevin

      Douglas, Dick

      McTaggart, Bob

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      McWilliam, John

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Madden, Max

      Eadie, Alexander

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Eastham, Ken

      Marek, Dr John

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Fatchett, Derek

      Martlew, Eric

      Faulds, Andrew

      Maxton, John

      Fearn, Ronald

      Michael, Alun

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

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

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      Flannery, Martin

      Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

      Flynn, Paul

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Morgan, Rhodri

      735

      Morley, Elliott

      Skinner, Dennis

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Mullin, Chris

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

      Murphy, Paul

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

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Snape, Peter

      O'Brien, William

      Soley, Clive

      O'Neill, Martin

      Spearing, Nigel

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      Parry, Robert

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Patchett, Terry

      Stott, Roger

      Pendry, Tom

      Strang, Gavin

      Pike, Peter L.

      Straw, Jack

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Prescott, John

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Turner, Dennis

      Radice, Giles

      Vaz, Keith

      Randall, Stuart

      Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

      Redmond, Martin

      Wall, Pat

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

      Wallace, James

      Reid, Dr John

      Walley, Joan

      Richardson, Jo

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Robertson, George

      Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

      Rogers, Allan

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Rooker, Jeff

      Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Wilson, Brian

      Rowlands, Ted

      Winnick, David

      Ruddock, Joan

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Salmond, Alex

      Worthington, Tony

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Sheerman, Barry

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Mr. Frank Haynes and

      Short, Clare

      Mr. Frank Cook.

      NOES

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Alexander, Richard

      Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Allason, Rupert

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      Burns, Simon

      Amess, David

      Burt, Alistair

      Amos, Alan

      Butcher, John

      Arbuthnot, James

      Butler, Chris

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Butterfill, John

      Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Ashby, David

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Carrington, Matthew

      Atkins, Robert

      Carttiss, Michael

      Atkinson, David

      Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Baldry, Tony

      Chapman, Sydney

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Chope, Christopher

      Batiste, Spencer

      Churchill, Mr

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)

      Bellingham, Henry

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Bendall, Vivian

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Colvin, Michael

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Conway, Derek

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Body, Sir Richard

      Cope, John

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Couchman, James

      Boswell, Tim

      Cran, James

      Bottomley, Peter

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Curry, David

      Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

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

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Bowis, John

      Day, Stephen

      Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

      Devlin, Tim

      Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Dicks, Terry

      Brazier, Julian

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Bright, Graham

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

      Dover, Den

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Dunn, Bob

      Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)

      Durant, Tony

      Browne, John (Winchester)

      Eggar, Tim

      736

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Evennett, David

      Knowles, Michael

      Fallon, Michael

      Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

      Farr, Sir John

      Lang, Ian

      Favell, Tony

      Latham, Michael

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Forman, Nigel

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Forth, Eric

      Lightbown, David

      Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

      Lilley, Peter

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

      Franks, Cecil

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Freeman, Roger

      Lord, Michael

      French, Douglas

      Luce, Rt Hon Richard

      Fry, Peter

      Lyell, Sir Nicholas

      Gale, Roger

      McCrindle, Robert

      Gardiner, George

      Macfarlane, Sir Neil

      Goodlad, Alastair

      MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Maclean, David

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Gorst, John

      McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

      Gow, Ian

      McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

      Gower, Sir Raymond

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

      Mans, Keith

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Maples, John

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Marland, Paul

      Gregory, Conal

      Marlow, Tony

      Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Grist, Ian

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Ground, Patrick

      Mates, Michael

      Grylls, Michael

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Mellor, David

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Miller, Hal

      Hannam, John

      Mills, Iain

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

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Harris, David

      Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Moate, Roger

      Hayes, Jerry

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Hayward, Robert

      Moore, Rt Hon John

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Morris, M (N'hampton S)

      Heddle, John

      Morrison, Hon P (Chester)

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

      Moynihan, Hon Colin

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Neale, Gerrard

      Hill, James

      Needham, Richard

      Hind, Kenneth

      Nelson, Anthony

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Neubert, Michael

      Holt, Richard

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Howard, Michael

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

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

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Page, Richard

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Paice, James

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Patnick, Irvine

      Hunter, Andrew

      Patten, Chris (Bath)

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Patten, John (Oxford W)

      Irving, Charles

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Jack, Michael

      Pawsey, James

      Jackson, Robert

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Janman, Tim

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Jessel, Toby

      Portillo, Michael

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Price, Sir David

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Raffan, Keith

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Key, Robert

      Rathbone, Tim

      Kilfedder, James

      Redwood, John

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Renton, Tim

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Knapman, Roger

      Riddick, Graham

      737

      Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Thorne, Neil

      Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

      Thurnham, Peter

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Rossi, Sir Hugh

      Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

      Rost, Peter

      Tracey, Richard

      Rumbold, Mrs Angela

      Tredinnick, David

      Ryder, Richard

      Trippier, David

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      Trotter, Neville

      Sainsbury, Hon Tim

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Scott, Nicholas

      Viggers, Peter

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Waddington, Rt Hon David

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Wakeham, Rt Hon John

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Waldegrave, Hon William

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Walden, George

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Walker, Bill (T'side North)

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

      Shersby, Michael

      Waller, Gary

      Sims, Roger

      Walters, Dennis

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Ward, John

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Warren, Kenneth

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Watts, John

      Speed, Keith

      Wells, Bowen

      Speller, Tony

      Wheeler, John

      Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

      Whitney, Ray

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Squire, Robin

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Wilkinson, John

      Steen, Anthony

      Wilshire, David

      Stern, Michael

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Stevens, Lewis

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Wolfson, Mark

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Wood, Timothy

      Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)

      Woodcock, Mike

      Stokes, John

      Yeo, Tim

      Stradling Thomas, Sir John

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Sumberg, David

      Younger, Rt Hon George

      Summerson, Hugo

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Mr. Robert Boscawen and

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions on Amendments, moved by a member of the Government, of which notice had been given, to that part of the Bill to be concluded at seven o'clock.

      Clause 8

        REGISTERS: MISCELLANEOUS
        Amendments made: No. 189, in page 6, line 20, leave out `expires' and insert 'ends'.
        No. 190, in page 6, line 26, leave out 'expires' and insert 'ends'.
        No. 191, in page 6, line 32, leave out 'expires' and insert 'ends'.
        No. 192, in page 6, line 38, leave out 'expires' and insert 'end'.—[Mr. Howard.]

      Clause 13

        RELIEF FOR STUDENTS
        Mr. Matthew Taylor: I beg to move amendment No. 214, in page 9, line 19, after 'undertaking', insert
        'a full-time course in nursing education or'.
        Mr. Speaker: With this we shall take the following amendments: No. 144, in page 9, line 20, at end insert 'or training'.
        No. 238, in page 9, line 20, at end insert 'or nursing education.'.
        No. 252, in page 9, line 41, at end insert—
        '(7A) The Secretary of State shall make regulations to impose on students' grant awarding bodies a duty to reimburse students as regards payments they are liable to make to authorities in respect of personal community charges.'.
        No. 253, in page 9, line 43, after 'of, insert `nursing education or'.

      New Clause 13

        STUDENTS
        '(1) For the purposes of this Part a person shall be treated as undertaking a full-time course of education on a particular day if (and only if) he fulfills such conditions as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State.
        (2) The regulations may include provision that—

        (a) as regards any educational establishment of a prescribed description an individual (to be called a certification officer) may be designated by a prescribed person, or otherwise identified, in accordance with prescribed rules,

        (b) a certification officer shall at a prescribed time supply to a person who is pursuing or is about to pursue a course at the establishment, and who is of a prescribed description, a certificate in a prescribed form and containing prescribed particulars,

        (c) conditions prescribed under subsection (1) above shall include a condition as to the possession of such a certificate, and

        (d) failure to supply a certificate to a person in accordance with the regulations is actionable by the person concerned as a breach of statutory duty.'.

        Amendment (a) to new clause 13, in line 16, at end
        insert:
        '(3) The Regulations shall provide that persons shall be treated as undertaking a full time course of education if they are:

        (a) participating in a Manpower Services Scheme.

        (b) undergoing an apprenticeship.

        (c) undergoing a course of training leading to qualification as a nurse.'.

        Government amendments 59, 60, 21, 57 and 58.
        No. 254, in page 16, line 34, after 'or, insert 'nursing
        education or'.
        No. 145, in page 16, line 34, after 'education', insert 'or training'.
        No. 146, in page 16, line 36, at end insert
        'and training shall be taken to include—

        (a) participation in a Manpower Services Scheme.

        Mr. Taylor: I shall speak to amendment No. 214, tabled in my name and those of my hon. Friends, and also briefly to the other standing in the names of my hon. Friends.
        I hope that the amendment, and the series of amendments, appeal to hon. Members across the House. The amendment has been put forward by the Royal College of Nursing. I am proud to represent the college. I know that hon. Members on all sides would like to speak in favour of the amendment.
        The reason for that is the impact on student nurses will be severe. Student nurses are in special need of our help, and of our attention. Looking at the impact of the proposed community charge on first-year nursing students, some of its highest levels will affect those studying in London. In inner London the average annual charge will be £577 a year, or more than £11 a week—about 15 per cent. of their income.

        739
        In Camden, the charge will rise to as high as £782, or more than £15 a week—about 20 per cent. of a student's income. For those hon. Members who listened yesterday to the Minister extolling the virtues of his system and indeed the special rebates, I must tell them that the only student nurses who will be eligible for any of that help are in Camden. They benefit from the generosity of this Minister by no more than an extra 16p. It is difficult to see how student nurses with this low level of income and support, yet facing a higher charge, will be able to find the money they need. The effect of such a high charge on student nurses is likely to make far worse the difficulty already present in many areas. It will inevitably tend to force student nurses, looking to go into the profession, to work in areas outside London where there are lower levels of community charge. Of course there is a severe shortage of the kind of applicants for student nursing in the London area that we want.
        Moreover, there will be differences even within health authorities, let alone between district authorities. Taking an extreme example, a nursing student living in the Camden end of Bloomsbury district health authority will be liable for a community charge of £782, whereas her colleague living in the Westminster end of the same health authority will be liable to pay £398. Students are not always free to choose where they live, nor to move around easily as levels change. At the very least, resentment is bound to be caused among students affected by the different levels.
        There is no direct comparison between student nurses and ordinary students who will receive special help. The ordinary student grant is lower than nurses' pay. I make no pretence about that. It is not very much lower, but it is lower. Therefore, there might be an argument that students deserve help while student nurses do not. But there are compelling arguments why student nurses should be treated in essentially the same way.
        Although a student nurse receives a higher salary than the student grant, after deductions for tax, national insurance and superannuation they end up little better off in cash terms. In addition, they lose out in a number of other respects when compared with students. They do not enjoy the benefits to which students are entitled, such as free banking services and the long summer vacation. We all know that many students use their summer vacation to make up their incomes in order to support themselves during the term when they are on the lowest level of support. In other words, the student is not expected to survive on the grant; they are expected to make it up. That point has been made by Conservative Members on many occasions. The student nurse is not in a position to do that.
        Moreover, if Project 2000 is adopted, as I hope that it will be—the Government are considering that—nursing education will gradually be integrated into our higher and further education system. Student nurses would be paid a bursary. It would be lower than their present salary but still higher than a student grant—to reflect the manpower contribution of student nurses, not as some kind of generous give-away gesture—and they would be treated in many respects like an ordinary student. In passing, I would add that I hope that the Minister will tackle the question of what will happen to student nurses if the proposals under Project 2000 are adopted.
        Mr. Butterfill: Does the hon. Gentleman consider that any other person who is studying while he is working, whether for a trade or a profession, as happens in many trades and professions, should also he granted the exemption that he wants, or does he reserve it exclusively for nurses?
        Mr. Taylor: There are arguments for including all sorts of people, but special considerations apply to other groups. One is that many people on Manpower Service Commission training courses will be eligible for rebates. Another is that apprentices, for example, may be on higher incomes. Our amendment is directed to those on fixed nationally set incomes, where all are suffering the same kind of problems.
        In addition—I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has given me a chance to deal with this—the nursing profession has specific recruitment problems that we must recognise. Between 1984 and 1985 there was a 7 per cent. fall in the number of applications. Last year, the student intake showed a 10·33 per cent. fall. For the first time in their history many nursing schools are experiencing difficulties in filling their intakes. In London, where the poll tax will have the most dramatic impact, there was a 33 per cent. fall in entrants between 1980 and 1986. National statistics show a 25 per cent. fall between 1980 and 1986 and there is a predicted shortfall of 3,000 recruits every year by 1990. Therefore, this legislation will have a major impact on our ability to fill the number of nursing places that Britain so desperately needs to fill, and will need to fill even more in the years to come.
        Mr. Leigh: If there is a problem in recruiting nurses in London—as there is—surely that can be better dealt with by differential pay levels in London. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it is absurd to argue that just because student nurses suffer from the high spending of Camden council, to which he has repeatedly referred, whole swathes of the population of Camden should be exempted from paying towards the cost of Camden services? That is an illogical and absurd argument.
        Mr. Taylor: I do not know how many nurses the hon. Gentleman imagines there are in Camden. I rather doubt whether he will find that there are whole swathes of them by any stretch of the imagination. However, there are already differential levels of pay and London weighting for nurses. That clearly is not adequate at present. It makes better sense to treat student nurses in the same way as ordinary students, as I have argued throughout, rather than to throw money at the problem. We are not asking for money but for a recognition of the specific situation in which student nurses find themselves.
        I do not have much time because I want to allow other hon. Members to debate this group of amendments. I hope that some Conservative Members will speak because I know that there is support for them on the Conservative Benches. Therefore, I want to deal briefly with two other amendments in the group.
        There is a series of Government amendments which are designed to introduce what can only be called student identity cards. The Government have tried to call them certificates, but it is rather like the Government trying to call the poll tax the community charge—it does not really weather. I have no doubt that hon. Members on both sides of the House will find it easier to refer to them as identity cards, which is what they are.

        741
        Identity cards give rise to specific worries that all hon. Members should share. The first is that they are clearly an infringement of students' civil liberties, a subject which we debated earlier. However, here we do not have a proposal from the Opposition that the poll tax will lead to identity cards, but a Government amendment introducing identity cards for a specific group. If students are to receive identity cards in this way, that must surely open the door to others receiving them. There is no difference in logic between the need for students to have them and any other group.
        I cannot see why it is necessary for students to have identity cards. I can see that the college might have to hand over names and addresses to the local authority if the scheme is to work effectively, but why does that necessitate issuing cards? Presumably colleges already have the names and addresses of all their students in one form or another. Why cannot they hand those over as they are?
        Let me finally deal, still more briefly, with the student 20 per cent. contribution. We must hammer out this issue once and for all. The Government have accepted that people on income support should receive an increase in that support to cover the 20 per cent. that they will have to find from the money that is presently available to them. Yet the same situation does not seem to apply to students who have to survive on a grant.
        We have in the past tabled amendments to cater for that situation and we have also pursued with the Minister the question whether there will be an increase. If the Minister is prepared to say that there will be, the amendments become much less relevant. In Committee the Minister said that the issue would have to be decided by the Jackson review, and left it at that. There are two essential problems with that. First, students will have to apply for college places not knowing whether they will have to find that 20 per cent. from their grant because they will have to apply for courses while that review is being completed. Therefore, they cannot judge whether they will have to choose their college on the basis of the charge relevant to a particular authority. Should a student decide not to choose London on the grounds that he cannot afford it, or should he assume that the Minister will be generous enough to make up the money?
        Secondly, the Minister was perfectly able to say that income support would be uprated. If he could say that, despite the fact that it comes under the Department of Health and Social Security, why is his excuse for not telling us what will happen to students based on the fact that the matter comes under the DHSS? I fail to see the difference between the two.
        I hope that the House will support the amendments. In particular, I return to the case of the student nurses. They are a special group and I have explained to the House why they should be treated in the same way as other students. Large numbers of nurses will be looking to the House to show that we value their role.
        Mr. Robert Rhodes James: I am honoured to follow the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor), with whom I very much agree. Let me make an appeal to my hon. and learned Friend the Minister. As he will know, I support the Bill. I courageously supported the Government last night. I also have to declare a former interest in that my eldest daughter was a National Health Service nurse and student nurse.
        I am very much aware of the problems that student nurses face and, as a result, I was involved in the
        742
        establishment of the pay review body. I recognise that the Government accept the particular circumstances and problems of students, and for that I am grateful, but how can my hon. and learned Friend seriously argue that there is a difference between a university student studying whatever subject he or she may be studying and a student nurse? The argument will come that the university student is given a grant that is considerably lower than the salary given to a student nurse. This will ignore the fact that the student nurse is involved in work of great responsibility—my daughter, at the age of 20, was assisting in intensive care cases—and the salary is not very large.
        How can my hon. and learned Friend expect me, a supporter of the Bill, to go to my constituents in Cambridge and say that my university students will have the maximum rebate but my student nurses will not? I have to say that I am not going to do it, and I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will respond to my appeal, as a supporter of the Bill and of the principle, and make some concessions on this point. I am sure that when he reflects on the matter he will do so.
        7.30 pm
        Mr. Jeff Rooker: I want to intervene briefly on behalf of the official Opposition in what is by its nature a very short debate, so that I imagine that contributions will be brief.
        We shall support amendment No. 214, but I want to draw the attention of the House very briefly to amendment (a) to new clause 13. That encompasses also student nurses, but it goes wider. I know that privately there is a good deal of support for a wider exemption as typified in amendment (a), but publicly, in terms of voting, I understand that there will probably be more people in the Lobby for amendment No. 214 than there would be for amendment (a). Therefore, when the time comes, I shall advise my hon. Friends to support amendment No 214.
        Unless one or other of those amendments is accepted. or unless the Government can make a concession, we shall be left with the position, when this legislation reaches the statute book, that the apprentice in the bedsit will pay exactly the same poll tax as the managing director in the penthouse. That will be seen as patently unfair.
        A student undertaking a full-time course of education but who may be employed by, say, a Government Department and sponsored on a postgraduate course, on a salary, will get an 80 per cent. discount on the poll tax, but the student nurse will get no rebate whatsoever. Where is the justification? As we said in Committee, not all students are poor, although the vast majority are. They struggle and survive on the grant. But the way the Bill is drafted, a student who follows a full-time course but is sponsored by an industrial company or a Government Department, on a salary, will get an automatic discount of 80 per cent., while student nurses will get not a penny piece of poll tax rebate, except for those few who happen to live in the London borough of Camden. And when the nurses' pay review body reports it may well be that student nurses, even with their responsibilities, will be taken out of that.
        The hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) is quite right: student nurses are paid a salary, but they are carrying out a responsible job and, with the hours that they do, they are not in quite the same position. But students on a grant, with the supplementary benefit in the long recess and other jobs, can often make the same net

        743
        income in a year as a student nurse, because she is subject to tax and National Insurance contributions. Therefore, it is grossly unfair that student nurses are not covered.
        Apprentices working on schemes ought also to be covered.
        We all know the position since the Committee stage. We were not able to discuss the question of students having identity cards, because that was not on offer, but now we see Government amendment No. 59. Whereas the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals has said that it can operate new clause 13, it is wholly opposed to amendment No. 59. I shall quote very briefly from the letter sent to me, and I presume to other hon. Members, by the chairman of the committee, Professor Sir Mark Richmond. He said:
        "Universities do not supply students' names and addresses to third parties without their consent. To do so would be an invasion of students' privacy, and could place some of them, for example, certain groups of overseas students, at personal risk".
        He goes on to say:
        "We believe that supplying names and addresses would also contravene students' rights under the Data Protection Act since the records are frequently held on computer."
        There is no justification whatsoever for new clause 13. We have to press the Government on this in respect of these students. Does this presage poll tax identity cards for all poll tax payers? Going back to the debate that we have just had, the Government constantly say that there is no threat to civil liberties or to privacy, but at the end of the day there will be over 50 sets of regulations to come before the House after the Bill receives Royal Assent, some of which will give local authority treasurers the power to seek further and other information. The Government will then say that it has nothing to do with them, that the local authorities are to blame.
        That is simply not good enough. We need an answer to that tonight. What is going to flow from the requirement, for students to have identity cards?
        We naturally expect the Minister to say something about the student grant. We expect him to say, not that it is fobbed off to some other committee, but that the grant will at least take account of the 20 per cent. of the poll tax that students are required to pay.
        Sir Philip Goodhart: I know that no sensible person wants to penalise student nurses as an unexpected by-product of a change in local government finance. As a group, student nurses make a major contribution to society and they are certainly not overpaid. As the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) pointed out, student nurses in London are going to be particularly hard-hit, and I hope that many of them will come and work in the hospitals in my constituency.
        I part company with the hon. Member, however, on his amendment relating to student identity cards. I dislike almost all aspects of this Bill and the only thing that encourages me about it is that it is going to make the introduction of identity cards—not just for students but for the whole population—a necessity. I do not see any other way in which this system of local government finance can be operated, and as a long-term supporter of national identity cards I welcome this aspect of it. If it comes first with students, they can realise that it will apply to the rest of the country very soon indeed.
        744
        This amendment underlines the enormous problems that arise when we switch the whole basis of local government finance from buildings to people and then try to exempt particular groups. Certainly student nurses ought to be exempted, but why not student policemen—police cadets—and trainee firemen as well? One can think of a vast range of people. Some other students and non-students whose case we cannot possibly discuss in the very limited time available this evening ought to be exempted.
        Mr. Leigh: Will my hon. Friend give way?
        Sir Philip Goodhart: No, because I said that I would speak for less than five minutes.
        If the Bill reaches another place, it will have more than 90 minutes—indeed, nine days—in which to discuss these issues. I am sure that another place, particularly after last night's vote, will have the moral authority and the moral necessity thoroughly to investigate all the exemption issues. I expect that the Government will secure the defeat of this amendment, but I hope that it will be passed by another place and that we shall have a further opportunity to discuss it at length.
        Mr. Jim Cousins: Unless important amendments are made to this part of the Bill, there will be a dangerous breakdown of communications between the Government and a particularly important generation. There are over 20,000 students in my city of Newcastle upon Tyne, and 3,500 of them may or may not be covered by student exemptions. We do not yet know the precise definition of a student. The draft Scottish regulations that are to be discussed tomorrow do not fully cover many of the uncertainties about the definition of a student. That will put university, polytechnic and college of further education administrations in great difficulties.
        We are also creating very important divisions between one category of young person and another. Student nurses work alongside medical students and postgraduate science students, many of whom earn additional money by demonstrations and part-time lecturing. Student nurses will deeply resent student exemptions, and it will create a further disincentive to their recruitment. It is a mistake to assume that that disincentive will be confined to student nurses in London. The greatest fall in student nurse intake in any area prior to the introduction of this system, which will act as a further disincentive to student nurse recruitment, is to be found in the north. I expect that the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) would agree to extend what he said to student midwives and student health visitors who will encounter exactly the same kind of difficulties.
        I hope that the Government will seriously consider the points that have been raised and that they will relieve university and college administrations of having to tread an extremely onerous, difficult and trouble-strewn path by not implementing new clause 13 and by not introducing exemptions for one section of a key age group while forcing other sections of that key age group to depend on a rebate system that already has its curiosities. If we are to believe the letters, leaks or whatever we may call them about the future of the rebate system, there will be even greater curiosities.
        Whatever the outcome of the vote, I hope that the Government will further consider these matters: otherwise

        745
        we shall end up with a deeply divided generation and a crisis of confidence between the Government and the student community. Administration and certification uncertainties will be added to the uncertainties about the future of student grants and loans. Furthermore, the survey that was announced this morning carries an implicit threat to the future integrity of student unions.
        Mr. David Wilshire: Every time we have a debate of this kind I think to myself, "Here we go again: more exemptions, more requests for rebates." The fact is that 9 million people are already receiving some form of relief. Before we know where we are, 20 million people will be receiving help—precisely the number who are not paying rates now or who are getting help to pay them. I make no apologies for saying that I would prefer there to be no exemptions and no rebates—[interruption.] I thought that would excite Opposition Members. I am not in the least bit anti-nurse, anti-student or anti-anybody else who needs help. It is the method of help that concerns me. I am very much pro-nurse and pro-student. The hearts of those who are trying to do something for them are in the right place but their method is wrong. Nurses are paid; students are given grants; the elderly receive help. That is the way to deal with those who will have difficulties over the community charge. Amendment after amendment advocating exemptions is nonsense.
        7.45 pm
        I want to deal with what is going wrong as we discuss the amendments. These amendments, and all the amendments that we have discussed so far, also affect the principle and the future of local government. The threatened principle, where there are exemptions and rebates, is the link between services and costs. The Bill sets out to link users and payers—hence the name "community charge". I make no apologies for saying that we should charge for services. The term "community charge" gives the lie to the fact that this is a poll tax, because a poll tax is a charge for voting.
        I am well aware of the fact that the notion of charging everybody upsets some hon. Members. I have sat through 147 hours of hon. Members being upset about it. During those 147 hours I heard no hon. Member suggest that nurses should be given free postage stamps, and I have heard no call for cheaper water, electricity or coal for students, yet they are just as essential as dustbins, street lights and fire brigades. All exemptions and rebates cut right across the principle of trying to create a link between services and costs. That link is important, because it puts local government firmly in the real world. That is where the Opposition do not want local government to be. Local government has to face the inescapable, economic fact of life that services cost money. Exemptions disguise that fact. Public services affect the pockets of us all. If we look at the track record of local government, we see that it is usually the poorest who are affected most.
        Ms. Marjorie Mowlam: If the hon. Gentleman is against exemptions, could he explain why he is for rate capping? If he is referring to a direct relationship between services and accountability, that clearly works in the other direction.
        Mr. Wilshire: That has absolutely nothing to do with it. I was referring to the link between services and costs and to what people contribute. The rate-capping mechanism is concerned with local government misbehaving itself.
        Another point that concerns me greatly is that exemptions and rebates will have a detrimental effect on local government. I sat through the whole of yesterday's debate and I have sat through the whole of this one, but I have not yet heard any hon. Member discuss the effect that these amendments will have on local government. The discussion has centred on the effect that they will have on individual people. If, however, there is to be sensible local government, we must consider the effect on both individuals and local government.
        Ms. Joyce Quin: I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument with some difficulty. Is he saying that he is against exemptions, but favours the solution of increasing student grants, pensions and so on? The burden of the community charge, which we know will be there, will be compensated for in some other way.
        Mr. Wilshire: That is the way I would go. I would not be specific in a debate such as this. What I believe should happen, if we have a community charge which clearly introduces the link between services and cost, is that every local person should hand over money to the local council for services. If they cannot afford to do that, we should explore, as the hon. Lady has just said, ways of helping those who need help in paying the charge, but not in this particular way. All the exemptions and the rebates that we might allow will further confuse the real role of local government. It will confuse the point that local government is, above all else, a provider of local services. The sooner it gets back to such thinking, the sooner it will secure its future. Exemptions and rebates will confuse that role for local government in two particular ways.
        If there are exemptions arid rebates such as these, we will first turn a charge on all into a tax on some and introduce the ability to pay and arguments on the redistribution of wealth into the local government arena. Those are tasks for central Government. Secondly, we will involve councillors in social engineering. They will see within their arena the whole question of the redistribution of wealth and feel obliged to find ways of doing the Government's job. It is that social engineering that has brought us to this Bill in the first place. It would be ironic indeed, if we passed amendments which had the effect of the Bill making social engineering by local councillors worse rather than better.
        I urge the House to vote against the amendments, as it has voted against all the others so far. I urge the House to go on voting against them time after time when they attempt to make exemptions. I am against all attempts to introduce banded charges, to exempt more people and to improve the rebates. If we do not oppose these amendments, local government will get worse, not better. Local services will suffer, not improve.—[AN HON. MEMBER: "Hang the nurses."] When we come to the debate on capital punishment, my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) will get a nasty surprise, because he will probably find me in the other Lobby.
        Above all else, if we do not watch our step, if we do not vote against all these amendments, we shall end up where we started—with another Local Government Finance Bill.

        747
        I am quite convinced that the House does not want that. I am certain that I do not want another 147 hours of nonsense from Opposition Members.
        Mr. Wilson: The hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) has demonstrated a notable Tory characteristic which can be summed up in one word—selfishness. I am thinking of his attitude not so much towards the poll tax, but towards his colleagues. What distinguishes the hon. Member for Spelthorne from the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James), who showed rather more circumspection, is that the hon. Member for Spelthorne has a majority of 20,050, whereas the hon. Member for Cambridge has a majority of 5,060. That really is—[HON. MEMBERS: "Do not challenge the hon. Gentleman's integrity."] I cannot challenge what is not there.
        Mr. Cormack: The hon. Gentleman does his argument a disservice. I had a majority of 25,000, which does not stop me from opposing this Bill. The hon. Gentleman should watch his words.
        Mr. Wilson: I am sorry, but I am not prepared to take that from the hon. Gentleman, because my experience of the poll tax is that many who will be protected from it will find it morally repugnant. I respect those Conservative Members who are prepared to share that opinion. I respect the fact that many of the most articulate and decent opponents of the poll tax on the other side of the House have nothing to fear from it politically. However, I believe that we heard the true doctrine from the hon. Member for Spelthorne—that, if they could get away with it politically, those in favour of the poll tax would not protect the lame, the weak, the mentally handicapped, the elderly and the young unemployed. In respect of all those categories, they would wipe out the nonsense about rebates or anything else.
        Mr. Butterfill: The hon. Gentleman will find that Conservative Members and, I am sure, many in the Labour party may regret his aspersion on my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James). I think it will be common ground on both sides of the House that he has never failed to vote according to his conscience on almost every issue, certainly as long as I have known him. Many other hon. Members have known him longer than I have.
        Mr. Wilson: We have grown accustomed to the moderate and helpful interventions in Committee of the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) which invariably end up with him voting for the most reactionary side of the argument. I advise those hon. Members who voted with the Government last night, whose minds are yet to be concentrated, that this issue will progressively concentrate their minds. The smaller the majority, the sharper the degree of concentration. I do not think there is anything exceptional about that.
        Mr. Wilshire: I do not think that I can allow my integrity to be attacked without that point being withdrawn or my being able to put on the record quite clearly that I totally support this legislation, because I believe that it is right. I spelt out in words of one syllable that I care as much as anybody in the House. I am just as determined to find ways of helping people who need help,
        748
        but I do not believe that this particular Bill is the vehicle for helping people who need it. I resent very much my integrity being attacked.
        Mr. Wilson: The hon. Gentleman can resent it until he is an even deeper blue in the face, but what he has just propounded is the abolition of all rebates and all concessions to all categories of society. He wants that on the record; I want that on the record. I do not know what we are disagreeing about.
        We know that the wobbly Tory conscience is very cheaply bought. The announcement last Thursday about rebates is exposed for exactly what it is in this debate on student nurses. When we were debating this matter in Committee, it was drawn to the attention of the Government that, according to the pre-Thursday formula—the pre-magnanimity formula—there was not a student nurse in the country who would receive a penny rebate unless he or she lived in the London borough of Camden. There would not, for instance, be a student nurse in the whole of Scotland who would receive a penny rebate, because, in the view of the Government and the architects of this legislation, student nurses are far too well paid to deserve a rebate. The hon. Member for Spelthorne, the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West and the Minister are firmly of the view that every student nurse in the country is far too well paid to require a penny of rebate.
        Let us look at the post-Ridley miracle figures on the magnanimity of the new rebate system. Before last Thursday, in an area where the poll tax was £250 a head, which is above the English average, a student nurse would receive no rebate. After Thursday a student nurse will also receive nothing in rebate. In areas such as my own, where the poll tax is £300 a head, before last Thursday a student nurse would receive not a penny in rebate. After last Thursday a student nurse will receive not a penny in rebate. If we go to the highest rated authorities outside London, before last Thursday a student nurse would receive not a penny in rebate. After last Thursday, a student nurse will receive not a penny in rebate. That is what last Thursday is worth to student nurses throughout the country. That would surely have been appreciated by Conservative Members when they heard that announcement. The only concession arises where student nurses are living in a local authority area where the per capita poll tax is £550 per head, which, at present figures, would affect at most two or three of the London boroughs. In those areas, student nurses now begin to qualify for the magnificent sum of 66p per week in rebate, when they are being asked to pay £550 per year in poll tax. They are among the 9 million people whom the newly reformed Conservative Members are now prepared to wear on their chests as symbols of what happened last Thursday. However, nobody can hide behind their conscience as much as behind statistics. The fact is that outside the handful of London boroughs—possibly the one, two or three boroughs where the statistics begin to apply—the relevance of last Thursday is that not one student nurse in the country will receive a penny in poll tax rebate because, in the Government's view, they are far too highly paid to do so.
        8 pm
        That is the reality that Conservative Members, including the hon. Member for Cambridge, will have to take out into the country. I admire the hon. Gentleman for

        749
        the fact that he has some reservations about doing so. However, I assure him, and every hon. Member who is still prepared to cling to the principle of the poll tax, that just as they will eventually have to take the truth about student nurses out into the country, there are a thousand similar examples of people who will be cruelly penalised under the poll tax, but who do not yet realise it, and every one of those cases will have to be explained to an increasingly sceptical and hostile electorate.
        Sir George Young: I cannot preface my remarks with the protestations of loyalty with which my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) prefaced his remarks. However, I hope that the Government will listen to what we are saying in this debate, which is the seventh of eight in which we are asking the Government to think again on this issue.
        I rise in support of amendments Nos. 214 and 238 which seek to extend the protection for students to student nurses. Yesterday we debated the principle of banding, and the Government pointed out what they saw as difficulties, anomalies, and problems about the cross-over points. Today's debate has made it clear that the Government have their own banding proposals. However, unlike yesterday's debate, in which banding was on the basis of income, banding in this debate is according to educational status. If one is talking about tax, it is far more logical to band according to income than to educational status because that leads us into all sorts of difficulties, anomalies and cross-over points which are far more difficult to defend than the anomalies and difficulties that we defended yesterday. A rich undergraduate, for example—and there are some—who is able to supplement his income in the vacations will receive 80 per cent. relief, whereas a poor nursing student who has no such opportunity will not receive comparable relief. That is a difficult point to explain on the doorstep.
        Like other hon. Members, I have children at university and know that some of my children's contemporaries are being paid for by the police force or, in some cases, by the armed services. They receive a salary, but, for the purpose of this clause, they will count as students. How does one defend that position when their salary might be higher than that of a student nurse? It is certainly the case that the Government are sponsoring post-graduate students and that those students will be granted exemptions. There is a major inconsistency in the Government's approach towards those undertaking education and training.
        I should like to comment briefly on student nurses. Like the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor), I have been in touch with the Royal College of Nursing, which is concerned about this matter. If one considers the future of nursing and nurse training, one can see that student nurses will become more and more like students and slightly less like nurses. Page 6 of the Project 2000 briefing of the Royal College of Nursing, which hon. Members have been sent, states:
        "Project 2000 proposes that 20 per cent. of the students' time over the 3 years would be spent as an employee service contribution, rather than the present 80 per cent."
        That is a fairly dramatic turnround in the nature of nurse training. Nurses will become far more like students. The briefing then states:
        "Only two countries in the world, the UK and Eire, still have nursing students as employees."
        750
        In other words, we are going to move more towards the position that is adopted elsewhere and nurses will become more and more like students.
        Against that background, and against the problems that we face in London in relation to recruiting nurses, one simply cannot afford to put extra problems in the path of student nurses.
        The last sentence of the briefing from the Royal College of Nursing states:
        "Numbers entering nurse training dropped from 33,370 in 1979 to 22,825 in 1987."
        In view of that, is it really sensible to put an additional burden on the backs of student nurses?
        I hope that when the Division comes, my hon. Friends who have hitherto been loyal, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge, will take the view that on this issue an injustice is being done to student nurses. It is an injustice that could be put right quite easily without doing any of the damage that we heard about yesterday, simply by carrying amendment No. 214. If that happened, it would enable those of us who have been campaigning for changes to the Bill to feel that we have at least removed one inequity from the Bill to the benefit of the legislation.
        Mr. Dalyell: As is my wont, and because of the guillotine, I should like to ask one question and then make an observation. The question is purely factual. What work has been done in the Department on the likely effect of the poll tax on the recruitment of student nurses, first, in London, and, secondly, in the rest of the country?
        My observation is that, like the hon. Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart), I was here 10 years ago when we had a controversial Bill. We had a Labour Government, and the Bill related to Scotland and Wales. Unfortunately for some people in that Government, they never got a guillotine. Therefore, it was possible for the House of Commons to do its job. I borrow a phrase from Enoch Powell who took part in those debates, in a situation not unlike this. Enoch said that that Bill had a "smell of death" about it. Were the House of Commons, on this occasion, allowed to do its job, that smell of death would emerge, because it is like lifting stones. Again, to borrow from Enoch Powell, it is a question of all sorts of creepy-crawly things creeping out from under the stones. That can only be done on the first, second, third and fourth attempts.
        I am not being personally rude to the Minister because that is not my wont. However, there is another comparison. The devolution Bill was handled by what we, in the Opposition, would regard as an exceptionally able Queen's Counsel, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith). There is one thing about very able QCs—one will not catch them out the first, the second or the third time; one must go on and on. It suited Jim Callaghan that I was allowed, with Enoch Powell and one or two others, 47 days on the Floor of the House—
        Mr. Rooker: And with the present Leader of the Opposition.
        Mr. Dalyell: Certainly. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition was not as good an attender as I was and he did not ask as succinct questions as I did. Nevertheless, he came in and went out again, and did his part—[HON. MEMBERS: "A leadership bid."] I do not know whether this is a leadership bid. It is partly a reminiscence.

        751
        I think that more and more this Bill is getting found out. It has geological flaws and part of the symptoms of a geological flaw is this kind of vignette debate.
        I do not want to anger my colleagues, but I think that there was a great deal in what the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) said. Once one starts exemptions, one can go on asking for other exemptions. If there should be exemptions for student nurses—as we believe—why not for trainee firemen or trainee a lot of other things? Other groups, some of which are small, will think that they have good cases. The difficulty is that the House of Commons does not have the time or the opportunity to explore those cases. I must behave myself, because I must not go on and on.
        Mr. Winnick: I take my hon. Friend's point that the Bill is basically defective and that there are anomalies in having exemptions for student nurses, people over 80, and so on. Does he agree with my earlier comment that if we work on the basis that this is an obnoxious Bill, our job in opposition, bearing in mind the Government's majority, is to do what we can to ensure that there will be protection for those who will be penalised? Although there are all kinds of anomalies in the amendments, if they were carried we would be protecting some people who otherwise would be harshly hit by this Treasury measure.
        Mr. Dalyell: I would not agree. It would be an interesting exercise if, by a magic carpet, the Minister could be transported to this side of the red line to put the awkward QC questions to the Government on the other side. I think that the effect would be dramatic—[Interruption.] He would do it just as well. That is the point about clever QCs. I am not insulting his integrity.
        Mr. Winnick: They would argue anything for money.
        Mr. Dalyell: No, I did not say that. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East did not do anything like that. Ministers have a job to do and they have a loyalty. As my right hon. and learned Friend had a loyalty to Jim Callaghan, so the Minister has a loyalty to the present Prime Minister. All I am saying is that that does not refute our argument that the whole proposition is flawed fundamentally.
        Ms. Mowlam: I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that at the time of the peasants' revolt in 1381, when Richard II was facing the impact of a poll tax, the crowd shouted, "A plague on all lawyers."
        Mr. Dalyell: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam). I really must sit down.
        Mr. Butterfill: The nub of the problem is the difference between full-time students and those who are studying whilst working. It is no doubt true that an increasing number study and train at the same time as they work. That trend is likely to continue. Therefore, we should be debating how we deal with those people and whether we should treat them in the same way as students.
        What has been argued from the Opposition Benches is that we should treat a particular group in a special way. That argument cannot hold water because we should not single out one group at the expense of others. There are many other groups which would fall into a similar
        752
        predicament as that which would be experienced by student nurses. My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart) outlined a few such cases.
        It is significant that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) said that he would have preferred amendment (a) to amendment No. 214. He pointed out that amendment (a) included a large number of additional groups which he thought were equally deserving. I suggest that there are even more groups in comparable positions than are included in amendment (a). The problem is that Opposition Members want to make political capital out of this. That is why they are not pursuing amendment (a) even though they admit that it is a better amendment than amendment No. 214.
        The hon. Member for Perry Barr said that amendment (a) was better but that he thought he would get more support for amendment No. 214. Why does he think that he will get more support for amendment No. 214? Because it concerns exclusively nurses. It is well known that there is greater public sympathy for nurses than for other groups who may be equally deserving. Therefore, what we have seen from the Opposition Benches is a study in cynicism. They are treating this as a pure electioneering exercise.
        Mr. Rooker: The simple fact is that I added up the numbers who were prepared to vote for a Labour amendment as opposed to a Social Democratic Liberal amendment. There seemed to be more hon. Members willing to vote for amendment No. 214. The procedure under the guillotine, for which the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) voted, does not allow the Labour party to vote for amendment (a). It is a simple matter of arithmetic.
        8.15 pm
        Mr. Butterfill: I accept that it is a procedural point but I am sure that it has suited the arguments of the Opposition, who have concentrated almost exclusively on the predicament of nurses. If that were not so, why did Opposition Members not concentrate on the arguments for other groups in addition to nurses?
        The answer to the problem of the nurses is not to give them exemption through the amendment but to deal with them through the independent review body which has been set up to decide what their pay should be. We decided to take nurses' pay out of the political arena. Yet Opposition Members insist on perpetuating it as a political issue. I believe that the public will make their own judgment as to the motives of the Opposition.
        Mr. Cormack: I am not making an electioneering speech. I hope that my hon. Friend will acquit me of that.
        It is a pity that the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) introduced such a note into his speech. In the Chamber we should always assume the sincerity of our opponents' arguments and go for their judgment and tactics, but we should not descend to the depths which he did in his unfortunate remarks.
        We are debating a peculiar anomaly of the Government's own creation. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young), who has fought so valiantly on the issue, was right when he said that to treat a rich undergraduate in one way and a student nurse, who may be in straitened circumstances, in another is not only anomalous but thoroughly unjust. I hope that even at this late stage my hon. and learned Friend can do something.

        753
        No one by any stretch of the imagination could construe this as a wrecking amendment. It would be a small concession. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend can make this small, inexpensive concession for a group of people who probably command more public sympathy than any other group.
        At a time when the Government are about to make the right decision, as I believe they are, on nurses' pay, I would regret it if they were to take an intransigent line on the amendment. I urge my hon. and learned Friend to reply in the conciliatory spirit of which I know him to be capable. Able lawyer that he is, I am sure that he is not a man with a heart of flint. Somewhere he has deep feelings in which I would urge him to indulge himself just for a moment.
        Mr. Howard: We all enjoyed the remiscences of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), but he is wrong when he suggests that as the Bill proceeds through Parliament new weaknesses, as he would have it, are identified and exposed.
        We have had an interesting debate on this important question. Despite the fact that the arguments against the Government's position have been enriched by the new, powerful and persuasive advocacy of my hon. Friends the Members for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) and Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack), who unhappily did not join us in Committee, none of the arguments which have been put forward were new. No new points were put forward. We argued the matter through in Committee. Indeed, a member of the Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill), put his finger with absolute precision on the distinction at the heart of the Government's case: there is a difference between those who are in full-time education and those who are at work and obtaining their education at work.
        Mr. Cormack: What is the difference between a young man of 22 with a commission in the Army and a salary at Cambridge or any other university and a student nurse at Addenbrooke's? Why should one be treated so very much more favourably than the other?
        Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is entirely correct in identifying an anomaly. It affects a tiny number of people and in any legislation there are anomalies which one expects. The extent to which an anomaly becomes acceptable or invalidates the principle of the legislation can be decided by the number of people affected by it. That is the answer to my hon. Friend's question.
        Mr. Max Madden: The Minister has finally grudgingly admitted that this is an anomaly and he implied that there may be many others. Will he agree with equal honesty that the best way to remove the anomalies is to build into the legislation a clear recognition of the ability to pay?
        Mr. Howard: No, I do not agree with either of the hon. Gentleman's points. I did not imply that there were many other anomalies. We shall examine some aspects of his latter point shortly, but I certainly do not agree that his remedy would provide any improvement.
        First, I shall deal with the Opposition amendments Nos. 214, 238, 253, 254, 144, 145, 146, 252 and amendment (a) to new clause 13. These are designed to extend the definition of a full-time course of education to include student nurses, apprentices and participants in MSC schemes. We debated similar amendments at length in
        754
        Committee and I have heard nothing to today to convince me that the Committee was wrong to reject those amendments.
        The Committee accepted the Government's case that full-time students are in a unique position, and therefore merit special treatment in the form of a reduced charge: they will pay only one fifth of the personal community charges. Student nurses differ from students in two important respects. First, their financial situation is different. A student nurse's salary, for example, is considerably higher than even the highest student grant. The student grant outside London is less than £2,000 a year, compared with a starting salary of £4,540 for a student nurse. The average earnings of student nurses outside London are between £5,000 and £6,000—two and half to three times the student grant.
        I accept the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge that student nurses work extremely hard and carry out onerous responsibilities, so more than justify those salaries. Naturally, we accept and appreciate that, but that is not the point. By virtue of their hard work and the responsibilities that they discharge they receive incomes which are substantially higher than student grants.
        Secondly, student nurses are salaried staff whose training is carried out in the context of their full-time employment. Many jobs involve a similar element of on-the-job training. If we gave special treatment to student nurses we could not justify withholding it from a large number of other groups, from police cadets to trainee accountants, or even pupil barristers.
        I would not deny that some trainees have low incomes, for example, those participating in YTS and JTS courses. Many of those on YTS will be under 18, and therefore not subject to the personal community charge. Those who are over 18, as well as those on JTS courses, apprentices and other trainees, will be eligible for community charge rebates on the same basis as all other people whose incomes are low. The improved rebate arrangements will bring many more young people, including no doubt many trainees, within eligibility for rebates as well as increasing the rebate entitlement of many others. That answers the question of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) about an apprentice in a bedsit.
        Amendment No. 252 is rather different. It would oblige the Government to reimburse full-time students for the 20 per cent. payment they will be required to make towards the community charge. I must urge the House to reject this amendment, not least because it is premature. These matters are being considered by the review which is taking place under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science. The review is considering all aspects of student support arrangements, including the impact of the community charge, and I understand that it is likely to report shortly. Until it does it would be wrong to deal separately with only one aspect of student finances.
        I turn now to the first of the Government amendments, No. 21. This is a purely technical amendment to the rights of appeal under clause 22. It deletes subsection (2)(c) of clause 22 which provides a right of appeal if a registration officer does not accept that a person is a full-time student. That right will continue to be available, but it is no longer necessary to provide for it expressly, in the light of another

        755
        amendment which was agreed in Committee. It relates to entries in the register, which I need not go into in detail now.
        The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) asked about the effects on our proposals of Project 2000. It is a proposal by the United Kingdom Central Council, which deals with the training of nurses, on possible changes to future training. Following consultation, Ministers in the Department of Health and Social Security will consider what, if any, steps should be taken to implement those recommendations. This Bill is concerned with the present system and at present student nurses are clearly not full-time students in the accepted sense. If Project 2000 is implemented in due course and student nurses are treated as students on bursaries rather than salaries, we shall certainly reconsider their position under the community charge.
        The hon. Member for Truro, his party and, indeed, if I understand his position correctly, my hon. Friend the Member for Acton favour a full local income tax. The House should consider the implications for student nurses and newly qualified nurses of the effects of a local income tax. A first-year student nurse in inner London would be likely to pay more in local income tax than in community charge.
        Mr. Matthew Taylor: Will the Minister give way?
        Mr. Howard: I shall sit down shortly in order to give the hon. Gentleman time to speak.
        A third-year student in inner London would pay considerably more than under the community charge—as much as £1,000 in Camden and £830 in Lewisham. A newly qualified nurse would be likely to pay more local income tax than community charge in every local authority in England. In Camden her bill could be as high as £1,500, in Manchester £375, and in Durham £300.
        In the light of the implications of the local income tax proposals put forward by the hon. Gentleman's party, one should truly assess the strength of the propositions that he has been advancing. For that, if for no other reason, I invite the House to vote against his amendment.
        Mr. Matthew Taylor: With the leave of the House, I should like briefly to respond to the debate.
        This is a debate not about local income tax but about making the Government's system fairer. I hope that the Minister will accept that, although figures under his proposals for local income tax may or may not be true, under our proposals, which he was given earlier today, he was simply wrong.
        The hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) spoke from family experience and with typical integrity, such as we expect from him. The hon. Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart) referred to the Lords. I beg both sides of the House not to leave this to the Lords in the hope that they will make changes. A direction from the House is needed, and the House's position should be made clear.
        The speeches by the hon. Members for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) and for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) were equally generous and showed the integrity of those hon. Members.
        The hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) spelt out the true opposition to the amendment. It has nothing
        756
        to do with local income tax. The hon. Gentleman said that he would prefer a Bill with no exemptions and no rebates. That is the true alternative. I say to hon. Members: for goodness sake recognise the value of student nurses and support them.
        Question put, That the amendment be made:—
        The House divided: Ayes 232, Noes 321.

        Division No. 264]

        [8.30 pm

        AYES

        Abbott, Ms Diane

        Evans, John (St Helens N)

        Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

        Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

        Allen, Graham

        Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

        Alton, David

        Fatchett, Derek

        Anderson, Donald

        Faulds, Andrew

        Archer, Rt Hon Peter

        Fearn, Ronald

        Armstrong, Hilary

        Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

        Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

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

        Ashton, Joe

        Flannery, Martin

        Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

        Flynn, Paul

        Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

        Foot, Rt Hon Michael

        Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

        Foster, Derek

        Barron, Kevin

        Foulkes, George

        Battle, John

        Fraser, John

        Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

        Fyfe, Maria

        Beckett, Margaret

        Galbraith, Sam

        Beggs, Roy

        Garrett, John (Norwich South)

        Beith, A. J.

        Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

        Bell, Stuart

        George, Bruce

        Benn, Rt Hon Tony

        Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

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

        Godman, Dr Norman A.

        Bermingham, Gerald

        Golding, Mrs Llin

        Blair, Tony

        Goodhart, Sir Philip

        Blunkett, David

        Gordon, Mildred

        Boateng, Paul

        Gould, Bryan

        Boyes, Roland

        Graham, Thomas

        Bradley, Keith

        Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

        Bray, Dr Jeremy

        Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

        Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

        Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

        Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

        Grocott, Bruce

        Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

        Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

        Caborn, Richard

        Harman, Ms Harriet

        Callaghan, Jim

        Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

        Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

        Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

        Campbell-Savours, D. N.

        Haynes, Frank

        Canavan, Dennis

        Heffer, Eric S.

        Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

        Henderson, Doug

        Cartwright, John

        Hinchliffe, David

        Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

        Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

        Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

        Holland, Stuart

        Clay, Bob

        Home Robertson, John

        Clelland, David

        Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

        Clwyd, Mrs Ann

        Howells, Geraint

        Cohen, Harry

        Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

        Coleman, Donald

        Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

        Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

        Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

        Cook, Robin (Livingston)

        Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

        Corbett, Robin

        Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

        Corbyn, Jeremy

        Illsley, Eric

        Cormack, Patrick

        Janner, Greville

        Cousins, Jim

        John, Brynmor

        Crowther, Stan

        Johnston, Sir Russell

        Cryer, Bob

        Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

        Cummings, John

        Jones, leuan (Ynys MÔn)

        Cunliffe, Lawrence

        Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

        Cunningham, Dr John

        Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

        Dalyetl, Tarn

        Kirkwood, Archy

        Darling, Alistair

        Lambie, David

        Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

        Leighton, Ron

        Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

        Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

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

        Lewis, Terry

        Dixon, Don

        Litherland, Robert

        Dobson, Frank

        Livingstone, Ken

        Douglas, Dick

        Livsey, Richard

        Duffy, A. E. P.

        Lofthouse, Geoffrey

        Dunnachie, Jimmy

        Loyden, Eddie

        Eadie, Alexander

        McAllion, John

        Eastham, Ken

        McAvoy, Thomas

        757

        McCartney, Ian

        Rogers, Allan

        Macdonald, Calum A.

        Rooker, Jeff

        McFall, John

        Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

        McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

        Ross, William (Londonderry E)

        McKelvey, William

        Rowlands, Ted

        McLeish, Henry

        Ruddock. Joan

        McNamara, Kevin

        Salmond, Alex

        McTaggart, Bob

        Sedgemore, Brian

        McWilliam, John

        Sheerman, Barry

        Madden, Max

        Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

        Mahon, Mrs Alice

        Shore, Rt Hon Peter

        Marek, Dr John

        Short, Clare

        Marshall, David (Shettleston)

        Skinner, Dennis

        Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

        Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

        Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

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

        Martlew, Eric

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

        Maxton, John

        Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

        Michael, Aluri

        Snape, Peter

        Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

        Soley, Clive

        Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

        Spearing, Nigel

        Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

        Squire, Robin

        Moonie, Dr Lewis

        Steinberg, Gerry

        Morgan, Rhodri

        Stott, Roger

        Morley, Elliott

        Strang, Gavin

        Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

        Straw, Jack

        Mowlam, Marjorie

        Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

        Mullin, Chris

        Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)

        Murphy, Paul

        Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

        Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

        Temple-Morris, Peter

        O'Brien, William

        Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

        O'Neill, Martin

        Turner, Dennis

        Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

        Vaz, Keith

        Parry, Robert

        Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

        Patchett, Terry

        Wall, Pat

        Pendry, Tom

        Walley, Joan

        Pike, Peter L.

        Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

        Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

        Wareing, Robert N.

        Prescott. John

        Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

        Primarolo, Dawn

        Williams, Rt Hon Alan

        Quin, Ms Joyce

        Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

        Radice, Giles

        Wilson, Brian

        Randall, Stuart

        Winnick, David

        Redmond, Martin

        Wise, Mrs Audrey

        Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

        Worthington, Tony

        Reid, Dr John

        Young, David (Bolton SE)

        Rhodes James, Robert

        Young, Sir George (Acton)

        Richardson, Jo

        Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

        Tellers for the Ayes:

        Robertson, George

        Mr. James Wallace and

        Robinson, Geoffrey

        Mrs. Ray Michie.

        NOES

        Aitken, Jonathan

        Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

        Alexander, Richard

        Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

        Alison, Rt Hon Michael

        Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

        Allason, Rupert

        Bowis, John

        Amess, David

        Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

        Amos, Alan

        Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

        Arbuthnot, James

        Brandon-Bravo, Martin

        Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

        Brazier, Julian

        Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

        Bright, Graham

        Ashby, David

        Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

        Aspinwall, Jack

        Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

        Atkins, Robert

        Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)

        Atkinson, David

        Browne, John (Winchester)

        Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

        Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

        Baldry, Tony

        Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

        Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

        Buck, Sir Antony

        Batiste, Spencer

        Budgen, Nicholas

        Bellingham, Henry

        Burns, Simon

        Bendall, Vivian

        Burt, Alistair

        Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

        Butcher, John

        Bevan, David Gilroy

        Butler, Chris

        Biffen, Rt Hon John

        Butterfill, John

        Blackburn, Dr John G.

        Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

        Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

        Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

        Body, Sir Richard

        Carrington, Matthew

        Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

        Carttiss, Michael

        Boscawen, Hon Robert

        Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

        Boswell, Tim

        Channon, Rt Hon Paul

        758

        Chapman, Sydney

        Hordern, Sir Peter

        Chope, Christopher

        Howard, Michael

        Churchill, Mr

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

        Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)

        Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

        Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

        Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

        Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

        Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

        Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

        Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

        Colvin, Michael

        Hunt, David (Wirral W)

        Conway, Derek

        Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

        Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

        Hunter, Andrew

        Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

        Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

        Cope, John

        Irving, Charles

        Couchman, James

        Jack, Michael

        Cran, James

        Jackson, Robert

        Currie, Mrs Edwina

        Janman, Tim

        Curry, David

        Jessel, Toby

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

        Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

        Davis, David (Boothferry)

        Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

        Day, Stephen

        Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

        Devlin, Tim

        Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

        Dickens, Geoffrey

        Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

        Dicks, Terry

        Key, Robert

        Dorrell, Stephen

        Kilfedder, James

        Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

        King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

        Dover, Den

        Kirkhope, Timothy

        Dunn, Bob

        Knapman, Roger

        Durant, Tony

        Knight, Greg (Derby North)

        Eggar, Tim

        Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

        Emery, Sir Peter

        Knowles, Michael

        Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

        Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

        Evennett, David

        Lang, Ian

        Fallon, Michael

        Latham, Michael

        Farr, Sir John

        Lawrence, Ivan

        Favell, Tony

        Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

        Fenner, Dame Peggy

        Lee, John (Pendle)

        Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

        Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

        Fookes, Miss Janet

        Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

        Forman, Nigel

        Lilley, Peter

        Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

        Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

        Forth, Eric

        Lord, Michael

        Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

        Luce, Rt Hon Richard

        Fox, Sir Marcus

        Lyell, Sir Nicholas

        Franks, Cecil

        McCrindle, Robert

        Freeman, Roger

        Macfarlane, Sir Neil

        French, Douglas

        MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

        Fry, Peter

        Maclean, David

        Gale, Roger

        McLoughlin, Patrick

        Garel-Jones, Tristan

        McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

        Goodlad, Alastair

        McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

        Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

        Major, Rt Hon John

        Gorman, Mrs Teresa

        Mans, Keith

        Gorst, John

        Maples, John

        Gower, Sir Raymond

        Marland, Paul

        Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

        Marlow, Tony

        Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

        Marshall, John (Hendon S)

        Greenway, John (Ryedale)

        Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

        Gregory, Conal

        Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

        Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

        Mates, Michael

        Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

        Maude, Hon Francis

        Grist, Ian

        Mawhinney, Dr Brian

        Ground, Patrick

        Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

        Grylls, Michael

        Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

        Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

        Mellor, David

        Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

        Miller, Hal

        Hampson, Dr Keith

        Mills, lain

        Hanley, Jeremy

        Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

        Hannam, John

        Moate, Roger

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

        Monro, Sir Hector

        Harris, David

        Montgomery, Sir Fergus

        Hawkins, Christopher

        Moore, Rt Hon John

        Hayes, Jerry

        Morris, M (N'hampton S)

        Hayward, Robert

        Morrison, Hon P (Chester)

        Heathcoat-Amory, David

        Moss, Malcolm

        Heddle, John

        Moynihan, Hon Colin

        Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

        Neale, Gerrard

        Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

        Needham, Richard

        Hill, James

        Nelson, Anthony

        Hind, Kenneth

        Neubert, Michael

        Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

        Newton, Rt Hon Tony

        Holt, Richard

        Nicholls, Patrick

        759

        Nicholson, David (Taunton)

        Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

        Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

        Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

        Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

        Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)

        Oppenheim, Phillip

        Stokes, John

        Page, Richard

        Stradling Thomas, Sir John

        Paice, James

        Sumberg, David

        Patnick, Irvine

        Summerson, Hugo

        Patten, Chris (Bath)

        Tapsell, Sir Peter

        Patten, John (Oxford W)

        Taylor, Ian (Esher)

        Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

        Taylor, John M (Solihull)

        Pawsey, James

        Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

        Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

        Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

        Porter, David (Waveney)

        Thorne, Neil

        Portillo, Michael

        Thornton, Malcolm

        Powell, William (Corby)

        Thurnham, Peter

        Price, Sir David

        Townend, John (Bridlington)

        Raffan, Keith

        Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

        Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

        Tracey, Richard

        Rathbone, Tim

        Tredinnick, David

        Redwood, John

        Trippier, David

        Renton, Tim

        Trotter, Neville

        Riddick, Graham

        Twinn, Dr Ian

        Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

        Vaughan, Sir Gerard

        Ridsdale, Sir Julian

        Viggers, Peter

        Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

        Waddington, Rt Hon David

        Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

        Wakeham, Rt Hon John

        Roe, Mrs Marion

        Waldegrave, Hon William

        Rossi, Sir Hugh

        Walden, George

        Rost, Peter

        Walker, Bill (T'side North)

        Rumbold, Mrs Angela

        Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

        Ryder, Richard

        Waller, Gary

        Sackville, Hon Tom

        Walters, Dennis

        Sayeed, Jonathan

        Ward, John

        Scott, Nicholas

        Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

        Shaw, David (Dover)

        Warren, Kenneth

        Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

        Watts, John

        Shelton, William (Streatham)

        Wells, Bowen

        Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

        Wheeler, John

        Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

        Whitney, Ray

        Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

        Widdecombe, Ann

        Shersby, Michael

        Wiggin, Jerry

        Sims, Roger

        Wilkinson, John

        Skeet, Sir Trevor

        Wilshire, David

        Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

        Winterton, Mrs Ann

        Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

        Winterton, Nicholas

        Soames, Hon Nicholas

        Wolfson, Mark

        Speed, Keith

        Wood, Timothy

        Speller, Tony

        Woodcock, Mike

        Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

        Yeo, Tim

        Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

        Younger, Rt Hon George

        Stanbrook, Ivor

        Stanley, Rt Hon John

        Tellers for the Noes:

        Steen, Anthony

        Mr. Peter Lloyd and

        Stern, Michael

        Mr. David Lightbown.

        Stevens, Lewis

        Question accordingly negatived.
        It is being after half-past Eight o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Orders [22 February and 13 April] and the Resolution yesterday, to put forthwith the Question on amendments moved by a member of the Government up to the end of clause 15 and new clause 13.

      New Clause 13

        STUDENTS
        '(1) For the purposes of this Part a person shall be treated as undertaking a full-time course of education on a particular day if (and only if) he fulfills such conditions as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State.
        (2) The regulations may include provision that—

        (a) as regards any educational establishment of a prescribed description an individual (to be called a certification officer) may be designated by a prescribed person, or otherwise identified, in accordance with prescribed rules,

        (b) a certification officer shall at a prescribed time supply to a person who is pursuing or is about to
        760
        pursue a course at the establishment, and who is of a prescribed description, a certificate in a prescribed form and containing prescribed particulars,

        (c) conditions prescribed under subsection (1) above shall include a condition as to the possession of such a certificate, and

        (d) failure to supply a certificate to a person in accordance with the regulations is actionable by the person concerned as a breach of statutory duty.'.—[Mr. Howard.]

        Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to
        the Bill.

      Clause 16

        JOINT AND SEVERAL LIABILITY: SPOUSES
        Ms. Jo Richardson: I beg to move amendment No. 147, in page 11, line 8, leave out clause 16.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments:
        No. 150, in page 11, line 8, leave out 'This section
        applies' and insert
        'Regulations may provide that this section shall apply'.
        No. 151, in page 11, line 16, at end insert—
        '(1 A) Regulations shall not be made under this Section until the Secretary of State has laid before Parliament a report on the relationship between joint and several liability for community charge and the assessment of married people for income tax purposes planned to be in effect from 1st April 1990.
        (1B) Regulations shall not be made under this Section unless a draft of them has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.'.
        No. 148, in page 11, line 45, at end insert—
        '(9) For the purposes of this section the power of recovery by distress shall not be exercised against a spouse in respect of arrears accruing from any period when subsection (7) above applied where the person who incurred the initial liability is no longer residing in the matrimonial home and the spouse is residing in the matrimonial home and is entitled to a rebate under section 23 below'.
        Ms. Richardson: Amendment No. 147 seeks to remove the most blatant contradiction in this Bill. Our other amendments provide safeguards that will be necessary if the proposed clause is carried.
        The concept of joint and several liability in clause 16 exposes the cynical hypocrisy of the major argument put forward by the Government time and time again in support of the poll tax: that every individual must be made personally responsible and accountable both for payment of the tax and, at least in the Government's thinking, for their voting behaviour except—I repeat, except—if they happen to be married or live with someone as husband and wife. That is the plain fact of the matter.
        In this instance, it is just a small matter of some millions of spouses—or millions of contradictions, really—for whom personal responsibility and accountability will be stood on its head by joint and several liability. It will enforce responsibility for each other's non-payment of tax and tax arrears, regardless of ability to pay, upon married and cohabiting men and women.
        Nothing exposes the real driving force behind the Bill more clearly than that provision: one law for one, and one law for another. That is what the Government put forward. The real driving force is to continue the Government's programme of redistributing resources from the poor and near-poor to the rich and the richest. It follows the pattern of successive Budgets, culminating with this year's obscene £2 billion tax handout to top

        761
        taxpayers, as well as the pattern of successive social security so-called upratings and reviews, with this month's tragic implementation of the new social security system, which has robbed the poorest in our society of a further £1 billion.
        It follows also the pattern of redistributing wealth from north to south. Last but by no means least, it follows the pattern of redistributing resources from women to men.
        Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The hon. Lady speaks of the redistribution of wealth from the north to the south. But under the Bill as a whole there will be a substantial redistribution of money from the south to the north, which is the best regional policy this country will ever see.
        8.45 pm
        Ms. Richardson: The hon. Lady has not done her homework. I suggest that she reads the debate, because time and again the point has been made by my hon. Friends that what she claims is entirely untrue.
        Women's earnings are still less than three quarters of men's average earnings, and I am sorry to say that the gap is widening. For many women in part-time employment, the gap is even wider. Does the House have any real concept of what that means? It means that women form the majority of those in the poverty trap; 75 per cent. of women low-income earners will be only partially exempt. Anyone receiving income support will still pay 20 per cent. of the charge, but part or all of that sum may be returned—though I stress the word "may". Low earners will also have to pay a percentage of poll tax; again, there may be limited rebates.
        Last week's decision to extend limited exemption will only marginally slow down the rate at which the rebate is lost as income rises; those affected will now lose only 15p of rebate for every extra £1 earned above income support level instead of 20p. Several million women fall into those categories. Women who are unemployed, single parents, caring for children or for elderly dependants and who are pushed into unemployment or low-paid, part-time work at such levels of income, will find paying another £100 or £200 a year impossible.
        One may look at the case of black and ethnic minority women. Many women who are black or Asian are in jobs in the service sector and in professional services such as nursing; we have just finished a debate on student nurses. They are all jobs that are unjustifiably undervalued and underpaid. Asian women of working age are not economically active and have no paid work outside the house. Ethnic minority communities are concentrated in the inner-city areas and served by authorities that will be hardest hit by the poll tax. For example, it is estimated that the full charge in Camden will be £782.
        Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: That is because it is a rotten authority.
        Ms. Richardson: That combination of factors means that women from the ethnic minorities will be badly hit. Approximately 5 million spouses are unwaged. The vast majority on them are women, and most married women cannot register for unemployment benefit. Joint and several liability means that, where one partner is not in paid employment, they will be dependent on their spouse or partner for payment of the poll tax. In the case of non-payment, they will be responsible also for arrears accrued by a spouse or partner who has subsequently
        762
        deserted, regardless of their ability to pay and up to the point of attachment of earnings, of seizure of goods, or both.
        My postbag—this certainly applies to those of my hon.Friends as well, and probably to those of Conservative Members—is overflowing with the fears, insecurity, anxiety and turmoil that the measure has brought about m individual women and organisations representing women, especially women who suffer mental or physical abuse within the family. The concern that the proposal is causing should not be underestimated by Conservative Members, or by those in the other place who are interested in the issue. Despite the existence of violence against women in every society known to us, and in every time in recorded history, this is an aspect that must be drawn to the Government's attention all along the line.
        I pay tribute to the work of Women's Aid—especially the Welsh branch—on the issue of the register, and the
        danger posed to some women if their addresses are published, as well as its work on joint and several liability. For women living in strained relationships, abuse frequently takes the form of financial deprivation. Many women have no knowledge of how much their husbands earn, and no access to, or control over, their household income. Women in such already stressful and sometimes violent relationships will be placed under further intolerable stress and danger. They will be powerless to control their partners, and may come under pressure to withhold their names from the poll tax register and the electoral roll to avoid the tax—and the aggravation, and indeed the threats, that it will cause. If and when the relationship breaks down and he walks out without trace, leaving all the debts, she will be liable.
        Mr. Butterfill: Does the hon. Lady object to the principle now existing in many cases under English law whereby a husband can be responsible for his wife's debts, or is it merely the extension of that principle to put women on an equal footing for the purposes of the Bill to which she objects?
        Ms. Richardson: I am not sure what point the hon. Gentleman is making. If I talk mostly about women, it is because it is a plain fact of life that, in the majority of break-ups in this country, it is the man who leaves the family. I see case after case in my surgeries—I assure the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) who is shaking her head—in which the woman who comes to see me has been left because her husband is in some way not strong enough to bear the burdens, stresses and strains of the poverty in which they live. I beg the hon. Lady to believe that. If she examines some of her cases, she will find that it is true.
        Let me return to the point that I was making about people leaving debts for which whoever is left behind in the home—usually the woman—is liable. In Committee, the Minister said that, by and large, it would be left to local authorities to decide how to recover the money. I raised the point in a meeting with my local authority last Friday. Until then, the authority had not appreciated it. My borough treasurer went pale at the thought of having to set up some form of policing mechanism to chase the departing spouse and find out where he, or even she, was, and to make him or her responsible—if that was the authority's decision.

        763
        Marriage guidance counsellors are warning us that financial problems are already a major source of marital stress and breakdown. The added burden of the poll tax on low-income families, and families of all kinds in which women have to bear responsibilities for full-time child care or the full-time care of disabled relatives—now one in eight women—will greatly increase that stress.
        Mr. Leigh: Will the hon. Lady give way?
        Ms. Richardson: If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I shall continue with my argument. We have very little time.
        An estimated 5 million women are caring for disabled or elderly parents. Their ability to take up paid employment is severely limited, and for most of them it is out of the question. In fact, it is the second most common reason for women to take early retirement. The Scottish National Association of Carers is convinced that the extra burden of the poll tax will tip the balance on whether families are able to cope with the financial burden of their own tax as well as that of their elderly parents. The association says:
        "There are already enough tensions in households caring for an old person who may be incontinent or senile. The Poll Tax is the straw which will break the camel's back."
        Under the Government's proposals, a woman who is married or cohabiting, and who has given up her job or taken early retirement to care for her mother, or his mother, or her father, may find herself responsible not only for her own tax but for her spouse's, if he leaves, and for her dependant's tax. She will not be able to cope with that, other than by trying to put her relative into a hospital bed that may no longer exist, or into a home, if there is a place there.
        Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman rose—
        Ms. Richardson: No, I shall not give way again. The hon. Lady can make her own speech in a moment.
        The Government have created a cruel and inhuman situation, and have added unnecessary burdens to the already overburdened carers. Moreover, if the legislation is implemented, it will pose real problems for the security—and, sadly for some, the safety—of women. I cannot put the case better than it was put by the Women's National Commission—which is, after all, sponsored and supported by the Government. In its evidence on the poll tax, the commission said:
        "It seems likely that joint and several liability for husbands and wives and for common law partners will be repeated in the legislation for England and Wales".
        The commission was discussing the Scottish legislation.
        "Presumably, the Government assumes that husbands will pay the tax bill of their non-working wives. It is difficult to see what advantage the community charge has over rates in these circumstances."
        I echo that.
        "It is also difficult to see how this matches the objective of all adults paying the local tax. Women may not like the assumption, but they may have no option but to ask their husbands to pay."
        I hope that the House will support the amendment. Clause 16 must be deleted. It must be replaced with the only measures that can seriously tackle the discrimination and injustice at the heart of the Bill. Such measures must address the ability to pay of every individual at every level.
        9 pm
        Mrs. Ray Michie: I want to speak briefly about amendment No. 147, which seeks to get rid of clause 16, concerning joint and several liability. Joint and several liability offends the most basic of liberal values, which hold that everyone should be treated as an individual and not be assessed as an appendage to someone else. As we said in Committee, joint and several liability will lead to a gross invasion of privacy.
        For example, how will a registration officer assess who is living together as husband and wife? Will local authorities use the same criteria as the DHSS uses for benefit entitlement? If so, our fears are legitimate. If the registration officer uses the same criteria, he or she will have to establish that the couple in question usually lives in the same house and has a stable relationship. How can that be found out? He will also have to ascertain whether two people have a sexual relationship. That is the most intrusive and repugnant part of the information-gathering exercise. Are the people known by neighbours and friends as a married couple? In other words, is there public acknowledgement of their state, or will the information be gleaned from local gossip? This is a charter for clipes and snoopers.
        Joint and several liability places women in a particularly difficult position in cases of separation or divorce, as we have already heard. After splitting up with her partner a woman may find that he had failed to pay his poll tax bill and she will therefore be liable for his bill, in arrears, for the period during which she lived with him. Gingerbread, the single parents' organisation, tells us that women are often left to sort out the finances after marital breakup—gas and electricity bills, and so on. We have no reason to suppose that the poll tax liabilities will be any different.
        The consequences for women are potentially horrible, especially for those who may be in an unhappy marriage in which they stick it out for the sake of their children. Husbands and wives, and men and women living together as such, will receive individual bills, but the non-earning or low-paid wife will find herself having to go, perhaps, to a bullying and harsh husband to ask him to pay her poll tax. Not every Conservative Member may be aware of how much verbal and physical abuse goes on in domestic circumstances—in private and public. I am aware of it because of my former employment in the National Health Service, and it can be frightening and distressing for the couples involved—particularly the women.
        The concept of joint and several liability undermines the Government's basic case for the poll tax. They say that by charging each individual they will increase the tax base, thus enhancing local government accountability; but by making one person responsible for two, they are, in practical terms, reducing the tax base.
        We do not want only individual liability: we want individual assessment. If the Government are unwilling to remove joint and several liability from the Bill, they should at least review it. For example, rather than having complete joint liability, why not have one-way liability, whereby a local authority would be obliged to take into account the respective resources of the spouses when deciding whom to pursue for poll tax arrears? It should not be able to pursue a spouse who would have been entitled to a rebate in respect of the poll tax if she or he had been assessed on an individual basis. That would at least be a

        765
        step towards individual assessment, and one of this group of amendments goes some way towards it. In any case, the Government should withdraw the clause and rethink the issue.
        The Secretary of State said on the radio this morning that the Government were honouring a commitment made at the election to abolish the rate system and introduce a fair community charge, and that that had been overwhelmingly endorsed by the electorate. He was wrong on both counts. The poll tax is unfair, and to say that the commitment was endorsed by the people of this country is farcical.
        Because of our crazy electoral system, the Government have a majority of over 100 seats, but they choose to ignore the reality that just over 13·5 million people voted for them while over 18 million people voted against them and against the poll tax. It has to be said again and again that the poll tax proposals are fundamentally flawed because they are unfair. They are immoral simply because they do not relate to ability to pay.
        Mr. Butterfill: I hesitate to intrude in arguments being propounded by lady Members of the Opposition, but I do so because something should be said about the general principle of joint and several liability. Earlier I asked the hon. Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) whether she objected to the principle that applies in some cases, but not all, that a husband should be responsible for his wife's debts, being extended to a wife.
        Many of the Opposition arguments that we have heard in other debates imply that men and women should be treated equally in all things. To some extent, lady Members of the Opposition are seeking to have their cake and eat it. I can understand why they wish to do that, but I wish that they would be rather more consistent in their arguments.
        Mrs. Wise: Has the hon. Gentleman overlooked the fact that the amendment that we are discussing calls for the deletion of clause 16? That would relieve husbands just as much as wives of joint and several liability.
        Mr. Butterfill: I have not overlooked that. I was looking at the principle underlying the arguments advanced by the hon. Ladies and the reasons that they are putting forward, and they seem to support the general tenor of my argument.
        When one goes further and looks at the practicalities, one sees that the problem is perhaps being overstated by the Opposition. To begin with, a wife who had been abandoned by her husband would not be responsible for the poll tax liability under joint and several liability after the time at which the husband had left the matrimonial home. She would be likely to be pursued under joint and several liability only if the local government officer charged with the responsibility for collecting the tax thought that her resources were likely to be greater than those of the husband and that he would be more likely to make a poll tax collection by pursuing her than by pursuing the husband.
        The whole concept of joint and several liability, which applies not just in this area but in many other areas—for example, in partnership law—is that the person seeking to collect the debt may collect it from any one of the persons who are jointly and severally liable, and the tendency is to go for the person most likely to be able to pay. I suggest to the hon. Member for Preston that in most cases the
        766
        husband's financial position may well remain better than that of the wife, certainly in the circumstances that most concern the hon. Lady. Therefore, it is likely that in most cases the local government officer will still seek to recover from the husband rather than from the wife. He will be likely to seek recovery from the wife only when he knows that she has significant assets or assets that are adequate to enable her to meet the liability.
        Mr. Cousins: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that in the northern region at least 40,000 women are the main earners in families where the husbands are unemployed, and that, under subsequent Government amendments, very often the low earnings of those 40,000 women can be attached to meet any poll tax default by their husbands?
        Mr. Butterfill: I am well aware of the situation described by the hon. Gentleman, but I do not think that even he would suggest that more women than men are the principal earners in households, even in the region that he represents. I recognise the problems of that region, but, overwhelmingly, the male will be the principal earner in most households, although that situation is changing in various parts of the country. It is changing in London, where a large number of women may well he earning larger salaries than their husbands. We recognise that that is a new phenomenon in some parts of the country, although it can be explained by different reasons in the north and south of the country.
        There would be no point in a local government officer pursuing for debt an abandoned wife who is in a poor economic situation, because she could not afford to meet that debt. Even if he took the matter to court, it would be unlikely that a judge would order a distraint upon the home when the home contains little more than the bare necessities of life. That problem should not, therefore, concern Opposition Members to the extent that it obviously has done. If we are talking about a general principle, it is entirely equitable and reasonable, and It should have thought acceptable to Opposition Members, that in most matters men and women should be treated equally.
        Ms. Mowlam: I should like to speak briefly in support of the excellent speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson), seeking to remove clause 16. and to explain why this part of the poll tax legislation is so negative and such a nightmare that many of us never dreamt that it would be implemented.
        I should like to begin by responding to the two points raised by the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill). First, he will be well within his rights to say that we want our cake and to eat it, when we have part of that cake. When we have equal pay for equal work and equal work for equal pay, we shall begin to entertain those arguments. When equal rights legislation is implemented, we shall entertain that kind of discussion, but not before.
        Secondly, the hon. Gentleman must realise that he is in the realms of fantasy. He must remember that the Bill places the local authority in a Catch 22 situation. Although he sat through 150 hours of Committee proceedings along with me, I must remind him that the Minister said then that, if the husband does a runner—it is more likely to be the husband who does that—the local authority will try to locate the husband. What about the question of cost that the local authority has to face with no extra funding? A certain level of poll tax that the local

        767
        authority must obtain will be set, but, if the husband cannot be located, what does the local authority do? Does it say, "We're sorry. We're not going to collect that money?" Then it will be penalised by central Government for not collecting the money, so it will go for the person, usually the woman, who is left in the house.
        The Minister did a body swerve on that point. He tried to weave and bob over the question whether the local authority would issue a distress order. If one reads the report carefully, one sees that that is up to the local authority, but, if it is put in that Catch 22 situation, and has to get the money, clearly we know what it—
        Mr. Butterfill: Will the hon. Lady give way?
        Ms. Mowlam: No, I shall not give way, as a number of Labour Members wish to speak. The hon. Member for Bournemouth, West has already made a fair contribution tonight.
        The distress order would be issued and the woman would be faced with the bill, the distress order and the loss of furniture. That is why the hon. Gentleman is not being honest to women when explaining the effects of this part of the legislation.
        Mr. Butterfill: Will the hon. Lady give way?
        Ms. Mowlam: No, I shall not give way.
        I should like to emphasise the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) last night, that the full impact of this part of the legislation will become real to the majority of people only when they experience it, just as happened with the social security legislation. We are talking about 1 million co-habitees, not just the odd thousand, and 25 per cent. of married people. We are talking about a large percentage of the population who will feel the full impact of the legislation.
        Let us look briefly at what will happen if this farce of a clause is not withdrawn tonight. A couple will sit down and begin to pay the bills—electricity, gas and telephone. When the two poll tax bills arrive, will one say, "Here's yours dear and this is mine"? I cannot believe it. This clause undermines the principle that the Government have been talking about throughout the legislation—that is local accountability, a personal poll tax and people seeing the services that they get-and makes it clear that this is not what the Bill is about. If we link it, although the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) does not have the intellectual capacity to make that link, with poll capping, we clearly see central Government attacking local authorities to the death.
        9.15 pm
        The Minister was economical with the truth in Committee when he talked about joint and several liability because he implied that it will come into practice only when a couple is splitting up or there is a divorce. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Barking made clear, it will work before that. For example, 40 per cent. of married women have no independent income. What will happen? The wage earner will pay two poll taxes. Three quarters of women earn below the average wage of men and are part-time workers and low-paid workers. They will be paying not individual bills but joint bills as a family unit. Furthermore, when there is a divorce
        768
        or separation, the splitting of the poll tax will not work from day one. As a result of the Government's social security changes, women cannot register as unemployed if they are married, so they cannot claim rebate. Women are penalised by a combination of the poll tax and social security changes, and they will suffer.
        Let us look briefly at how joint and several liability will work. This has already been dealt with, so I will touch on it only briefly. I would like to know, but I shall not give him a chance to explain it, the opinion of the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West as to how the local authority chases the richest partner. He said earlier that all that would be on the register would be the name and address of each individual. He is now suggesting that the local registration officer will know how much everybody earns. Clearly, such information will be on the register, if not at the beginning, halfway through, when joint and several liability has to be implemented. Clearly, as in social security, neighbours will have to snoop about sexual relationships so that the officer can work out whether there should be joint or several liability.
        The operation of this will be farcical. Often, when couples split up, they separate for a couple of weeks, try to patch it up again, and split up again. The local registration officer will have to say, "Well, you argued the morning of the Tuesday so we don't count the three days when you were apart, but then you got back together for four days, so those four days you are liable for if he goes again." Whose word do we believe when somebody sees them walk through the door at 10 past nine? Does that count as a day when working out joint and several liability? Goodness knows how it will be implemented. I pity the poor registration officer who will have to work out such details. The Pontius Pilate attitude that we have seen exhibited by Ministers, who wash their hands of the matter and say that local authorities will decide, is reprehensible when the Government will corner local authorities and make them get the money in.
        The Secretary of State obviously does not want the title of feminist which the Chancellor of the Exchequer was after—feeble though it was, he at least introduced a move towards independent taxation for women—because clause 16 clearly penalises women. The clause shows that poll tax is part of the problem, but it is not a solution to the problems that face many people, particularly women, in this society.
        The Minister for Local Government says in an article he wrote for the Local Government Chronicle:
        "No one could have thought it possible to do this"—
        that is, to implement the poll tax—
        "while pleasing absolutely everyone."
        It has become blatantly obvious, especially in the past couple of days, that it is not a question of the Minister pleasing everyone; it is a question of the Minister pleasing anyone. Conservative Back Benchers did not support the Front Bench on this issue. Across the board, society after society, such as the CBI, the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, and the Rating and Valuation Association, criticised the legislation.
        If the clause is not amended or withdrawn, the majority of women in this country will suffer from an unfair and unjust measure. The Minister told us yesterday that we are looking for the holy grail. Women are looking for justice and fairness in the poll tax legislation. If clause 16 is not withdrawn, certainly we shall not see that.
        Mrs. Wise: The poll tax legislation is bad enough for women in any case because they frequently have no income, and, if they are working, they are low-wage earners. Even a woman who is on her own and a low wage earner will be penalised by this legislation because she will pay a higher proportion of her income than do most men. This is bad for women.
        Clause 16 makes the situation for women infinitely worse. Many couples have only one income. I assure the Minister that we are complaining about the clause because it is detrimental to both sexes. It is almost always the case that things that are detrimental to women are detrimental to both sexes in the final analysis. It is bad for a husband to be regarded as liable for his wife's debts, and to have this fresh debt put on him. It is wrong from the viewpoint of both husband and wife, because the whole ethos is that the wife is an appendage to her husband. He has a burden because he has a wife and she lacks dignity because she is a wife. That situation is equally bad for both partners and not conducive to the development of a healthy marriage.
        A couple with one income is being doubly taxed. It is no consolation to the woman, who feels that she brings this debt with her by her very existence, that her husband must pay the bill. As has been pointed out, where there is stress or strain on a marriage, this is yet another complaint that a husband may make. A husband may be minded to say, "You have not brought in a penny. Why do you think you have a right to say how the household will be organised?" The poll tax will create intolerable stress in unhappy marriages. It is also demeaning for both partners to a happy marriage. The husband, at least, is that much more likely to have the wherewithal to meet the debt than the wife.
        The hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill), who has left the Chamber, said that local authorities will go after the husband because he is the richer partner. But the hon. Gentleman has not understood that local authorities will go after the accessible partner, the person left in the house, whether a man or a woman. That is the person whose whereabouts are known, and it will more often be the woman than the man. Whoever it is, it is an iniquitous situation. Of course, it will usually be the partner who also has the liability for the children. Therefore, it is the person who is on the spot and usually already carrying an unfair part of the former family's burden.
        The fact that we are asking for the removal of clause 16 shows that we want a more truly equal approach for men and women in this matter. It has been said that we should be pleased that men and women are being given an equal burden; that wives will be responsible for their husbands' liability and husbands for their wives' liability. I must inform Conservative Members that when we ask for equality we mean equalling up, not down. We want everybody to be treated not only equally but well, and that is what the Bill signally fails to do.
        There is the problem of those who are not formally married. Who is to decide whether people are living together as man and wife? Surely social security problems have given rise to enough experience to enable all hon. Members to understand what a minefield any discussion of cohabitation is. Will there be a repetition of those disgraceful events when widows who take lodgers are deemed thereby to have entered into a marital relationship? All hon. Members have had experiences in
        770
        their constituencies of the kind of disgraceful things that happen when officialdom has to decide whether people are living together.
        The wording of the clause is most odd. It has been said that responsibility for future debts extends only to members of the household—that they are not responsible once the family is broken up. That drew my attention to the wording of the clause. I did not have the good fortune, or misfortune, to serve on the Committee. I was not aware of every dot and comma in the Bill. Clause 16 provides:
        "For the purposes of this section people are married to each other if they are a man and woman—

        (a) who are married to each other and are members of the same household, or

        (b) who are not married to each other but are living together as husband and wife."

        Then it goes on to say:
        "For the purposes of this section people are not married to each other on a particular day unless they are married to each other throughout the day."
        If couples say that they are living together on a certain day, how will the matter be judged by the local authority? This is even worse than the social security system, and that is bad enough. I do not know whether Conservative Members understand the social security system—I hope that it is being brought radically to their attention at the moment—but anyone who does will know that the excuse for the cohabitation rule is that women who are claimants must not be treated more favourably than married women who cannot be claimants. That at least has some basis in logic, even though I disagree with it. But in this case, the Government are deliberately laying a trap. There would be no need for a cohabitation rule if there was not already joint and several liability for married couples.
        The Government are extremely ill-advised in pursuing this matter. The women of Britain will see that the Government have every reason to regret it unless they agree to delete the clause.
        9.30 pm
        Mr. John Cartwright: I wish to support the case so well made by Opposition Members against this clause. I endorse what the hon. Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) has said about cohabitation, because the clause does not tell us who decides whether a couple are living together as man and wife. We can only assume that the registration officer's staff will have that unpleasant duty. The clause does not tell us what criteria are to be used. Like other hon. Members, I can only assume that they are going to be the sort of criteria that are now used in social security cases.
        The hon. Member for Preston referred to unpleasant cases. I have had at least two cases of 70-year-old widows who have been accused of cohabiting with young men living in their homes and have lost their social security benefits as a result. But at least in cases like that there is an appeal machinery; a person who loses a social security benefit has an opportunity of going to appeal. As far as I can see, in this clause there is no appeal mechanism of any kind.
        It seems to be suggested that we are going to have unpleasant snooping and peering into windows to see who is sleeping where and what is going on inside a household where there is said to be cohabitation. In some parts of the country the registration officer's staff will be extremely busy because in London and the south-east, for example, there are many cases of young people who get together in order to purchase a home. It may look as if they are

        771
        cohabiting, but often what they are doing—to use the phrase that one of them once used to me—is sharing a roof but not a ceiling. It will be extremely difficult for the registration officer to establish that sort of relationship. From what I know of local authority officers, I cannot believe that they will welcome this business of being turned into a team of poll tax snoopers, which will be the result of this legislation.
        I want to draw on some constituency experience to explore what this clause will mean in certain cases. Take the case of a man who moves in with a woman and her children, establishes a relationship and lives with her for a period. Perhaps it does not work out and he moves on, but he failed to register for the community charge while he was there and the local authority discovered that he was there. That may be why he moved on. The woman in that situation would find herself liable to pay his community charge. If she claimed that he was merely a lodger in her home, which he might well have been, it would be extremely difficult to prove because the fact could not be proved, so she would be stuck with that situation.
        Let us take the break-up of a relationship. A number of examples have been quoted of what happens in such a break-up. Presumably the joint and several liability to community charge will cease on divorce. That is clear, straightforward and undeniable. But separation is very much more difficult to define. At what point, for the purpose of paying the community charge, does that relationship end? Is it when the man physically leaves the property? Is it when the relationship has broken down and they have ceased to live with each other as man and wife? It is almost impossible to explain that and make it work in any fair or rational way.
        Mr. Dalyell: It was put to me by one distraught local government officer that we shall need a battalion of Sherlock Holmeses to sort it out.
        Mr. Cartwright: We had some discussion yesterday about the relative costs of various systems of paying for local services, but I think that the cost of administering this appalling tax is something that the Government have not even begun to work out.
        Coming back to the question of the break-up of a relationship, the working partner is usually, if not always, the man. It is the man who tends to depart, because it is the woman who is left to look after the children and she therefore finds it much more difficult to disappear and evade responsibility. If the working partner—in this case we will assume that it is the man—has departed, leaving his non-employed partner behind, he is not likely, the relationship having broken up, to want to pay her community charge. He may well find it possible to disappear and not be traced. He may well have told his partner that he has paid the poll tax when he has not paid all of it, and there may be a substantial part of it outstanding. In that case, we know that the woman who is left in the home will be liable to the charge. We know that that is what will happen because it happens now.
        After the break-up of a relationship, the woman is left behind with the children and she is pursued by the local authority for rent arrears and for the gas, electricity and other debts that have been built up on a family basis. I am convinced that that is what will happen with the poll tax.
        772
        I cannot see that the woman would be entitled to claim a rebate because the charge would have been assessed on the basis of her partner's earnings.
        There was much discussion yesterday of the anomalies that will flow from alternatives to the Government's proposals. The Bill is riddled with anomalies, and some of the worst anomalies and injustices will flow from clause 16. If the Government cannot accept this amendment, I hope that they will think through the clause again in order to prevent the injustice that will be done to women who can least afford to suffer. Lone parents in the inner cities, those who are most at risk, will be the least able to bear the burden that the poll tax will place upon them.
        Ms. Mildred Gordon: Some years ago I remarried. My husband, who is a Norwegian, came to England a week before our wedding to get the special licence. He used my address at the register office. A few weeks later I had a letter from the DHSS in Newcastle which said that at the register office my husband gave the same address as mine. I was asked whether I was co-habiting at the same time as I was receiving a widow's pension. I was able to explain that my husband had come to England a week before the wedding. The DHSS withdrew their allegation and apologised, but I was furious at the snooping. That was before the Government data network had appeared on the scene.
        Can the extent of the snooping that this clause will create be imagined? When I related my experience to my predecessor in the House, he told me about a case that he had had in Tower Hamlets. It concerned a 75-year-old woman who had had a DHSS snooper arrive at her house. He looked through the house and found that her lodger's greatcoat was in her bedroom wardrobe. She had allowed him to keep it there during the summer because there was a shortage of wardrobe space. Her widow's pension was taken away and my predecessor had to take up her case. If that has already been happening, what on earth will happen countrywide over this poll tax clause?
        Unemployed married women will be unable to claim a rebate because they cannot register for social security. There is also to be the indignity of joint and several liability. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) has left the Chamber so early in the debate because he asked a question that I shall answer. We are against joint and several liability, whether it is the husband who is liable for his wife's debts or whether it is the wife who is liable for her husband's debts. Women are not chattels. We stand on our own two feet. Nevertheless, we do not want to bear unnecessary burdens.
        In my constituency there are many families from Bangladesh. On the whole, the women stay at home and do not work outside it. They have extended families and take good care of their old people. The anticipated poll tax in Tower Hamlets will be astronomical—nearly £700. When the Inner London education authority is broken up, an additional amount for education will be added to that sum. The men are often in very low-paid jobs, because that is all that is available to them. The burdens on those families will be absolutely incredible. If a husband returns to Bangladesh, his wife will be left with a crushing burden that she will be unable to meet. She may end up by being put into prison for debt. The clause is pernicious. Therefore, I support its removal.
        Mrs. Maria Fyfe: One of the more farcical aspects of this clause, which has not been mentioned, is that, although husbands and wives, and couples living together—male and female—will be liable for each other's poll tax, homosexual or lesbian couples will not. It could be argued that this Government, who have been so keen in pursuing clause 28 of the Local Government Bill, are promoting homosexuality. People will work out that it will be cheaper to live in a homosexual relationship than a heterosexual one. Furthermore, one will be even better off if one goes to prison because one will not pay any poll tax at all.
        The farce does not stop there. Part of the Government's argument on accountability is that the present rating system undermines accountability on the grounds that, although there are 35 million voters, half are ratepayers but the other half are not. The Tory argument is that only the ratepayer pays any attention to the rates bill and to the services and the quality of services that are provided. That is obviously nonsensical, because any person who has been a councillor, or who holds surgeries, will know who the people are who complain about local authority services. At least nine times out of 10 it is the wife of a couple who comes along. By and large, community councils and tenants' associations are run by women. They are the backbone of those organisations. It is utter nonsense to say that, because a man's name appears on the tenancy agreement or on the mortgage payment, only he pays any attention to the rates and his wife does not know anything about it. In every household in the land, and particularly in Scotland where these things are to the fore because registration is going on right now, women are indignant. However, mostly they are amused at the idea that they pay no attention to how much the rates are, because it is the man who takes responsibility for paying and for complaining when things go wrong.
        We have spent many hours in Committee on this subject. We know the thinking of Conservative Members. I have noticed that not too many of them have come along to argue their case. They must be aware of how weak a case it is. However, we did hear in Committee how they envisaged it. They imagine a situation where, some time in the future, when the yearly poll tax bill comes through the door, a couple are sitting down at breakfast. The wife will say something like this. "Have you seen your poll tax bill this morning, darling?". The husband will say, "Yes, love. Have you noticed that it is £20 more than last year?" His wife will say to him, "And why is that? Is it because of inflation? Is it because of redistribution of the business rate from one authority to another? Could it be because of Government cutbacks? Might it have something to do with the latest pay increase for teachers, clerks, binmen or whoever?" He will say, "No, dear, it is because we have a high-spending, loony-Left Labour council. Let us write to that nice Mr. Ridley and tell him that he should poll-cap this local authority." The wife will say, "If you say so, dear. You know so much more about these things than I do." That is the picture that the Government have painted of the future. Couples will responsibly discuss their poll tax bills together. The Government imagine that today couples never discuss their rate bills. What utter piffle. The whole country knows that it is piffle, except for Conservative Members.
        Mr. Dalyell: Throughout these debates, I simply confine myself to a question. Ministers might listen to my
        774
        hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) because we are a year ahead in Scotland. Therefore, the matter becomes that much more urgent.
        What factual work has been done in the Department on the sheer mechanics of doing the tracing? I interrupted the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) by saying that one distraught local government officer has said that we would need a whole battalion of Sherlock Holmeses to do the tracing. If it is difficult in my constituency, it will be that much more difficult in Hackney or in any London area where there are a large number of immigrants.
        The factual question is how much manpower is it estimated will necessarily have to be available to do the tracing, especially for asking the most delicate questions about relationships between people?
        The whole business started with the Prime Minister, like Henry Plantagenet, saying, "Who will rid me of Becket or the rates?" The Secretary of State has said, -I will do the job", but they have not thought it through. All those things are coming home to roost. Let the Minister have time, but let him answer the question : what factual estimate is there of the amount of man or womanpower that will be required for tracing those difficult cases? He can get the answer from his civil servants in the Box if that research has been done.
        9.45 pm
        The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Christopher Chope): I begin by welcoming the hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) to our deliberations on this Bill. Her speech was extraordinary because it purported to put forward the interests of women, but failed to appreciate several crucial facts about our Bill, which will be very much in favour of women. I remind the House that 80 per cent. of single parents will be better off with the community charge than with the rates. I am sure that most Opposition Members will accept that the majority of single parents are women.
        Those Opposition Members who are aware of the financial problems that often arise on divorce, and in cases where an earning spouse moves out of the matrimonial home, leaving the wife behind, will appreciate that under the present rating system the rates bill remains the same, regardless of the number of people who occupy the house. However, under our proposals, when one adult leaves the house and only one is left, the community charge bill will be reduced accordingly.
        Mr. Rooker: What about joint and several liability?
        Mr. Chope: I shall come to the issue of joint and several liability in a moment.
        The second crucial issue that the hon. Member for Barking overlooked was that 80 per cent. of single pensioner households will also be better off under the Bill. Again, most single pensioner households are women. Furthermore, the hon. Lady failed to identify the benefits to women, especially to non-working wives, of joint arid several liability. If the husband has the money and refuses to pay for his wife, his wife need not worry because the enforcement action can be taken against the husband. When income support is paid to husbands and wives, it is paid to one spouse on behalf of both. To take the point made by the hon. Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise), if the husband holds the purse strings, it is probably he who will accept the responsibility for paying both bills, or vice

        775
        versa. The spouse who does not hold the purse strings will be protected rather than penalised by having joint and several liability.
        There has been a lot of muddled thinking on this issue—[Interruption.] Yes, on the part of the Opposition. Anyone listening to the debate would be surprised to learn some of the recent history of this matter. When the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Bill was before the House in Committee and the issue of joint and several liability was raised, in that Bill, as originally drafted, joint and several liability applied only to spouses—in other words, to married couples. However, an amendment was tabled to extend that to unmarried couples. That amendment was put forward by none other than the Labour party. Opposition Members proposed and supported an amendment to extend joint and several liability to unmarried couples. Today they are suggesting that joint and several liability should be removed from the Bill.
        The hon. Member for Preston said that surely there was enough experience for people to realise what a minefield the whole area was. Perhaps she should have said that to her Front Bench colleagues when the Scottish Bill was going through Parliament. When other Opposition Front Bench spokesmen were handling the matter in Committee on this Bill, they had the grace to be embarrassed when the Scottish experience was drawn to their attention, but there has not been any equivalent shame in this debate.
        The hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright), among others, raised the issue of snooping. This shows that there is a misunderstanding about the stage at which joint and several liability arises. The personal community charge is in the first instance always an individual liability.
        Mr. Douglas rose—
        Mr. Chope: I will not give way, because I have a number of points to make. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) said that it was important that I should answer the points which had been raised in debate, and I shall do my best to do so.
        The bill will be addressed to the individual and should be paid by the person concerned. The reason why that is so important is that a MORI poll carried out for the Audit Commission showed that people who do not receive rate bills are three times less likely than those who do to know whether rate bills have gone up or down, let alone by how much. That is why the concept of an individual bill addressed to each adult is so important for the principle of accountability. There will not be household bills, and couples will not be liable for the bills of any elderly relatives or grown-up children who live with them.
        The fact that the community charge will be an individual liability applies also to married and unmarried couples. In the majority of cases, they will have the resources to pay their own bills, resources against which enforcement action will be taken if they fail to pay. Of married women, 60 per cent. have earnings of their own, and that figure is rising steadily. Other married women have income from other sources, such as investments.
        It is not the registration officer who decides whether joint and several liability exists. As we have repeatedly made clear, joint and several liability is an enforcement
        776
        and not a registration matter. It will arise only if the bill is not paid. Where that happens, the local authority will attempt to enforce against the individual concerned.
        If, having obtained a liability order, the local authority establishes that the individual concerned has no income of his or her own, and no or few assets, it will become apparent that the person is being provided for by someone else. The local authority may then need to pursue that partner under the joint and several liability provisions.
        Contrary to the statement of the hon. Member for Woolwich, it will be possible to appeal against joint and several liability. Before a local authority can pursue a partner, it will have to send him or her a bill and a reminder, and convince the magistrates court that if the bill has not by then been paid, joint and several liability exists. If the partner does not accept that he or she should be jointly and severally liable, there will be an opportunity to say so. If the local authority does not prove its case, the magistrate will not issue the necessary order.
        For those people who are living together as man and wife and who wish to retain the privacy of their relationship, there is no need for any official or snooper to be involved. So long as each individual pays his or her own community charge bill, the problem will be resolved. Only when a bill has not been paid and a community charge is outstanding will the registration officer be involved.
        The points made about amendment No. 148 raise legitimate concerns about what happens when marriages break down and past debts are taken on by the family. Often, if the wife was left behind, she might feel that she had an obligation to pay the outstanding community charges which were not paid by her husband. Certainly I take very much on board the discretion which we are giving local authorities in the matter.
        Local authorities can be trusted to use sensibly the powers of enforcement set out in the schedule to the Bill. The fact that they have certain powers does not mean that they will or should use them indiscriminately, any more than if one spouse leaves and there is a large electricity bill it means that the electricity authority must use its powers of enforcement indiscriminately.
        In advising local authorities on the use of these powers, I propose to recommend them to bear in mind the sort of circumstance described during this debate and to devote their energies to tracking down the husband rather than to pursuing the deserted wife.
        We have had a debate based on a misapprehension by the Opposition about exactly the stage at which joint and several liability arises. Earlier, the Opposition were in favour of joint and several liability—indeed, were in favour of extending it—so I find it amazing that tonight they have changed their mind completely.
        Ms. Richardson: With the leave of the House, I rise in the remaining minutes of this debate, during which the speeches from our side were excellent. [Laughter.] There was nothing to compare them with, because, apart from the Minister's speech, there was only one speech from the other side. It shows how committed Conservative Members are to the rights of women that they all left the Chamber.
        The Minister talked about those who would not be affected by joint and several liability because they are one-parent families. His speech bordered on the sexist and was certainly breathtakingly unaware of the realities of life today. The truly damning aspect of all the Minister's

        777
        so-called assurances is that they are assurances that the Government intend to wash their hands of every consequence of their actions.
        Local authorities will be made to make these judgments of Solomon and will be open to condemnation whichever way they turn. They will be blamed for what the Government have done. If local authorities wipe off debts, they will be forced to use the extra local taxes from the rest of the community. If they set up search-and-find units, they will be accused of creating further layers of bureaucracy and of snooping and policing people's private lives. The Minister will have removed himself from all the responsibility and accountability wrapped up in the tatters of his measure which he asks us to believe is designed to protect women and rescue them from the burden of the poll tax and their partners' anger at having to pay it.
        It is not paternalistic, ineffectual protection that women demand, but rights and a proper and full recognition of the value of their contribution as unpaid carers. They also demand the full recognition of the financial penalty which they suffer as a result of their caring responsibilities, whether or not in paid work. It is the Government's consistent failure to address those complexities and the realities of women's lives which render them incapable of ever producing legislation which is fair to half the population.
        I remind the House of the points that I made in moving the amendment. Although women are now half the labour force, they still earn less than three-quarters of men's average pay. More than half of all full-time women workers and three quarters of part-time women workers are classified as low paid. Five and a half million adult women, representing a quarter of the work force and earning less than the European decency threshold, will be expected to pay the same flat rate of poll tax as a millionaire and to be responsible for the arrears of a defaulting partner.
        The position is even more bleak for full-time unpaid carers, who will continue to face the same circumstances with no independent income. There is, of course, only one way—
        Mr. Chope rose—
        Ms. Richardson: I do not have the time to give way.There is only one way for the Government to tackle the serious flaws in the Bill and that is to remove clause 16. I invite right hon. and hon. Tory Members as well as my hon. Friends to vote for the amendment.
        Question put, That the amendment be made:-
        The House divided: Ayes 220, Noes 325.

        Division No. 265]

        [10 pm

        AYES

        Abbott, Ms Diane

        Beith, A. J.

        Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

        Bell, Stuart

        Allen, Graham

        Benn, Rt Hon Tony

        Alton, David

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

        Anderson, Donald

        Bermingham, Gerald

        Archer, Rt Hon Peter

        Bidwell, Sydney

        Armstrong, Hilary

        Blair, Tony

        Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

        Blunkett, David

        Ashton, Joe

        Boateng, Paul

        Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

        Boyes, Roland

        Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

        Bradley, Keith

        Barnes. Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

        Bray, Dr Jeremy

        Barron, Kevin

        Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

        Battle, John

        Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

        Beckett, Margaret

        Buchan, Norman

        Beggs, Roy

        Caborn, Richard

        Callaghan, Jim

        Johnston, Sir Russell

        Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

        Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

        Campbell-Savours, D. N.

        Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)

        Canavan, Dennis

        Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

        Carlile, Alex (Monfg)

        Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

        Cartwright, John

        Kirkwood, Archy

        Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

        Lambie, David

        Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

        Leighton, Ron

        Clay, Bob

        Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

        Clelland, David

        Lewis, Terry

        Clwyd, Mrs Ann

        Litherland, Robert

        Cohen, Harry

        Livingstone, Ken

        Coleman, Donald

        Livsey, Richard

        Cook, Robin (Livingston)

        Lofthouse, Geoffrey

        Corbett, Robin

        Loyden, Eddie

        Corbyn, Jeremy

        McAllion, John

        Cousins, Jim

        McAvoy, Thomas

        Crowther, Stan

        McCartney, Ian

        Cryer, Bob

        Macdonald, Calum A.

        Cummings, John

        McFall, John

        Cunliffe, Lawrence

        McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

        Cunningham, Dr John

        McKelvey, William

        Dalyell, Tarn

        McLeish, Henry

        Darling, Alistair

        McNamara, Kevin

        Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

        McTaggart, Bob

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

        McWilliam, John

        Dixon, Don

        Madden, Max

        Dobson, Frank

        Mahon, Mrs Alice

        Doran, Frank

        Marek, Dr John

        Douglas, Dick

        Marshall, David (Shettleston)

        Duffy, A. E. P.

        Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

        Dunnachie, Jimmy

        Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

        Eadie, Alexander

        Martlew, Eric

        Eastham, Ken

        Maxton, John

        Evans, John (St Helens N)

        Michael, Alun

        Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

        Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

        Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

        Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

        Fatchett, Derek

        Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

        Faulds, Andrew

        Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

        Fearn, Ronald

        Moonie, Dr Lewis

        Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

        Morgan, Rhodri

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

        Morley, Elliott

        Flannery, Martin

        Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

        Flynn, Paul

        Mowlam, Marjorie

        Foot, Rt Hon Michael

        Mullin, Chris

        Foster, Derek

        Murphy, Paul

        Foulkes, George

        Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

        Fraser, John

        O'Brien, William

        Fyfe, Maria

        O'Neill, Martin

        Galbraith, Sam

        Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

        Garrett, John (Norwich South)

        Parry, Robert

        Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

        Patchett, Terry

        George, Bruce

        Pendry, Tom

        Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

        Pike, Peter L.

        Godman, Dr Norman A.

        Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

        Golding, Mrs Llin

        Prescott, John

        Gordon, Mildred

        Primarolo, Dawn

        Gould, Bryan

        Quin, Ms Joyce

        Graham, Thomas

        Radice, Giles

        Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

        Randall, Stuart

        Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

        Redmond, Martin

        Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

        Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

        Grocott, Bruce

        Reid, Dr John

        Harman, Ms Harriet

        Richardson, Jo

        Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

        Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

        Heffer, Eric S.

        Robertson, George

        Henderson, Doug

        Robinson, Geoffrey

        Hinchliffe, David

        Rogers, Allan

        Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

        Rooker, Jeff

        Holland, Stuart

        Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

        Home Robertson, John

        Rowlands, Ted

        Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

        Ruddock, Joan

        Howells, Geraint

        Salmond, Alex

        Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

        Sedgemore, Brian

        Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

        Sheerman, Barry

        Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

        Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

        Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

        Shore, Rt Hon Peter

        Illsley, Eric

        Short, Clare

        Janner, Greville

        Skinner, Dennis

        John, Brynmor

        Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

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

        Wall, Pat

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

        Walley, Joan

        Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

        Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

        Snape, Peter

        Wareing, Robert N.

        Soley, Clive

        Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

        Spearing, Nigel

        Williams, Rt Hon Alan

        Steinberg, Gerry

        Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

        Stott, Roger

        Wilson, Brian

        Strang, Gavin

        Winnick, David

        Straw, Jack

        Wise, Mrs Audrey

        Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

        Worthington, Tony

        Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)

        Young, David (Bolton SE)

        Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

        Turner, Dennis

        Tellers for the Ayes:

        Vaz, Keith

        Mr. Frank Haynes and

        Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

        Mr. Frank Cook.

        NOES

        Aitken, Jonathan

        Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

        Alexander, Richard

        Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

        Alison, Rt Hon Michael

        Colvin, Michael

        Allason, Rupert

        Conway, Derek

        Amery, Rt Hon Julian

        Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

        Amess, David

        Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

        Amos, Alan

        Cope, John

        Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

        Couchman, James

        Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

        Cran, James

        Ashby, David

        Currie, Mrs Edwina

        Aspinwall, Jack

        Curry, David

        Atkins, Robert

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

        Atkinson, David

        Davis, David (Boothferry)

        Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

        Day, Stephen

        Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

        Devlin, Tim

        Baldry, Tony

        Dickens, Geoffrey

        Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

        Dicks, Terry

        Batiste, Spencer

        Dorrell, Stephen

        Bellingham, Henry

        Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

        Bendall, Vivian

        Dover, Den

        Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

        Dunn, Bob

        Bevan, David Gilroy

        Durant, Tony

        Biffen, Rt Hon John

        Eggar, Tim

        Blackburn, Dr John G.

        Emery, Sir Peter

        Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

        Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

        Body, Sir Richard

        Evennett, David

        Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

        Fallon, Michael

        Boswell, Tim

        Farr, Sir John

        Bottomley, Peter

        Favell, Tony

        Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

        Fenner, Dame Peggy

        Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

        Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

        Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

        Fookes, Miss Janet

        Bowis, John

        Forman, Nigel

        Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

        Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

        Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

        Forth, Eric

        Brandon-Bravo, Martin

        Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

        Brazier, Julian

        Fox, Sir Marcus

        Bright, Graham

        Franks, Cecil

        Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

        Freeman, Roger

        Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

        French, Douglas

        Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)

        Fry, Peter

        Browne, John (Winchester)

        Gale, Roger

        Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

        Garel-Jones, Tristan

        Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

        Goodlad, Alastair

        Buck, Sir Antony

        Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

        Budgen, Nicholas

        Gorman, Mrs Teresa

        Burns, Simon

        Gorst, John

        Burt, Alistair

        Gow, Ian

        Butcher, John

        Gower, Sir Raymond

        Butler, Chris

        Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

        Butterfill, John

        Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

        Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

        Greenway, John (Ryedale)

        Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

        Gregory, Conal

        Carrington, Matthew

        Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

        Carttiss, Michael

        Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

        Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

        Grist, Ian

        Channon, Rt Hon Paul

        Ground, Patrick

        Chapman, Sydney

        Grylls, Michael

        Chope, Christopher

        Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

        Churchill, Mr

        Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

        Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)

        Hampson, Dr Keith

        Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

        Hanley, Jeremy

        Hannam, John

        Moate, Roger

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

        Monro, Sir Hector

        Harris, David

        Montgomery, Sir Fergus

        Hawkins, Christopher

        Moore, Rt Hon John

        Hayes, Jerry

        Morris, M (N'hampton S)

        Hayward, Robert

        Morrison, Hon P (Chester)

        Heathcoat-Amory, David

        Moss, Malcolm

        Heddle, John

        Moynihan, Hon Colin

        Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

        Neale, Gerrard

        Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

        Needham, Richard

        Hill, James

        Nelson, Anthony

        Hind, Kenneth

        Neubert, Michael

        Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

        Newton, Rt Hon Tony

        Holt, Richard

        Nicholls, Patrick

        Hordern, Sir Peter

        Nicholson, David (Taunton)

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

        Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

        Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

        Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

        Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

        Oppenheim, Phillip

        Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

        Page, Richard

        Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

        Paice, James

        Hunt, David (Wirral W)

        Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

        Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

        Patnick, Irvine

        Hunter, Andrew

        Patten, Chris (Bath)

        Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

        Patten, John (Oxford W)

        Irving, Charles

        Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

        Jack, Michael

        Pawsey, James

        Jackson, Robert

        Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

        Janman, Tim

        Porter, David (Waveney)

        Jessel, Toby

        Portillo, Michael

        Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

        Powell, William (Corby)

        Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

        Price, Sir David

        Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

        Raffan, Keith

        Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

        Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

        Key, Robert

        Rathbone, Tim

        Kilfedder, James

        Redwood, John

        King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

        Renton, Tim

        Kirkhope, Timothy

        Rhodes James, Robert

        Knapman, Roger

        Riddick, Graham

        Knight, Greg (Derby North)

        Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

        Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

        Ridsdale, Sir Julian

        Knowles, Michael

        Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

        Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

        Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

        Lang, Ian

        Roe, Mrs Marion

        Latham, Michael

        Rossi, Sir Hugh

        Lawrence, Ivan

        Rost, Peter

        Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

        Rowe, Andrew

        Lee, John (Pendle)

        Rumbold, Mrs Angela

        Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

        Sackville, Hon Tom

        Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

        Sayeed, Jonathan

        Lightbown, David

        Scott, Nicholas

        Lilley, Peter

        Shaw, David (Dover)

        Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

        Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

        Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

        Shelton, William (Streatham)

        Lord, Michael

        Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

        Luce, Rt Hon Richard

        Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

        Lyell, Sir Nicholas

        Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

        McCrindle, Robert

        Shersby, Michael

        Macfarlane, Sir Neil

        Sims, Roger

        MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

        Skeet, Sir Trevor

        Maclean, David

        Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

        McLoughlin, Patrick

        Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

        McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

        Soames, Hon Nicholas

        McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

        Speed, Keith

        Major, Rt Hon John

        Speller, Tony

        Mans, Keith

        Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

        Maples, John

        Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

        Marland, Paul

        Stanbrook, Ivor

        Marlow, Tony

        Stanley, Rt Hon John

        Marshall, John (Hendon S)

        Steen, Anthony

        Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

        Stern, Michael

        Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

        Stevens, Lewis

        Mates, Michael

        Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

        Maude, Hon Francis

        Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

        Mawhinney, Dr Brian

        Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)

        Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

        Stokes, John

        Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

        Stradling Thomas, Sir John

        Mellor, David

        Sumberg, David

        Miller, Hal

        Summerson, Hugo

        Mills, Iain

        Tapsell, Sir Peter

        Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

        Taylor, Ian (Esher)

        Taylor, John M (Solihull)

        Ward, John

        Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

        Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

        Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

        Warren, Kenneth

        Thorne, Neil

        Watts, John

        Thornton, Malcolm

        Wells, Bowen

        Thurnham, Peter

        Wheeler, John

        Townend, John (Bridlington)

        Whitney, Ray

        Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

        Widdecombe, Ann

        Tracey, Richard

        Wiggin, Jerry

        Tredinnick, David

        Wilkinson, John

        Trippier, David

        Wilshire, David

        Trotter, Neville

        Winterton, Mrs Ann

        Twinn, Dr Ian

        Winterton, Nicholas

        Vaughan, Sir Gerard

        Wolfson, Mark

        Viggers, Peter

        Wood, Timothy

        Waddington, Rt Hon David

        Woodcock, Mike

        Wakeham, Rt Hon John

        Yeo, Tim

        Waldegrave, Hon William

        Young, Sir George (Acton)

        Walden. George

        Younger, Rt Hon George

        Walker, Bill (T'side North)

        Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

        Tellers for the Noes:

        Waller, Gary

        Mr. Robert Boscawen and

        Walters, Dennis

        Mr. Richard Ryder.

        Question accordingly negatived.
        It being after Ten o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Orders [22 February and 13 April] and the Resolution yesterday, to put forthwith the Question on amendments moved by a member of the Government up to the end of clause 20.

      Clause 20

        STANDARD COMMUNITY CHARGE: SPECIAL CASES
        Amendment made: No. 66, in page 13, line 24, leave out from beginning to end of line 27 and insert—

        '(a) a county council,

        (b) a district council,

        (c) a London borough council,

        (d) the Common Council,'.—[Mr. Ridley.]

        Further consideration of the Bill adjourned.—[Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.]
        Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered tomorrow.

        BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
        Ordered,
        That, at this day's sitting, the Ways and Means Motion may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.]

Local Government Finance Bill [Ways and Means]
Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That any Act resulting from the Local Government Finance Bill may provide for

(a) sums to be paid to the Secretary of State in respect of non-domestic rating, and

(b) those and other sums to be paid into the Consolidated Fund.—[Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.]

10.15 pm
Mr. Richard Shepherd: I want to speak by way of inquisition and inquiry because I have great difficulty in understanding the mechanism by which we arrive at the allocation of funds. We do not know the amount to be raised, how it is to be disposed across the country or what effect it will have on local businesses; nor do we know what its impact on the country will be.
This may be an intellectual difficulty, but it is also practical in terms of the business and interests that we serve and of the economy of our country. We have no idea what the sum of money to be raised will be, or where it will fall—on London or on my constituency in the midlands. In the absence of revaluation we cannot identify what the sum of money is, yet the Government are asking us to march to the sound of trumpets to allocate large sums of money, without knowing what they are. It is a monstrous proposal that the House of Commons should give taxation to a Government without knowing the quantum. I wait to hear from the Government what the quantum to be raised is, and I want to know its impact on the north-west, the north-east and the rest of our nation.
The Government cannot give me any of these figures. What an absurd tax! If the House of Commons stands for anything, it stands for the control of the supply of money. We are giving the Government the right to raise money without the amount being known by the House. I want the Government to explain to me the effects of raising this money on the economic life of my country and on employment and the generation of business. In many ways this issue is fundamental to the economic purpose of my country.
Why do we arrive almost at Third Reading of a Bill in these circumstances? The House exists to grant money, yet the Government cannot tell me how much money they will raise and what that will do for business. Casually, we are saying that this should go through on the nod and that we shall ascribe these funds to the Consolidated Fund Bill, whose purposes and allocation we do not know—and I am asked to support that. That is why, with the greatest respect, this should be challenged and we should hear facts and figures in advance of the debate. We should hear of the amelioration of some of the effects—not the detail or the quantum, but merely some hypothetical amelioration for the next five years.
I ask these questions by way of a preface to considering whether we should support this money going into the Consolidated Fund tonight, in advance of Thursday's debate and of the revaluation next year that will give us many of the answers to these questions.
10.19 pm
The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): I well understand why my hon. Friend

783
wants to inquire about the meaning of this resolution and why it is on the Order Paper. The answer to his main question about how much this will raise is that, currently, the non-domestic rate yields about £8·5 billion and it is the Government's intention that a similar sum should be raised by the new form of non-domestic rate contained in the Bill.
We made it clear that we would not increase the non-domestic rate and that the total would be redistributed according to the revaluation that is currently taking place and, of course, according to the uniform rate poundage that will be imposed by the Bill. I cannot forecast the individual rate bills of each and every commercial hereditament that will result from these changes because the revaluation is not yet complete. I shall have much more to say about that on Thursday when we will be able to discuss the whole matter.
Mr. Richard Shepherd: Is my right hon. Friend saying that he cannot tell me, even in the most general terms, whether the west midlands will be paying a significantly higher tax, the same tax or a lower tax, because of the one critical factor that enables the House to judge the merits of the proposal—revaluation? If it is, how can he come to the House and propose that we raise unknown taxes that will have an unknown effect on vital constituency interests of every hon. Member? Hon. Members have not been aroused about this because of the absence of this knowledge and the diffidence of the Secretary of State about a fundamental point.
Mr. Ridley: Revaluation has taken place for decades in respect of rates on domestic and business premises. It is never possible to predict the results of revaluation before the revaluation takes place. There is nothing new about having a non-domestic rate revaluation.
I should like to make one other point to my hon. Friend. It is necessary to have this resolution because the Government had a choice whether to set up a separate fund for the payment of the non-domestic rate by local authorities which would then be redistributed per capita and pro rata to every local authority, or to pay the money into the Consolidated Fund and redistribute it in the way that I have described.
We decided that it would be cheaper and therefore provide a little more revenue for local authorities if the money was paid into the Consolidated Fund rather than into a separate fund set up for the sole purpose of redistributing this £8·5 billion. As a result of that decision, this money resolution is needed to make sure that the Consolidated Fund can receive and pay out the money in question. There is no change of policy here, nor is there anything new, except for the point that I have made, that instead of a separate fund we shall use the Consolidated Fund. That is a sensible decision.
I shall be happy to respond to any of my hon. Friend's points about the impact or the effect of the non-domestic rate in the debate on the Bill on Thursday. That is the proper time at which to raise these matters.
Mr. Bowen Wells: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) is right in saying that the House is being asked to debate the money resolution
784
before the substantive debate takes place on Thursday, can you tell us how you have been advised in this procedural matter? Surely it must be the wrong procedure.
Mr. Speaker: Nothing out of order has taken place. The Government have put down a Ways and Means motion and it can be debated.
10.25 pm
Mr. Jeff Rooker: To avoid any misunderstanding on either side of the House, let me say that the measure could have gone through on the nod. I hope that we can now dispose of it in a few minutes. Without that agreement, there would not have been five days for the Report stage of the Local Government Finance Bill. If there had not been five days, there would have been no opportunity whatsoever even to discuss the part of the Bill relating to the business rate. That was part of the arrangement agreed between the Front Benches to protect the opportunity for the House to debate the business rate, because that would not have been possible in only four days.
As the Secretary of State has said, the sum of money is the same. The Bill does not invent business rates. They are already there. We do not know the consequences of revaluation and of the unified business rate. We did not discover that in Committee and hon. Members will not even find out about it on Thursday, but, in the limited time available on Thursday, questions can at least be put.
The only point that is questionable, which I raised with the Government earlier, is the use of the words "Consolidated Fund" in the Ways and Means resolution. The fact that the Consolidated Fund will be used has a simple consequence: it then becomes national, not local, taxation. That means that the other place will not be able to discuss the business rate, as opposed to the poll tax, part of the Bill. Hon. Members might consider that point on Thursday.
Mr. Richard Shepherd: If I have understood the matter correctly, we have seen the transfer of the business rate away from the local authorities and, therefore, the transfer of the direct relationship to the national Exchequer. We are to pass the motion on the nod, just to do a cosy deal between the Labour party and the Conservative Government to ensure that we can now get this measure through.
Mr. Rooker: I resent the term "a cosy deal." Opposition Members, in demanding five days, were trying to protect the right to debate the business rate. No Conservative Members were asking for a debate on the business rate. We said, "Right, the Ways and Means resolution, on the nod." It is as simple and clear-cut as that. The decision whether the scheme is carried through is not in the hands of my hon. Friends. It is for hon. Members on Thursday to decide whether to support the Bill. The Bill is not about the rights of the Secretary of State for the Environment. The Bill states that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will henceforth fix the business rate. Hon. Members must either accept or reject that on Thursday.
10.28 pm
Mr. A. J. Beith: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) has done the House a service in drawing attention to some of the features of this Ways and Means resolution, but it also

785
seems a little distasteful that he should lecture the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) as if he were a recalcitrant schoolboy, misbehaving and daring to interfere in the arrangements into which the hon. Gentleman entered in good faith for perfectly respectable reasons. We can accept his argument that, in reaching an agreement to take the business on the nod, he believed that he was advancing the interests of hon. Members, but that does not preclude the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills from speaking. He is in no way party to that agreement and is drawing the attention of the House to some important matters.
The important dimension that the hon. Gentleman has added to the discussion is the possible impact of this on the consideration of the Bill in another place, which has assumed a greater relevance since the Secretary of State today purported to be in a position to issue Mr. Speaker's
786
certificate and identify which Bill was a money Bill and which Bill could be considered by another place. The Secretary of State, in the remarks that roused me from my slumber this morning, purported to say what Bill the other place could consider and appeared to try to say that the other place had no right to consider the essential features of the Bill. That is not so, but it would be true in respect of the business rate if the resolution goes through. For that reason, the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills is right to draw attention to the matter and the House should take the matter more seriously.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That any Act resulting from the Local Government Finance Bill may provide for

(a) sums to be paid to the Secretary of State in respect of non-domestic rating, and

(b) those and other sums to be paid into the Consolidated Fund.

Community Charges (Scotland)
Mr. Dick Douglas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. John Maxton: My hon. Friend is taking time.
Mr. Douglas: I know that I am taking time. I do not need my hon. Friends on the Front Bench to tell me that.
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It will not have escaped your notice that 29 of the amendments to the Local Government Finance Bill, which applies to England and Wales, were tabled by the Secretary of State for Scotland. May I have your assurance that your office has examined these amendments and ensured that they were not in conflict with the regulations that we shall debate tonight and tomorrow night? If they are, we are wasting our time.
Mr. Speaker: I would have to look at those amendments carefully. As far as I am aware, none of them is in conflict with the regulations.
10.30 pm
Mr. John Maxton: I beg to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Standard and Collective Community Charges (Scotland) Regulations 1988 (S.I., 1988, No. 631), dated 28th March 1988, a copy of which was laid before this House on 30th March, be annulled.
Coming from Scotland, I find it interesting that Tory Members are beginning to get slightly panicky about revaluation. After all, we have been debating the poll tax only because of the panic that developed in Scottish Tory breasts as a result of revaluation. That is what the poll tax is all about. That is why we have got it, and that is why Tory Members may soon be more aware of what revaluation means. However, the poll tax is no answer to the problems of revaluation.
These regulations are not the most controversial part of the poll tax legislation. Nor are they necessarily the most obnoxious, although there are parts of them, particularly those relating to the collective community charge, which raise some important questions. However, the poll tax in all its forms is so hated and despised by the people of Scotland that it is right and essential that we, the representatives of the people of Scotland, should take every opportunity to put their views before the House and vote against any measure that helps to bring this iniquitous legislation into force.
I cannot remember when any Government proposal was so universally opposed in Scotland. The most recent opinion poll in Scotland shows that fewer than 15 per cent. of the people of Scotland support the poll tax. That is nearly 8 per cent. below the level of the Tory vote in Scotland, so 8 per cent. of Tory voters do not support the poll tax. Furthermore, many people who will benefit from the proposals still oppose them because they know that they are unfair, unworkable and undemocratic. Many of them resent strongly the imposition of this tax when they so overwhelmingly voted against it in last June's general election. Any Government who paid even lip service to the concepts of democracy would have withdrawn the tax after their humiliation in that election.
After last night's embarrassments, it is clear that many English Tories fear that they will suffer the same fate as Michael Ancram, Michael Hirst, John McKay, Gerry
788
Malone et al if this tax becomes law in England and Wales. Et al is Albert McQuarrie. That is why we shall take every opportunity to raise the injustices and absurdities of this tax in the House. There is still time for English Tory Back Benchers to come to their political senses and defeat the English and Welsh Bill on its Third Reading, and force the repeal of the Scottish legislation.
These regulations give us the opportunity to debate two of the important but less well publicised aspects of the poll tax in Scotland. The standard charge is the tax imposed on second homes. What these regulations are proposing makes sense since they ensure that houses with no roofs on, or those in need of repair nor redevelopment, should be exempt.
The standard charge is absurd in itself. Having made all the great claims that they were abolishing property taxes and introducing a personal tax right the way down the line, the Government are reintroducing a property tax in the form of the standard charge. The charge is on the property, and no matter how many people live in it and use it the charge will be exactly the same.
It does not matter whether one has already paid a personal community charge or poll tax in a local government area; if one owns a house in that area the same tax will be paid. We who believe in the rating system see nothing wrong with that. It is right to pay rates on a second home. But this makes nonsense of the Government's argument that they are abolishing rates. The standard community charge is just rates in another form-a very unfair form. Everybody will pay exactly the same standard charge whatever the size of house and whatever the income. The Queen will pay on her holiday house at Balmoral exactly the same as someone owning a one-roomed holiday flat in the same area. One cannot get more absurd than that.
If the standard community charge is ridiculous when set against the so-called principles of the poll tax, the collective community charge proposals contain the seeds of even greater unfairness and administrative nightmares than the personal poll tax.
Once the Government settled for the asinine poll tax, someone in the Department presumably asked, "How do we deal with those who move about all the time and have no fixed abode; do we allow them to get away with paying nothing?" Of course Ministers, who are convinced that everybody should pay something, said no to that. There had to be some form of tax. They came up with this nonsensical collective community charge. It means that every boarding house and hostel and other place where the occupants are transient will be designated a collective charge property, and the collective charge multiplier will be given by the assessor. The owners will then pay the personal tax, multiplied by their multiplier, to the local authority each year. They will regain the tax by charging on a daily basis each person resident in their property.
Let me ask the Minister one or two questions about the collective charge. First, why have refuges for women facing domestic violence been left in the collective charge category in Scotland, when it seems that they are to be totally exempt in England? On 4 February 1988 the Minister of State, Department of the Environment said:
"women's refuges … will be exempt not merely from the requirements to show the names of resident individuals on the register, but from the collective community charge."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 4 February 1988, c. 462.]

789
I want to know from the Minister what is happening in Scotland, because in these regulations that is the only type of property at present that would definitely be in the collective community charge category.
Secondly, what arrangements have the Government made for the repayment of the collective community charge to those who are entitled to rebates or who may have already paid their community charge elsewhere? Many people living in hostel accommodation will be entitled to rebates, but their landlord must pay a full poll tax for each of them and charge them the full amount.
In the draft rebate scheme that I have seen there does not appear to be a plan to ensure that they can reclaim this money. Even if they can, it is a reversal of a usual rebate scheme whereby one claims the rebate but pays only the minimum amount. One does not pay the full amount and then claim it back, which will apparently happen in this case.
Let us take the example of a young unemployed person resident in Castlemilk or in another housing scheme in Scotland, who is registered there for the poll tax and liable to pay 20 per cent. He goes to look for work elsewhere, stays in a hostel and has to pay the full daily rate of the community charge in that hostel. What arrangements are there for him to claim that back? Are there any?
Thirdly, what compensation do the Government intend to give to charitable bodies that run hostels and refuges if they fail to collect the full amount of poll tax from their clients, which will almost certainly be the case? They will still have to pay the local authority the sum that the local authority has agreed with them. The hostels face increased administrative costs anyway as a result of this tax, without also facing a loss of income, which would be better used carrying out their real work.
Fourthly, at the other end of the scale, how will the Government ensure that unscrupulous private landlords do not artificially keep their bed usage figures low in order to make a profit from those who stay in their properties?
Perhaps the truth is that the civil servants and the registration officers have made up their minds that there will be few collective community charge places. In fact, the only one may turn out to be the women's refuges, which are to be exempt in England and Wales.
The word from registration officers and Scottish Office officials is that they are so alarmed by the implications of this absurd tax that the registration officers are being advised not to place properties on the register but simply to put them either into the commercial rating system or to ensure that everybody is registered.
If that is true, would it not be more honest for the Government to introduce amendments into the English Bill, even at this late stage, to abolish the collective community charge altogether? It is an unfair, unworkable tax. Many poor people will pay the tax twice and may have to try to claim it back.
The regulations are part and parcel of the administrative nightmare that the Government are creating with the poll tax. We have seen examples of that already in Scotland with the registration process that has already begun. We want the Government not only to withdraw this part of the taxation but the whole tax. The Scottish people do not want it. They never have. They voted against it and the Government should withdraw and repeal the legislation.
10.41 pm
Mr. Allan Stewart: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) has used the opportunity of the debate to make a number of fairly general points. Because time is limited, I do not propose to follow several of his points. He represents at least one faction in the Labour party on this issue—those who wish the law to be obeyed. That is the position of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) and it was the position of the Leader of the Opposition when he came to Scotland and made that most excellent 50-minute speech in which he did not mention devolution once. In passing, I would also add that he notably failed to congratulate the famous 50 on their victory in the last election.
However, the House will be anxious to hear from Opposition Members who take a different point of view, such as the hon. Members for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) and for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan), who is in some danger of being accused of being a moderate these days, and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown), who may come in to make a contribution.
Mr. Alex Salmond: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the latest opinion poll in Scotland showed that 20 per cent. of Conservative voters favour a campaign of non-payment? Is that a faction within the Conservative party?
Mr. Stewart: I do not want to speak for too long in answering that point. My clear impression is that there is on the ground in Scotland a massive campaign of disinformation, which, in part, is unquestionably successful, and successful in some areas of my constituency. But when I meet people in Eastwood arid explain the position in detail, people generally go away much more supportive of the community charge. However, as I understand it, the hon. Gentleman's position on the community charge, and that of the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing), is clear. Gordon Wilson is clearly on the record as saying that they will not pay the community charge.
Mr. Bill Walker: Is my hon. Friend aware that Angus district council, which is administered by the Scottish National party, has not followed the advice or the example of the SNP leadership, including those in this House, and it is urging people to comply with the community charge, which it is putting into operation?
Mr. Stewart: That shows that Angus district council, in this if not always in other matters, is following a common-sense course.
I understand the Labour party's position, as expressed by the hon. Member for Cathcart, to be that if there is to be a community charge it should not be a standard community charge. [Interruption.] I have obviously misunderstood the hon. Member; he believes that there should be a standard community charge. I hope that local authorities will implement the multiplier with flexibility and will bear in mind in particular the needs of the tourist industry. The hon. Member for Cathcart will recall that on Report I referred to the size of the multiplier and that he disagreed with my view that it should not be as high as two, but I think he agreed that local authorities should be encouraged to implement it with flexibility.
Paragraphs (b) and (c) of regulation 3 are fairly clear about the closing order and the demolition order, but I

791
hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will confirm that paragraph (a) deals with dangerous buildings and the making of an order by a local authority. I hope that he will explain what will happen when orders are revoked or when undertakings are given by the owners of the property that lead to suspension orders. There are three redundant words in paragraph (e). If a building is incapable of being lived in, by definition it is not being lived in.
I welcome the Government's general line in regulation 4 concerning refuges for spouses who have had to leave the marital home because of physical violence or because of the threat of such violence. Also, I welcome the fact that the names of people in that position will not be made publicly available. It is not proposed, either, that the collective community charge multiplier for such hostels should be made available to the public. These provisions should have the support of the whole House.
As for regulation 5, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will explain how paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) will work. I presume that paragraphs (b) and (c) would work through the collective community charge record that the owner of the property will be under an obligation to maintain, but that record will not show the information that is required under paragraph (a) concerning
"the maximum number of persons for whom the premises are capable of providing residential accommodation."
I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to clarify that matter.
I welcome the regulations. Despite the Opposition's programme of disinformation, they confirm that the procedures for implementing the abolition of domestic rates in Scotland are steadily on course.
10.49 pm
Mr. Alistair Darling: The hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) seemed to be having difficulty in understanding the terms of regulation 5, or, alternatively, in reading the joined up writing of his brief, which clearly had been handed to him from the Government Benches in order to pad out this debate.
I should like briefly to speak about regulation 5, because it concerns a major problem, particularly in Edinburgh and Glasgow—the problem of houses in multiple occupation. Section 11 of the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act gives the registration officer power to designate premises where the community charge will be paid. Most of those premises are in places where a large number of people, particularly young people, live. They are characterised by an itinerant population of people who are forced to move after a short time, either because of harassment by the landlord or, alternatively, because of the Government's social security regulations.
When we look at the terms of regulation 5 and the factors that the registration officer has to consider, anyone who knows anything about houses in multiple occupation will immediately realise that a formidable difficulty faces the registration officer. Under regulation 5(a), he has to discover
"the maximum number of persons for whom the premises are capable of providing residential accommodation".
Here is an immediate difficulty, because he will probably find that the number of people living in those premises far
792
exceeds the capacity of the building. It is not uncommon to go into a room in which one person could decently sleep and find four or five beds. Indeed, it has been found that there is a sort of Box and Cox arrangement, with different people staying at different times during the day and night. That shows the desperation of many young people who have to find accommodation. How will the registration officer find out how many people the premises are capable of providing for?
Under regulation 5(b), the registration officer has to find out the number of people who have stayed there at any time during the past three months. From my experience of canvassing houses in multiple occupation, I can tell the registration officer that no one knows exactly how many people stay there. The people who stay there do not know who is expected from night to night. The landlord is most reticent as to how many people stay there. Indeed, a number of cases—and there will be more—coming before the courts in Scotland concerning fraud turn precisely on the question of how many people are supposed to be staying in the premises at any one time. The fact is that the registration officer will not be able to find the number concerned, because the information is not readily available.
If one adds to the difficulty of determining for how long someone has stayed in those premises, to calculate the daily basis on which the community charge is payable, the difficulty of calculating rebate, one sees that this regulation alone will add to the bureaucratic nightmare and the considerable expense that will be incurred in order to operate this ridiculous Act.
Ironically some good could come to Scotland from these regulations if the Government would accept the demands of Glasgow and Edinburgh district councils for the power to police such premises and, perhaps, get rid of the exploitation and hardship being endured by some of the most vulnerable people in our society. Time and again the Government have turned their back on reasonable requests that would allow the districts to look at fire regulations, the accommodation available and decent standards of health and hygiene. The fact is that the Government are quite happy to turn a blind eye to the activities of some of the most disreputable people in Scotland. That is deregulation; that is free enterprise at its best—let these people practise their Rachmanite tendencies on the most vulnerable in society.
I believe that if the Government would give councils the powers that they so desperately need, many of the problems in city centres, such as Edinburgh and Glasgow, could begin to be tackled. That is the only good thing that could come out of the regulations. If that is not done, regulation 5 will not work. The registration officer will have no more luck than the environmental health officer, the fire officer or anybody else who has tried to tackle the activities of landlords in these cities.
I hope that the Minister will pay attention to what has been said. It is not just hon. Members sitting on these Benches who have said it, but respectable people—even Government supporters in my constituency—[Interruption.] I was giving the Government a chance to salvage themselves. Many people living in the city centres of both Edinburgh and Glasgow would like the Government to take firm action to regulate these properties and to make the regulations work. Sadly, in this regulation, just as with everything else to do with the poll tax, the Government will be found wanting.
10.54 pm
Mr. Bill Walker: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) because, if I recollect exactly, before he got involved in a description of his hon. Friends which they found amusing, he was saying that the community charge, as referred to in these regulations—especially the collective community charge multiplier and the describing factors that appear in regulation 5—is unworkable.
However, I believe that there are positive advantages in the regulation. One is the fact that some sort of order and discipline will be brought into a situation in which, if I understood the hon. Gentleman's description correctly, there is multiple occupancy on a scale that is totally unacceptable. I accept that the hon. Gentleman knows much more about that than I do, because I do not fully understand it.
Mr. Darling: Yes, that is correct.
Mr. Walker: I think that that is a fair summing-up of what the hon. Gentleman said.
That being so, one of the ways of bringing about change is to hit people through their pockets, which is exactly what this will do.
If one accepts that the regulations are partly intended to ensure, first, that the landlord pays for the numbers, and, secondly, that those people who are occupying the premises on a transient multiple basis will be charged by the landlord, if the landlords are the Rachmans that the hon. Gentleman is claiming, the one thing that is absolutely certain is that they will make the charge. I do not think that any of us have any doubt about that. Once they have made the charge, the important thing will be how it is collected.
I do not deny that there will be some administrative difficulties and problems. However, the same is true of all taxes because people often try to avoid making their payments. That is true of value added tax. It is equally true that the community charge will involve self-declaration, as is often the case with value added tax. That tax also involves keeping records. If one does not keep records, one can find oneself in great trouble and difficulty. That will also be true in this case.
I turn to another matter that was raised earlier. 1 do not wish to make any comment on the Queen's country residence in Scotland, which is just north of my constituency. However, I remind the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) that staff in a second home, whether Balmoral or anywhere else, will pay the community charge. Many of those large homes have substantial staffs, all of whom will pay the community charge. Therefore, it is not quite true to say that people living in such homes will not be making their contribution or paying their share because they will be. Those who are living there will pay it—[Interruption.] I did not wish to make comments about the monarch. The hon. Member for Cathcart did that—I did not. I merely commented that people living in the second homes—the staff working there—will pay the community charge. Therefore, there is no question of those large homes not making their contribution to local finances.
I turn now to another matter that affects us in rural areas. Quite properly, holiday homes and second homes should make their contribution. That is what one would expect them to do. My constituency has many holiday and
794
second homes and they should contribute to the expenses and costs, which they will be required to do under the regulations because, however one looks at it, anybody using a holiday home makes use of the police and the roads and is glad that the fire services are available. In my experience, all such people make use of the leisure arid recreation facilities. The libraries are well used, as acre water and sewerage facilities.
When hon. Members read Hansard tomorrow, they will realise that the hon. Member for Cathcart was spreading disinformation throughout his remarks. He kept making reference to a poll tax. There is no such thing. It does not exist. People are beginning to think that there are two different taxes—a community charge and, in addition, a poll tax. That is not surprising because Opposition Members have set out on a deliberate policy of disinformation. The more the community charge is investigated, and the more people refer to the fine booklet which has been distributed throughout Scotland, the moire they realise just what the community charge means. That booklet explains fully and clearly what the community charge is and how it affects second homes.
At public meetings in my constituency it has been most interesting—[Interruption.] Opposition Members seem to think that it is funny that people in Tayside, North, particularly in Pitlochry, should now accept that the community charge is a much fairer way of paying for local government. They accept that a contribution of 14p in the pound to local government expenditure is not draconian. Indeed, it is not any of the things which it had been called in the disinformation. It is a bargain when we consider the services that are provided. [Interruption.] Possibly the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) has not realised what a difference there is between 14p and 25p. That is why we are finding in Scotland that the community charge is being accepted by many more people. On 5 May Opposition Members will get a shock when they see just how many people have understood what the community charge means and have showed their appreciation by their votes.
11.2 pm
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I preface my comments by supporting strongly the remarks of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling). He hit upon an important point in relation to houses in multiple occupancy which requires urgent attention. It may be difficult to make substantial improvements in the position through the poll tax legislation. In Committee on the Housing (Scotland) Bill the Under-Secretary of State suggested that the Government may consider legislation at an early stage to deal with some of the problems. If the Minister could confirm that, I think it would go a long way to alleviating the anxiety which is felt on this side of the House and, I suspect, on the Government side too.
It will be difficult for the Government to argue the case for the regulations because they cut across the underlying principle of the community charge which in essence and concept is wrapped around the principle of the individual's ability to pay. The community charge has a personal nature. The standard and collective charges have nothing to do with personal involvement. Therefore, it is an awkward and far-reaching anomaly in the principle and concept of the legislation. It exposes an important flaw.

795
I want to concentrate on the practicalities of some of the proposals in the regulations. There are questions which have been substantially unanswered about the scope of definitions in the body of the regulations. There is much vagueness in the legal definition of such terms as "practicable" and "short periods" which are in the main sections of the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987 which has spawned the regulations. The vagueness will lead to much inconsistency in the application of the regulations.
If a wide degree of discretion is left to registration officers, it will lead to a wide degree of implementation. In turn, that will lead to a wide degree of reference to the courts to appeal against the designation that has been nominated by the registration officer. That is not in anyone's interests and I invite the Minister to comment.
There are substantial unanswered questions about how the multiplier is to be implemented. The factors to be taken into account in these orders are substantially inadequate to get any degree of certainty whatever into the formula that is to be used to calculate the multiplier as it affects the collective community charge.
The extent of the collective community charge remains somewhat in question. If my briefing is right, in Committee the Minister said:
"there must be a strong presumption in favour of individual registration"—[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 29 January 1987; c. 721.]
That is, as opposed to standard or collective registration. Paragraph 7 of the consultation paper states:
"It is, however, envisaged that personal community charge registration should be the norm in all cases where it is practicable."
I should like to know whether that remains the case and whether the standard and collective charges will be the substantial exception rather than the rule. If so, will the Minister answer one or two brief questions?
The Department must have done some investigation and research into how the collective community charge will work. How many premises in Scotland will be affected? How many individuals will be affected? What is the sum expected to be collected through the collective community charge? If it is to be the exception rather than the rule, I expect the answers to those questions to be minimal. If so, they may not be worth having. If the Minister takes into account the sum required to set up a proper appeal procedure and considers how landlords will be expected to pay the arrears of residents who abscond without paying, what proportion of the collective community charge contribution do the Government expect not to collect? Those are important questions and we need answers to them.
Some of the questions involve substantial implications for the civil liberties of a vulnerable group of people who may be subject to the collective charge, and that must be addressed. By definition, such people come from vulnerable and fragile social circumstances. As soon as they go through the front door of a residential establishment which is subject to the collective community charge they will he faced with a series of intricate, far-reaching and intrusive questions. That must be borne in mind.
The hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) drew attention to some amendments made to the
796
English Bill, particularly regarding the 5 per cent. maintenance fee, which have a substantial bearing on this debate. It is not right to say that the amendments being considered in another form on the Local Government Finance Bill are not impinging on our debate this evening.
These are important regulations. They do not clarify very much for me, as a lawyer. They are suffused with vagueness and raise many questions about the practicability of the collection of the charge. They are unworkable and unjust, and flow from an Act which is unfair and unwanted.
11.8 pm
Sir Hector Monro: The Labour party should bear in mind that it stands massively discredited in the view of the Scottish people through its campaign of mass misinformation. The Scottish people do not like being hoodwinked and this will bounce back markedly in a few weeks' time.
I have in my hand the Scottish Local Government Information Unit bulletin, from which one notices that the editorial team comprises such people as Jean MacFadden, David Sanderson, Mark Lazarowicz, Steven Norris and other well-known Socialists. One would therefore take it that the information given in that bulletin about the community charge is hardly likely to be favourable to the Conservative party. Therefore, I quote from it with a degree of confidence, in view of the figures that it contains.
It states that in Dumfries and Galloway, for instance, the community charge would, if levied this year, be £210. Has the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) left the Chamber? No, I now see him, writing his Hansard notes. The figure for Roxburgh would be £211. Yet candidates from the Opposition party are going round quoting figures double that as being what the community charge is likely to be. They give out massive misinformation, and they also fail to indicate that rates will cease to be payable when the community charge comes into force.
Opposition Members must have pretty ghastly consciences about what they have been telling the people of Scotland concerning the practical impact of the community charge in due course. It is disgraceful that Labour candidates in Niths—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"]—are saying that the community charge—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. There is no vacancy here.
Sir Hector Monro: Opposition Members who support their candidates in those statements are a disgrace to politics generally in Scotland.
I believe that what is proposed by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Scottish Office in the regulations before the House tonight is a move in the right direction in clarifying local government in respect of the change to the community charge system. When he has had an opportunity to speak tonight and to clarify points that have been raised on both sides of the House, he will be able to show that the Act was correct in both its policy and in its detail. I support it.
11.12 pm
Dr. John Reid: The hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) excelled himself with his contribution tonight. He almost achieved that for which he

797
has been striving throughout this parliamentary Session—he almost cleared the Strangers' Gallery, with the exception of one slumbering person there.
The best that can be said of the three contributions from the Government Benches tonight is that none of them was worse than the contribution of the Secretary of State for the Environment yesterday. They were slightly better, possibly because all of them were patently from the same set of notes. All we heard tonight was one comment about misinformation, and nothing whatsoever about the regulations before the House.
It was also patently obvious from those contributions that Government Members have learned nothing from three months of debate. Everyone else in this Chamber and outside it—particularly in Scotland—knows that we are here dealing with a personal poll tax, a regressive tax, and a tax that in no way relates to ability to pay. It is also a tax that presents an administrative nightmare.
If the personal poll tax is already massively unpopular in Scotland, the regulations with which we are dealing concerning the collective community charge take matters to total absurdity. Those regulations emphasise the nightmare that will face not only the Government and the bureaucrats who will have to administer the charge but the people who will have to pay it.
One provision in the regulations illustrates the poll tax taken to its ultimate absurdity. As we heard earlier, it is to apply to those who frequently have to move about and occasionally to those who have no fixed abode. The results of the regulations laid tonight will be overpayment of tax by individuals, under-entitlement to rebates to individuals, and carte blanche to landlords for overcharging in cases of multiple occupancy. It is nothing more than carte blanche for fiscal Rachmanism. We expect the Minister to tell us whether he will encourage Glasgow and Edinburgh in the policing of multiple occupancy and how he will ensure that any of the charges collected by landlords under the regulations will be fully paid. What is to stop individual landlords lowering bed usage in their declarations and withholding charges from the Exchequer?
The regulations will be an administrative nightmare. It was ironic yesterday when the Secretary of State for the Environment told us that it would not be possible to alleviate the problems of the lower paid by means of the poll tax because of the bureaucratic apparatus that would have to be set up. The Government can set up a bureaucratic apparatus to investigate DHSS fraud and social security claimants, they can set up a vast apparatus to administer the regulations that are before us, but it seems that it is not possible to produce an apparatus to encompass the scheme that was urged upon the Government by certain Conservative Members last night.
There are four brief reasons why the regulations should be rejected. First, they rely almost entirely on the discretion of registration officers, and experience suggests that they will not be successful. Secondly, we come to the multiplier and the inadequacy of the factors that are to be taken into consideration when setting it. Seasonal variations and occupancy should be taken into account. Thirdly, the collective community charge is unwieldy and shows the poll tax in its most anachronistic form. Fourthly, a host of important questions remain unanswered. Not least of those questions is that concerning women who face domestic violence, who have
798
been left within the terms of the collective community charge in Scotland. It seems that such women have been exempted from the charge under the English legislation.
The poll tax as it stands is a burden and an injury to the Scottish people. It is an unfair tax that is being imposed on an unwilling people in an undemocratic fashion by an uncaring Government. The regulations add insult to injury and the Government would be best advised to save their face, our time and much trouble and misery in Scotland by abandoning them.
11.18 pm
Mr. Brian Wilson: One of the minefields of the legislation that we are discussing is that of homes in multiple occupation, and I regret that time does not permit me to pursue it. Nor can I investigate those remarkable claims of support for the legislation. I understand that the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) can in his constituency find pockets of support for the poll tax, while I assume that the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) holds his public meetings in Brigadoon. But opinion poll statistics tell us that 80 per cent. of people in Scotland oppose the poll tax and will continue to do so ever more deeply and ever more strongly. I intend to deal only with the standard community charge.
I understand that there were once some Tory votes in Millport. I have some statistics about the impact of the standard community charge on that community. They reflect—even in the context of second homes—the fact that the charge takes no account of ability to pay. Once again that is the fatal flaw. There are 1,300 properties in Millport and 60 per cent. of them are occupied throughout the year. The other 40 per cent. are second homes. However, the popular second-home image is irrelevant to Millport. Second homes need not be bijou country residences. They can be tiny homes that may have no basic amenities and no inside toilets.
Under the legislation, the owners of these second homes will be liable to pay twice the community charge. In cash terms that means that, on an island with a population of 1,300 with 1,300 properties, the Government will take an extra £250,000 a year out of the island of Cum brae and the town of Millport.
Mr. Allan Stewart rose—
Mr. Wilson: I know of the distinction offered between one and two times the personal charge hut, given everything else to do with the legislation, who would expect a local authority to set the lower charge? The Government supported by the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) have not even allowed the possibility of setting it lower than one personal community charge in the Scottish legislation, unlike its English counterpart.
So, with this legislation, the Tory Government will take an extra £250,000 out of a seaside town that needs assistance, support and rehabilitation, not this penal fine. I understand the logic of what the Government are doing. It would not make sense, even by their standards, to say that people who own second homes without inside toilets or any of the amenities we would expect in our own homes should be exempted from the poll tax. How could they say that about second homes when they are not prepared to say it about first homes? Logically, how can they give relief to people who spend two weeks a year in such homes when they tell people who live for 52 weeks of the year in the

799
most primitive conditions that they must pay the same poll tax as the people who live in the most prosperous, biggest mansions on the hill? In a perverse sort of way, I suppose, we should praise the Government for not allowing that sort of illogicality.
However, by extending the principle of ignoring ability to pay for second homes as well as first ones, the penalty that will be imposed on Millport will be £250,000, which it can ill afford.
I conclude with an anecdote from a phone-in radio programme in which I recently took part with the ex-hon. Member for Argyll and Bute, Mr. John J. MacKay, now exalted to even greater heights while he awaits the departure of the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro)—
Sir Hector Monro: He will have to wait a long time.
Mr. Wilson: I hope that Hansard caught that. The hon. Member for Dumfries said that Mr. MacKay would have a long wait; on a historical note, he had a long wait in Argyll as well.
A blind man from Strachur phoned in and asked whether he would have to pay the iniquitous tax. Mr. MacKay, adopting the caring voice of Thatcherism, said that he was afraid that he would. The blind man said that he lived in a little house and had to move to another little house in winter, and asked whether he would still have to pay it. The answer again was yes. When he asked whether he would have to pay two poll taxes, the answer from caring Mr. MacKay was again yes. At that point I intervened to ask whether the blind man on the other end of the line would actually have to pay three poll taxes. Mr. MacKay had to agree that he would. That blind man has to divide his time between two tiny homes in Strachur and, despite having a minimal income, will have to pay three poll taxes so that the Duke of Argyll can save £5,000, £10,000 or £15,000 a year, like all the other Tory grandees who are the beneficiaries of this shameless handout.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I know of your deep concern for the protection of Back-Bench Members, and it cannot have escaped your notice that my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), who has tried to put forward the Scottish National party's view on the regulations, has once again been excluded from doing so.
Madam Deputy Speaker: I understand the frustration of the hon. Lady and her party. I only wish I could have called every hon. Member who wishes to speak in this debate.
11.19 pm
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Ian Lang): I think we know the policy of the Scottish National party on the community charge: it is to urge the people of Scotland to break the law. We want no part of that sort of policy in the House.
This has been an interesting, useful and constructive debate. As the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) said, this is not the most controversial part of the community charge. This short set of regulations contains
800
only three substantive provisions. I shall refer briefly to each in turn; and, in doing so, I shall try to deal with as many of the points raised during the debate as I can.
Regulation 3 prescribes certain classes of premises—briefly, uninhabitable property—that are not to be liable for the standard community charge. The standard community charge is payable in respect of dwelling houses where there is no one who is solely or mainly resident. That is, holiday homes and similar property. The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) asked whether it is worth it. The answer to that is yes. Because with the abolition of domestic rates, no payment would need to be made for the local services that are provided for property of this kind if something like the standard community charge was not provided for. That would clearly not be right, since property-based services—fire services, street lighting, and so on—are provided in respect of these dwelling houses as they are provided in respect of other dwelling houses. In addition, owners and tenants of the property may use personal local services while they are actually resident in the property.
The Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987 therefore provides for a simple system whereby property of this kind gives rise to liability for a standard community charge, to be set at between one and two units of the personal community charge for the area.
Mr. Maxton: It is a property tax.
Mr. Lang: The hon. Member for Cathcart says that it is a property tax and in his speech he said that it was an absurdity. The liability is on the owner of the property for the benefit that he as an individual has from the local services that are available. It is not a tax that is variable according to the circumstances of different types of property. The person liable to pay the charge is the owner or long-term tenant of the property. Local authorities will have discretion as to the level of standard community charge in each area.
We expect that it will produce a broadly similar level of revenue as domestic rates produce on these premises at present. During the passage of the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Bill it was recognised that uninhabitable property should not be subject to the standard community charge. Regulation 3, therefore, fulfils the undertakings that were given on this point during the passage of the Bill.
Where property is clearly ruinous, we expect that it will be categorised by the assessor not as a dwelling house but under some other description—such as "premises" or "store"—and will thus remain in rating, with no question of standard community charge liability arising. Dwelling houses in respect of which closing or demolition orders have been served or which, though not subject to such an order, are incapable of being lived in because they are under reconstruction, would give rise to standard community charge liability, if they were not prescribed as being exempt. Regulation 3, therefore, provides for this prescription.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) queried Regulation 3(a). This refers to the demolition of dangerous property. He asked what would happen if the demolition order were to be revoked. In the relatively rare event of that taking place, the property owner would resume liability for the standard community

801
charge. If it became inhabited as a sole or main residence, the resident would be liable for the personal community charge.
Regulations 4 and 5 relate to the collective community charge, which will be applied, in place of personal community charge liability, in respect of premises whose residents are so transient that it would not be practicable for registration officers to register them individually for the personal community charge, and for local authorities to collect personal community charges from them. There has been much criticism of the collective community charge mechanism, and indeed it is our firm intention that it should be used only in a very small number of cases. That answers the point made by a number of hon. Members. But no one has denied that a small number of such cases will exist, and that therefore something along the lines of the collective community charge is necessary.
Regulation 4 provides for the one use of the collective community charge that does not relate directly to the transience of the residents. It ensures that women's refuges will, in all cases, give rise to collective community charge liability.
Mr. William McKelvey rose—
I am sorry, but I shall not give way because I am on an important point.
This provision will ensure that the names of women staying in refuges will not appear on the community charges register, and the concomitant provision in regulation 15 of the Community Charges (Registration) (Scotland) Regulations 1988, which we debated on 28 March. ensures that the collective community charge multiplier, which will normally identify on the public register premises liable to the collective community charge, will not appear on the public register in the case of women's refuges. It will thus be impossible to distinguish from the public register women's refuges from any other address. These two provisions were brought forward after careful consideration, during the passage of the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Bill, of the position of women in refuges and the need for their anonymity to be preserved. I am confident that the mechanism that we propose will achieve that on a consistent basis throughout Scotland.
The hon. Member for Cathcart asked about the English situation. I accept that it would be possible to deal with the position of women in refuges along these lines rather than through the mechanism provided in regulation 4. That procedure is indeed envisaged for England and Wales. The mechanism that I have described was formulated after careful consideration of the views put forward, including the views of Scottish Women's Aid, during the passage of the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Bill. It provides a standard mechanism for all women's refuges throughout Scotland to which Scottish Women's Aid attaches considerable importance.
I would therefore be reluctant to replace that mechanism with a general provision for anonymous registration, which would depend on women resident in refuges making individual applications to the community charges registration officer for their names to be removed from the public form of the register.
The hon. Member for Cathcart also asked me about rebates from collective community charge contributions.
802
We have always made it clear that those who pay collective community charge contributions, like those who pay the personal community charge, should be eligible for—
It being half-past Eleven o'clock, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (;Prayers against statutory instruments &c. (negative procedure)).
The House proceeded to a Division—
Mr. Harry Cohen: On a point of order; Madam Deputy Speaker. May I urge you to reconsider the question of locking the doors? I suggest, with respect, that they were locked two minutes too soon.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I can help the hon. Member. There is something wrong with the digital clock. I shall allow another two minutes.
The House having divided: Ayes 164, Noes 277.

Division No. 266]

[11.30 Pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Faulds, Andrew

Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Allen, Graham

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

Alton, David

Flynn, Paul

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

Armstrong, Hilary

Foster, Derek

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Foulkes, George

Barron, Kevin

Fyfe, Maria

Battle, John

Galbraith, Sam

Beggs, Roy

George, Bruce

Beith, A. J.

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Bell, Stuart

Golding, Mrs Llin

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Gordon, Mildred

Bermingham, Gerald

Graham, Thomas

Bidwell, Sydney

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Blair, Tony

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Boateng, Paul

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Boyes, Roland

Harman, Ms Harriet

Bradley, Keith

Henderson, Doug

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Hinchliffe, David

Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

Hogg, N. (C'nauid & Kilsyth)

Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

Holland, Stuart

Buchan, Norman

Home Robertson, John

Caborn, Richard

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Callaghan, Jim

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Canavan, Dennis

Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Illsley, Eric

Clay, Bob

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

Clelland, David

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Kirkwood, Archy

Cohen, Harry

Lambie, David

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Leadbitter, Ted

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Lewis, Terry

Corbyn, Jeremy

Livsey, Richard

Cousins, Jim

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Crowther, Stan

McAllion, John

Cryer, Bob

McAvoy, Thomas

Cummings, John

McCartney, Ian

Cunningham, Dr John

Macdonald, Calum A.

Dalyell, Tam

McFall, John

Darling, Alistair

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

McKelvey, William

Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)

McLeish, Henry

Dixon, Don

McTaggart, Bob

Doran, Frank

McWilliam, John

Douglas, Dick

Madden, Max

Duffy, A. E. P.

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Marek, Dr John

Eadie, Alexander

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Eastham, Ken

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

Martlew, Eric

Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

Maxton, John

Fatchett, Derek

Michael, Alun

803

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Skinner, Dennis

Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'I & Bute)

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

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

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Soley, Clive

Morgan, Rhodri

Spearing, Nigel

Morley, Elliott

Steinberg, Gerry

Mowlam, Marjorie

Stott, Roger

Mullin, Chris

Strang, Gavin

Murphy, Paul

Straw, Jack

O'Brien, William

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

O'Neill, Martin

Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)

Parry, Robert

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Patchett, Terry

Turner, Dennis

Pike, Peter L.

Wall, Pat

Primarolo, Dawn

Wallace, James

Quin, Ms Joyce

Walley, Joan

Redmond, Martin

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Reid, Dr John

Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

Robertson, George

Wilson, Brian

Robinson, Geoffrey

Winnick, David

Rogers, Allan

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Rooker, Jeff

Worthington, Tony

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Rowlands, Ted

Tellers for the Ayes:

Ruddock, Joan

Mr. Frank Haynes and

Salmond, Alex

Mr. Robert N. Wareing.

Short, Clare

NOES

Alexander, Richard

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Colvin, Michael

Allason, Rupert

Conway, Derek

Amess, David

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Amos, Alan

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Arbuthnot, James

Cope, John

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Cran, James

Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Ashby, David

Curry, David

Aspinwall, Jack

Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &350 Spald'g)

Atkins, Robert

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Atkinson, David

Day, Stephen

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Devlin, Tim

Baldry, Tony

Dickens, Geoffrey

Batiste, Spencer

Dicks, Terry

Bellingham, Henry

Dorrell, Stephen

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Bevan, David Gilroy

Dover, Den

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Dunn, Bob

Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Durant, Tony

Boswell, Tim

Emery, Sir Peter

Bottomley, Peter

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Evennett, David

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Fallon, Michael

Bowis, John

Farr, Sir John

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Favell, Tony

Brazier, Julian

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Bright, Graham

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

Fookes, Miss Janet

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Forman, Nigel

Brown, Michael (Brigg & CI't's)

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

Forth, Eric

Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

Buck, Sir Antony

Fox, Sir Marcus

Budgen, Nicholas

Franks, Cecil

Burns, Simon

Freeman, Roger

Burt, Alistair

French, Douglas

Butcher, John

Fry, Peter

Butler, Chris

Gale, Roger

Butterfill, John

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

Goodlad, Alastair

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Carrington, Matthew

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Carttiss, Michael

Gow, Ian

Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

Gower, Sir Raymond

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

Chapman, Sydney

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Chope, Christopher

Gregory, Conal

Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Clark Dr Michael (Rochford)

Grist, Ian

804

Ground, Patrick

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Moore, Rt Hon John

Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

Morris, M (N'hampton S)

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Morrison, Hon P (Chester)

Hampson, Dr Keith

Moss, Malcolm

Hanley, Jeremy

Moynihan, Hon Colin

Hannam, John

Neale, Gerrard

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

Needham, Richard

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Nelson, Anthony

Harris, David

Neubert, Michael

Hawkins, Christopher

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Hayes, Jerry

Nicholls, Patrick

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Heddle, John

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Oppenheim, Phillip

Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

Page, Richard

Hind, Kenneth

Paice, James

Holt, Richard

Patnick, Irvine

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

Patten, Chris (Bath)

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Patten, John (Oxford W)

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Pawsey, James

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Porter, David (Waveney)

Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

Portillo, Michael

Hunter, Andrew

Powell, William (Corby)

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Price, Sir David

Irvine, Michael

Raffan, Keith

Irving, Charles

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

Jack, Michael

Rathbone, Tim

Jackson, Robert

Redwood, John

Janman, Tim

Renton, Tim

Jessel, Toby

Riddick, Graham

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Roe, Mrs Marion

Key, Robert

Rost, Peter

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Rowe, Andrew

Kirkhope, Timothy

Rumbold, Mrs Angela

Knapman, Roger

Ryder, Richard

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Sackville, Hon Tom

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Sayeed, Jonathan

Knowles, Michael

Shaw, David (Dover)

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Lang, Ian

Shelton, William (Streatham)

Latham, Michael

Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

Lawrence, Ivan

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Lee, John (Pendle)

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Shersby, Michael

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Lightbown, David

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Lilley, Peter

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

Speed, Keith

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Speller, Tony

Lord, Michael

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Luce, Rt Hon Richard

Stanbrook, Ivor

Lyell, Sir Nicholas

Stanley, Rt Hon John

Macfarlane, Sir Neil

Stern, Michael

MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

McLoughlin, Patrick

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

Stokes, John

McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Mans, Keith

Summerson, Hugo

Maples, John

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Marland, Paul

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Thorne, Neil

Mates, Michael

Thurnham, Peter

Maude, Hon Francis

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Tracey, Richard

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Tredinnick, David

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Trippier, David

Mellor, David

Trotter, Neville

Miller, Hal

Twinn, Dr Ian

Mills, Iain

Waddington, Rt Hon David

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

Walden, George

Moate, Roger

Walker, Bill (T'side North)

Monro, Sir Hector

Waller, Gary

805

Ward, John

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Winterton, Nicholas

Warren, Kenneth

Wolfson, Mark

Watts, John

Wood, Timothy

Wells, Bowen

Woodcock, Mike

Wheeler, John

Yeo, Tim

Whitney, Ray

Younger, Rt Hon George

Widdecombe, Ann

Wiggin, Jerry

Tellers for the Noes:

Wilkinson, John

Mr. Robert Boscawen and

Wilshire, David

Mr. David Maclean.

Question accordingly negatived.
Mr. John Home Robertson: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have just been watching the Division, and I was interested to see that at least 13 Tory Members who voted against the principle of an unfair poll tax for England and Wales yesterday were cheerfully voting in favour of the same principle for Scotland. That number included the hon. Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates). Where does that leave the principle of fairness in the United Kingdom?
Madam Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order, and no breach of order has been committed, and the hon. Gentleman knows that.

PETITION

  Rating Reform
  11.42 pm
  Dr. John Marek: I beg leave to present a petition from many of my constituents. It shows that if the poll tax Bill is enacted it will impose unfair financial burdens on many households, penalise those providing a home for adult children or elderly relatives, and necessitate excessive intrusion into the lives of ordinary citizens in connection with the compilation of the register.
  The proposed tax is grossly unfair, favours the rich, and is unrelated to the ability to pay. The Tory party will reap a bitter harvest when it calls the next general election.
  The petitioners pray that the House will vote against this iniquitous and immoral measure.
  To lie upon the Table.

North-East Lancashire Enterprise Zone
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]
11.43 pm
Mr. Ken Hargreaves: I am grateful for this opportunity to raise the subject of the future of the north-east Lancashire enterprise zone. I am pleased to see my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Lee) and the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike). I welcome the support for the application to extend the zone that was given by my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle who, from the outset, has been an enthusiastic supporter of the concept of enterprise zones, and who has taken a deep and continuing interest in the north-east Lancashire zone. I also welcome the support of the hon. Member for Burnley, who has worked extremely hard in pressing for the zone to be extended.
The north-east Lancashire enterprise zone is one of the second round enterprise zones and was designated in December 1983. It consists of a total of seven sites in the boroughs of Hyndburn, Rossendale, Pendle and Burnley, with a total of 282 acres.
When the idea of enterprise zones was first suggested by the Government, there was much unfavourable comment nationally from the Labour and Liberal parties. They were a gimmick, we were told, and not a serious attempt to deal with unemployment. What was true nationally was true locally and the Labour party on Hyndburn council was certainly less than enthusiastic about our application for an enterprise zone.
How wrong Opposition parties have proved to be. I now welcome the all-party support for the north-east Lancashire enterprise zone. It has that support because of the obvious success that it has had in attracting new investment to the area. The enterprise zone's financial incentives have triggered off a new, substantial burst of development activity.
A survey of firms in Hyndburn's enterprise zone in 1987 revealed that the majority of firms regarded the financial incentives and the available capital taxation allowances as being important to their location decision. The high level of investment has created a large number of new jobs—almost 500 in Hyndburn alone. These are permanent new jobs. A high proportion of these jobs has been taken up by local people. There has also been direct employment in the various development projects in the zone.
All of this has played an important part in reducing unemployment in the borough and in the area. I welcome the reduction of unemployment in Hyndburn, and in north-east Lancashire generally, over the past 18 months. I acknowledge the part that the enterprise zone has played in that. I congratulate the Government on introducing the concept of enterprise zones. They were right, and their critics were wrong. My request to the Government is that they will now listen to local opinion, despite the decision in December that a general extension of the enterprise zone experiment is not desirable.
That the Government do listen can be seen clearly from yesterday's announcement that the Blackburn southern bypass will be designed as a dual lane motorway, even though it will cost £9 million more than the scheme for a trunk road. The Government listened to our pleas on that
808
issue and they gave us what we asked for. I hope that they will listen tonight and react equally sympathetically to the local views on our enterprise zone.
We believe that the enterprise zone is one of the best and most effective ways of tackling the economic problems of the area. We face in north-east Lancashire a particularly localised set of economic problems. Despite improvements made in the 1980s, there is still a lack of modern industrial floor space. The older industrial stock is strongly associated with textiles and consists of multi-storey spinning mills and single-storey northlight weaving sheds.
As the cotton industry has declined, many mills have been sub-divided. They are often in poor condition and unsuited to modern industrial methods, and situated on cramped and inadequate sites. Difficulties with internal layout, as well as access and loading, all serve to restrict efficient functioning and growth potential.
In Hyndburn, 72 per cent. of industrial premises were not purpose-built; some 64 per cent. of them were built before 1914. The extension of the enterprise zone will continue to provide modern and purpose-built premises and help to alleviate the problem of inadequate accommodation. That is still faced by a large sector of industry in north-east Lancashire.
There is a continuing need for a steady flow of investment into north-east Lancashire if we are to tackle our economic difficulties. There is an inadequate amount of suitable industrial land for potential users, but development depends ultimately on the initiative and energies of the private sector.
The rate of new development depends to a large extent on the financial returns generated. In north-east Lancashire, returns on investment are not as substantial as in the south-east, and the enterprise zone has been a major factor in persuading firms to set up in north-east Lancashire.
Most of the land in the zone has now been developed. That development has so far involved a substantial private sector capital investment and resulted in the creation of 1,501 new jobs, the third highest level of total employment amongst the second generation zones, and the second highest in the proportion of manufacturing jobs involved. Of the 115 companies in the enterprise zone, 38 are completely new start-ups and 20 have plans for future expansion.
The zone has been extremely cost-effective in the creation of new jobs. In Hyndburn, for example, the overall public sector cost of the enterprise zone, in terms of rate allowances and capital investment, has been in the region of £1·4 million, or £3,200 per job, and in terms of expenditure on infrastructure, £813,000, or £1,860 per job.
Those figures suggest that an extension of the enterprise zone would represent good value for money given that the estimated national cost per additional job created on designated zones is £8,500. Almost 40 per cent. of the land identified for inclusion in the proposed extension is immediately available for development. Designation as an enterprise zone would lead to a considerable amount of new development, thus making full use of the infrastructure provided in the past years. That would maximise the return on existing public investment, surely something that the Government support.
For all the reasons that I have outlined, I hope that the Government will look again at the decision not to create further enterprise zones. An extension of the enterprise zone really is the best way to help the economic recovery

809
in north-east Lancashire to continue. It is the one measure that helps Burnley, Hyndburn, Pendle and Rossendale. All other measures do not.
Assisted area status benefits only Hyndburn and Rossendale, as does the derelict land grant rolling programme, not Burnley or Pendle. The urban programme and the inner-city programme benefit only Burnley, not Hyndburn, Pendle or Rossendale. We have all benefited from the enterprise zone, not least Pendle, which has made worthwhile progress as a result.
Like the Under-Secretary of State for Employment, my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle, who has worked so hard to deal with and help alleviate unemployment in Pendle, I believe that much of the momentum resulting from the enterprise zone will be lost unless we are allowed to extend it or further Government support is available in one form or another.
I urge the Minister to take account of the representations made to him, not least by Hyndburn, and I give him a friendly warning. Because of the massive 18 per cent. rate rise imposed by Lancashire county council, the Conservative party expects to gain control of Hyndburn in the local elections. That being so, I warn my hon. Friend that the new leader of the council, councillor Mrs. Betty Court, who is as determined, single-minded and persuasive as Mother Theresa and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister put together, will be on her way to see him, before the returning officer has recovered from announcing the result, to support the request that I have made, and it may on balance be wise to reconsider the matter tonight.
11.52 pm
Mr. Peter L. Pike: First, I want to thank the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Hargreaves) for allowing me to take part in the debate. This is an important matter to the people of north-east Lancashire. Like him, I appreciate the presence of the Under-Secretary of State for Employment, the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Lee), who has responsibility for tourism. I know that he has actively supported the case that we are debating. Indeed, I was fortunate to have three minutes at the end of the Consolidated Fund debate when I said that the case that I was making briefly at that time had the support of those two hon. Members.
It is also significant that the four authorities are united in the belief that one of the most important things for the economic recovery and regeneration of north-east Lancashire would be for the Government to agree an extension of the enterprise zone.
As the hon. Member for Hyndburn has said, we welcome yesterday's announcement that the M65 is to be linked by a road of motorway standard to the main national motorway network. The Minister could make it an extremely good week for north-east Lancashire tonight if he were able to say that the Government and his Department were prepared to reconsider this enterprise zone extension bid. Crowned with the Burnley football team reaching Wembley tonight, that would make it an extremely good week for the area.
Another factor should commend itself to the Government. The Government often talk of problems being tackled by local and national Government and the public sector working together. Conservative Members say that that is the way to solve many of the problems that
810
face the country. Those three sectors have worked exceptionally well within the enterprise zone to make it a success. Its success should commend itself to the Government.
In The Daily Telegraph on 30 March of this year there was an article by Trevor Bates on Burnley and Pendle. It refers to three industrial estates in those boroughs that face similar problems, as do Hyndburn and Rossendale. It says:
"The designation of three industrial estates as having enterprise zone status has been another significant factor in winning manufacturing and high-tech companies to the area, including a number from abroad."
In addition, Texas Eastern has set up a factory in Burnley that was recently opened by the chairman of the Conservative party. At the opening ceremony, the company made it very clear that one of the reasons for going to Burnley was the enterprise zone. Archie Thompson, the executive vice-president of Texas Eastern, has stressed the importance of communications in moving into the area.
Another company, Vekaplast, has also moved into the enterprise zone. Its managing director, Peter Abbott, has said that the existence of the enterprise zone and the available pool of good quality workers attracted the company to the area.
I refer also to a company in the Pendle constituency, Bodycare Toiletries, that recently moved to the Lomeshaye industrial estate. A letter I have received from Pamela Bishop of the Burnley and Pendle development association says:
"The company conducted an exhaustive search for industrial premises stretching from North Wales to Carlisle. However, the Development Association managed to persuade them that Pendle and Lomeshaye Industrial Estate would be an ideal place for them."
That is in the enterprise zone, but that zone is nearly full. If we are to overcome the problems to which the hon. Member for Hyndburn referred and about which we could speak at great length, an extension of the enterprise zone is vital. It would represent good value for money. Therefore, the Government should accept the case that we are making.
11.57 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Colin Moynihan): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Hargreaves) on his success in the ballot and on the assiduous and effective way in which he presented his case. I am pleased to see that his hard work is supported by the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Lee). They will understand why I am replying to the debate, in view of the ministerial responsibilities of my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Mr. Trippier) whose constituency also embraces the north-east Lancashire enterprise zone. It is of course not the first time that I have responded to a debate on this subject, as it was raised by the hon. Member for Burnley in the Consolidated Fund debate on 10 March, to which he has referred.
The enterprise zone experiment was one of the first steps the Government took in 1979 towards lifting burdens on business and enterprise. They have led the way along the path of deregulation that has stimulated the entrepreneurship that has characterised our economic recovery. I am cheered by the evidence that enterprise

811
zones have helped the regeneration of many localities which were widely believed to be beyond the point of no return in their economic fortunes. We know the commonly quoted examples—the Isle of Dogs, Corby, Hartlepool and Telford.
But, as the hon. Member for Hyndburn has reminded us, the north-east Lancashire zone has also been a success story. It was designated in December 1983 with a total area of 114 hectares spread over seven sites in the towns of Burnley, Accrington, Rossendale and Nelson. The sites were little developed. To those sites were given freedom from rates, 100 per cent. capital allowances to be set against tax, and a much simplified planning regime.
Today, those sites are no longer vacant. At the end of 1986—the latest date for which we have information—the Department's annual monitoring report, published last December, revealed 87 business establishments—a 135 per cent. increase since designation—occupying 106,000 sq m of floor space—a 158 per cent. increase—and offering 2,400 jobs, a staggering 224 per cent. increase.
All that has not happened without considerable effort. Hon. Members representing that area have been fully involved. My hon. Friend the Member for Pendle played a major role in ensuring the establishment of the enterprise zone. The fruits of his hard work are well known. As we all know, he is an assiduous Member, dedicated to the regeneration of north-east Lancashire and to the interests of his constituents.
The hon. Member for Burnley has brought me to the Dispatch Box before. While I may not always live up to the aspirations that he has for his constituents, it will not be for want of recognising his commitment. In passing, I congratulate Burnley on reaching Wembley this evening.
The substantial contribution of my hon. Friend for Rossendale and Darwen also cannot go unmentioned. His ministerial position, similar to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle, constrains him from addressing the House this evening. However, there are few hon. Members of whom it could be equally appropriately said that his actions on behalf of his constituents speak louder than words. He deserves the congratulations of this House for his commitment to economic growth and progress in north-east Lancashire.
In addition to those hon. Members and my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn, the local business community and the local authorities have also been united in their active support for the zone. The local authorities—both as planning authorities and sometimes as landowners—have been positive in their promotion and management of the zone. The success of the zone—in terms of new private investment, new work space to diversify what is locally available, new jobs of which many have been taken by local people—is largely to their credit.
However, such success means that the zone will soon be fully developed. And, as my hon. Friend has said, notwithstanding the growth within the zone and the impact that it has made on the area, it has not, and indeed never could, in itself overcome entirely north-east Lancashire's economic problems. Therefore, it was natural that the question of an extension to the zone should be raised. The success of so many of the enterprise zones has led other localities to exactly the same point of wanting to
812
extend existing zones or establish new ones. At the end of 1987, some 26 such applications were to hand for England alone.
As I explained at the start, enterprise zones were established as an experiment in deregulation. In 1986, we decided that it was timely to review their progress and decide whether, and on what terms, to continue the experiment. To assist us in that task, we commissioned an evaluation by consultants of the performance, having regard both to costs and effectiveness, of the existing zones. Their work explored fully such questions as whether investment, construction and employment on the zones was additional to what might have happened in the locality in the absence of the zone, what effects—both positive and negative—the zones were having on their surrounding areas, and what level of public cost was attached to the new jobs. With the benefit of their analysis, we reviewed the zone experiment and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made a statement of policy to this House on 17 December last. We published the report by the consultants.
The essence of my right hon. Friend's statement was that there would be no general extension of the enterprise zone experiment. The zones had been successful in varying degrees in regenerating areas which had hitherto been in steady decline. However, those achievements must be set against the cost to the public purse, which totalled just under £300 million up to the end of 1986. There was now a variety of measures to stimulate development in areas adversely affected by changes in the local economy, which will often be more cost effective than an enterprise zone. Nevertheless, there will still be exceptional circumstances that could justify a new enterprise zone or the extension of an existing zone, including the nature and severity of the local economic problem, the likely cost-effectiveness of an enterprise zone in contributing to its solution, in particular in comparison with other measures available, and the capacity of the authorities and agencies concerned to ensure a zone's success.
Against those new, severer tests, we examined all the outstanding bids for new zones and extensions and found them wanting. All were therefore rejected at the time of the policy statement. There were also the tests applied to the proposal from north-east Lancashire which was submitted in February, subsequent to the new policy statement. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State concluded that that proposal should likewise be rejected.
Given the experience of the first five years of the existing zone, there could be no doubt about the capacity and competence of the zone authorities to make the zone a success. The evidence on that was quite clear. The decision turned more on the nature and severity of the economic problems of north-east Lancashire and the comparative cost-effectiveness of an enterprise zone extension in tackling them.
We must agree that the problems of north-east Lancashire are not as bad as those prevailing in many other areas which have faced industrial restructuring over the last decade. The economic circumstances of north-east Lancashire are just not exceptional enough to justify—in the terms of our stated policy—being answered by a further enterprise zone.
In assessing cost-effectiveness, we must consider both sides of the equation. The success and effectiveness of the existing north-east Lancashire zone is evident in what has been said tonight. However, although the zone may be

813
nearly full, the total cost of the measures will continue to grow. For example, the cost of the rates exemption for the zone was £400,000 in 1985–86, the figure that was taken into account by the consultants; in 1986–87, it had risen to £700,000 and last year exceeded £900,000. These payments have nearly five more years to run.
There is other assistance on offer to north-east Lancashire that is making a steady, and more cost-effective, contribution to economic recovery—measures which, I think, are too lightly dismissed by the north-east Lancashire enterprise zone authorities in their submission to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for an extension to the enterprise zone.
In 1986, Burnley became an urban authority invited to submit inner area programmes to my Department. The council had an allocation of £1 million for urban programme projects in 1987–88. That has been substantially increased this year to £1·8 million—an 80 per cent. increase and the largest in the country. Those resources enable the council to carry out a range of economic, environmental, social and housing projects to tackle its inner-city area problems.
Moreover, Burnley, as one of the 57 target areas, will have a chance to benefit from many of the dozen new initiatives announced in the "Action for Cities" paper launched by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 7 March. There is extensive spending on training, enterprise and o employment schemes by the Department of Employment and the Manpower Services Commission, and local firms will be eligible for higher rates of grant under the Department of Trade and Industry's new enterprise initiative. Private developers in Burnley can apply to my Department for the new city grant which comes into operation on 2 May. The city grant will provide support to private sector capital projects for industrial, commercial and housing schemes which benefit rundown areas and which cannot proceed without grant aid.
The Department of Trade and Industry's new enterprise initiative, launched in January, brought together new and existing measures of support. Industry and commerce throughout north-east Lancashire may benefit from the marketing, design, quality, manufacturing, business planning and financial information systems initiatives. They provide a comprehensive range of consulting assistance in the key management functions.
Regional selective assistance is available to assist with the costs of investment projects undertaken by firms in the assisted areas, which include the Accrington and Rossendale travel-to-work areas.
The British Overseas Trade Board provides a wide range of help and guidance to assist firms and businesses with their exporting and overseas market activities.
The business education initiative seeks to promote clearer working links between industry and education at all levels—from schools to colleges, and universities. For example, the north-west's Regional Technology Centre, hosted by NIMTECH at St. Helens, will facilitate the exchange of technical expertise between industrial and academic centres of expertise within the region.
814
The research and technology initiative provides financial assistance, guidance and expertise to assist the development of new technologies, new processes and new services.
Simplified planning zones—SPZs—are another new Government initiative designed to quicken the pace of development in areas where it is most needed. They are modelled on the planning arrangements which have been successful in enterprise zones and offer the same scope for stimulating investment and regeneration by simple and positive planning. Those zones are particularly well-suited to the older urban areas where they can be used to bring rundown industrial land back into productive use. I hope that the local planning authorities in north-east Lancashire will be designating some SPZs.
The EEC also addresses the problems of this area. All four enterprise zone authorities are eligible to receive non-quota European regional development fund assistance. This aims to develop new economic activities in areas adversely affected by the restructuring of the textile and clothing industries.
Projects estimated to cost some £2·25 million are being considered for grant aid. A decision is expected in early June. In addition, Hyndburn and Rossendale are also eligible for ERDF quota assistance. Grant is generally 50 per cent. of the eligible costs of schemes which provide basic services or communications for existing and future industry and commerce. Again I would urge the authorities to take full advantage of these facilities.
The hon. Member and my hon. Friends will know that much has already been achieved in north-east Lancashire through the derelict land grant rolling programme in which Lancashire county council, Hyndburn borough council, and Rossendale borough council jointly participate. This programme has enabled the local authorities not only to restore derelict land to beneficial use, but to foster commercial and industrial development. A further £1 million of grant is promised for the area in 1988–89 on top of the £3 million spent in 1986–87 and 1987–88. In addition, a new DLG rolling programme covering the whole of the Leeds-Liverpool canal corridor has just been announced with a project spend of £750,000 in its first year.
All these measures and the substantial resources being provided by the Government present clear opportunities for both the public and private sectors to grasp to bring about growth and prosperity in this part of Lancashire.
There is a fundamental point here. Enterprise zones were, as I have reminded hon. Members, always intended as an experiment. Their benefits are also time limited to 10 years from designation. The hope was that a zone, if successful, would provide a stimulus to the local economy, not a continuing prop. There are now signs, in north-east Lancashire and elsewhere, of this effect. We must build on and exploit what the enterprise zone has done for the local economy to sustain its recovery.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at thirteen minutes past Twelve o'clock.

SOCIAL SERVICES

  Health Authorities (Armed Forces Casualties)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will place in the Library a copy of his Department's guidance to health authorities on reception arrangements for armed forces casualties who will be returned to the United Kingdom for treatment in the event of future war in Europe.

  Mrs. Currie
  No.

  Mentally Handicapped People
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services, pursuant to his answers to the hon. Member for Monklands, West of 15 March,Official Report, columns 553–54, what steps he has taken to encourage local authorities to collect data on (a) the discharge and subsequent care of people from long-stay mental illness and mental handicap institutions, (b) the number of carers in their area, (c) the provision of home help support, district nursing services, social work support, or other services to carers and (d) the number of households with a mentally handicapped member, and the numbers receiving sitting services, respite care or holiday relief schemes.

  Mrs. Currie
  Local authorities are responsible for deciding what information they require for management of services provided for mentally ill and mentally handicapped people in their areas. The need for central collection of information from local authorities is reviewed periodically, for example a new return on residential accommodation was introduced in 1987.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will publish the number of registered(a) mentally ill and (b) mentally handicapped patients in the Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale health authority area for each year from 1979 to 1987.

  Mrs. Currie
  The numbers of in-patients resident at 31 December in National Health Service mental illness and mental handicap hospitals and units managed by this district health authority are given in the table. The people concerned are not registered and may not have been resident in the area of the health authority before their admission as patients. I regret that the figures for 1987 are not yet available.

  Number of in-patients resident in mental health hospitals and units in Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale heath authority at 31 December

  Year

  Mental-illness

  Mental-handicap

  1979

  177

  1,206

  1980

  171

  1,161

  1981

  165

  1,126

  1982

  194

  1,090

  374

  Year

  Mental-illness

  Mental-handicap

  1983

  223

  1,054

  1984

  214

  1,009

  1985

  203

  940

  1986

  214

  871

  Abortions
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services, what information he has as to the medical circumstances which created the need for abortions to be performed in emergency to save the life of the mother in those 126 such cases which have arisen since 1967; and if he will indicate the number of times each of those conditions has been a relevant factor.

  Mr. Newton
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Notifications of abortions performed in emergency in order to save the life of the pregnant woman, carried out under the Abortion Act 1967, by medical condition stated. England and Wales, April 1968-September 1987 (provisional)

  Condition

  Number

  Placenta praevia and other antepartum haemorrhage

  9

  Eclampsia

  16

  Pre-eclampsia

  30

  Other hypertension

  6

  Hyperemesis gravidarum

  6

  Ectopic pregnancy

  4

  Other obstetric causes

  8

  Infectious diseases

  4

  Neoplasms

  11

  Mental disorders

  6

  Circulatory disorders

  11

  Other conditions

  15

  Total

  126

  World Health Organisation
  Mr. Rathbone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services, what contribution the United Kingdom has made in each of the last five years to World Health Organisation efforts to assess the efficiency of different methods of treatment for drug misusers.

  Mrs. Currie
  Assessment of the efficiency of different methods of treatment for drug misusers is part of the World Health Organisation programme on prevention and control of alcohol and drug abuse. This is one of the programmes paid for from the organisation's regular budget, of which the United Kingdom's assessed contribution represents 4·77 per cent. of the whole. Within the programme, officials of the United Kingdom Health Departments have contributed to publications and taken part in expert working groups.

  NHS (Ancillary Staff)
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State For Social Services if he will list the latest figures available For the number of ancillary staff employed in the National Health Service, by job title, under the terms and conditions of the Ancillary Staffs Whitley council agreements.

  Mr. Newton
  Provisional figures show that 115,000 whole-time equivalent ancillary staff were employed in the NHS in England at 30 September 1987. Since the
  375
  introduction of a revised grading structure in 1986, the agreements of the Ancillary Staffs Whitley council no longer provide for job titles.

  NHS Review
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) if there is a deadline for the submission of evidence for the National Health Service review; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if the findings of the National Health Service review will be published.

  Mr. Moore
  I should welcome early submission of evidence for the NHS review, although there is no formal deadline. The outcome of the review will be announced to the House, but no decision has yet been taken on the nature of supporting documentation.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many individuals are paid industrial disablement pension; and how many will have this disregarded for the purpose of calculating housing benefit(a) in Nottingham, North (b) in Nottingham and (c) in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Scott
  Industrial disablement pension was in payment to about 184,000 people in the United Kingdom in April 1987, the latest date for which information is available. From April 1988, industrial disablement pension is not disregarded for the purpose of calculating housing benefit. Prior to April 1988 a statutory disregard of £4 applied. I regret that the other information requested is not available.

  Firemen
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will take steps to enable unemployed retained firemen to receive both social security benefits and moneys from incidental and drill fees; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  Payments received by retained firemen in respect of any duties performed by them have no effect on their entitlement to unemployment benefit. Payments they receive in respect of drills, retainers, turn-out and stand-by are treated as earnings for income support purposes but are automatically subject to the higher (£15) disregard. The long-service gratuity is treated as capital. There are no plans to change these provisions.

  Single Payments
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list the number and cost of single payments made by his Department's Corby office in each year since 1983.

  Mr. Portillo
  In the year April 1983 to April 1984, 4,601 single payments were made by the Department's Corby office. The total monetary value was £214,403. The information requested for the years April 1984 to April 1987, which is the latest complete data available, has been placed in the Library.

  Supplementary Benefit
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many persons were receiving supplementary benefit from the Corby local office on 1 April 1983, 1 April 1984, 1 April 1985, 1 April 1986, 1 April 1987 and 1 April 1988.

  Mr. Portillo
  This information is not available in the precise form requested.

  The number of persons receiving supplementary benefit from the Corby local office in May of each year requested is:

  Persons

  10 May 1983

  6,218

  8 May 1984

  6,493

  7 May 1985

  6,487

  6 May 1986

  6,395

  5 May 1987

  5,773

  Figures for 1988 are not available.

  Source: 100 per cent. count of cases in action.

  Cancer Screening
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will indicate the budget provision per health authority on a per capita basis for cervical and breast cancer screening.

  Mrs. Currie
  Health authorities do not have separate budget allocations for cervical cancer screening. It has been estimated that the average cost of taking and examining a cervical smear is about £10. The allocation given to each regional health authority for the continuing revenue cost of the new breast cancer screening services is based on the financial estimates in the Forrest report and is about £14 per woman screened by mammography including, where necessary, the cost of assessment and diagnosis. Between 1987–88 and 1989–90, on current plans, nearly £55 million will have been provided to set up and run the breast cancer screening service in England.

  Family Practitioner Committees
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) what representations he has received regarding manning levels for family practitioner committees; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what the staffing levels of family practitioner committees (a) were in 1983, (b) are now and (c) are forecast to be in 1991.

  Mr. Newton
  Representations have been received from time to time about resources made available to family practitioner committees for administrative expenditure, about three-quarters of which represents staff salaries. The allocations made for the current year, however, include an overall increase of about 5·5 per cent. in real terms.

  The number of staff employed by family practitioner committees fell from 4,670 (whole-time equivalent) to 4,600 between 30 September 1983 and 30 September 1986, the latest date for which figures are available. This reduction includes some staff savings achieved as part of the programme of computerisation of patient registration data which was completed on 31 March 1988; further reductions on this account will be reflected in the figures for 1987 and 1988, when these become available.
  377
  No forecasts have been made of future manning levels, but the White Paper on "Promoting Better Health" (Cm. 249), which was published last November, envisages an increased role for FPCs.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether his Department has now received from all family practitioner committees their most recent annual programme and action plan; and what action he proposes to take.

  Mr. Newton
  All but one family practitioner committee in England have submitted their current annual programmes during the last six months. Each programme is discussed with the FPC with a view to establishing an agreed action plan for which the committee will be held accountable.

  Griffiths Report
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services, pursuant to the answer of 12 April, at which date the period for taking account of views on the Griffiths report will close; and how long after that the Government will issue their own response to the report.

  Mr. Newton
  There is no formal closing date for the submission of views on Sir Roy Griffiths' report. We intend to bring forward our own proposals as soon as we have been able to give full consideration to the important issues involved.

  Hospital Statistics (Nottingham)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services when he anticipates bed availability and occupancy figures for Nottingham district health authority for 1987–88 will become available centrally.

  Mrs. Currie
  We expect to have this information available centrally by the end of August.

  Drugs (Adverse Reactions)
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services, pursuant to the reply to the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South,Official Report, 29 March, column 445, what is his policy regarding the providing of information to interested Members when investigations into an alleged failure by a pharmaceutical company to report adverse reactions show that there has been a breach of the statutory procedures.

  Mr. Newton
  Evidence of cases of apparent failure to report adverse reactions is very rare. Whether or not the public interest would best be served by making the results of investigations into such matters public has to be considered on a case by case basis.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services, pursuant to the reply to the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South,Official Report, 29 March, column 445, on what date each of the investigations began into alleged failures to report adverse reactions by two pharmaceutical companies; and by when each is expected to be concluded.

  Mr. Newton
  I refer the right hon. Member to my reply to him on 26 February 1988, at column 364. These investigations are complex and I am unable to estimate when they will be completed.
  378
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services, pursuant to the reply to the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South,Official Report, 29 March, column 445, how investigations are carried out by his Department into alleged failures by pharmaceutical companies to report adverse reactions; how many of his officials are normally involved; if the original data of the company is inspected; and who decides whether or not the allegations are substantiated, on the appropriate penalty and on the publicity that should be given to the findings.

  Mr. Newton
  I refer the right hon. Member to my replies to him on 27 November 1987, at columns 354–55 and on 18 December 1987, at column 931. The number and type of officials involved depends on the needs of the case. The company may be asked to submit original data to the Department. The answer to the other questions would depend on the circumstances of the case and are not the subject of any specific departmental rules or guidance.

  Personal Savings
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) what estimate he has of the number of people who have savings of(a) £3,000 or more and (b) £6,000 or more for each parliamentary constituency;

  (2) what estimate he has of the number of people who have savings of (a) £3,000 or over and (b) £6,000 or over for each DHSS office;

  (3) what estimate he has of the number of people of pensionable age who have savings of (a) £3,000 or more and (b) £6,000 or more living in each of Scotland, England and Wales;

  (4) what estimate he has of the number of people who have savings of (a) £3,000 or more and (b) £6,000 or more living in each of Scotland, England and Wales.

  Mr. Portillo
  I regret that this information is not available.

  Income Support
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many people would benefit if the capital limits on social security benefits were rasied to £10,000.

  Mr. Portillo
  The only social security benefits affected by the amount of capital a person has are income support, housing benefit and family credit. The numbers (in thousands) of people who would become entitled to those benefits if the capital cut-off limit were raised to £10,000 are:

  Persons (thousands)

  Income Support

  6·0

  Family Credit :

  4·1

  Housing Benefit :

  152·0

  Mr. Higgins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is his policy with regard to supplementary benefit recipients being asked for photostat copies of bank and savings accounts before the new income support grant is granted, with particular reference to those cases where such information is already on record; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  During the exercise to convert supplementary benefit payments to income support it was necessary
  379
  to ensure that up-to-date information was available on all aspects of a claim. Staff are instructed to ask to see statements, bank books, and so on, but not photocopies of original documents.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will review the contents of those parts of the claim forms for income support and family credit which require claimants to declare capital of more than £2,500 rather than £3,000 and which require the divulging of personal information.

  Mr. Portillo
  Income support and family credit claimants are asked to provide details when savings are more than £2,500. This is below the £3,000 capital limit in case some assets have to be valued at more than their nominal face value (for example shares or national savings certificates).

  Mrs. Jane Tipping
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services when he will answer the letter from the hon. Member for Birkenhead written to him on 22 February regarding the case of Mrs. Jane Tipping.

  Mr. Portillo
  I wrote to the hon. Member yesterday.

  Medical Equipment
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will place in the Library the report on the maintenance of medical equipment compiled by Mr. David Fernandez.

  Mr. Newton
  [holding answer 16 November 1987]: The report has now been placed in the Library.

  Leeds Western Health Authority (Chairman)
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will be taking steps to consult local organisations before making an appointment to the vacant chairmanship of Leeds western health authority; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  [holding answer 18 April 1988]: We are not required to consult anyone in appointing health authority chairmen. However, we take full account of any nominations we may receive from local or other sources.

  Census (Languages)
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services when he hopes to be able to announce the format of 1991 census questions on(a) Scots Gaelic speakers in Scotland, (b) Irish Gaelic speakers in Northern Ireland, (c) Welsh speakers in Wales, (d) speakers of indigenous languages other than English in England and (e) speakers of non-indigenous languages in the United Kingdom.

  Mrs. Currie
  [holding answer 18 April 1988]: No decisions have yet been taken on the content of the 1991 census. Proposals for Great Britain will be published as a White Paper later this year. It is planned to test the proposed questionnaire in early 1989 and thereafter to lay before Parliament a draft Order in Council prescribing the content of the census. The final format of the 1991 census questions will be included in the census regulations which are expected to be laid before Parliament in 1990.
  380
  The 1991 census for Northern Ireland will be taken under separate legislation. This is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Hampstead and Haringey DHAs
  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) if he will place in the Library all documents regarding the proposed merger of Hampstead and Haringey district health authorities; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what is the financial basis of the proposed merger between the Hampstead and Haringey district health authorities; and what other criteria are involved;

  (3) what discussions he has had regarding the possible merger of Hampstead and Haringey district health authorities; and with whom.

  Mrs. Currie
  [holding answer 18 April 1988]: I understand that North East Thames regional health authority is examining, with the two district health authorities concerned, the possibility of a merger between Hampstead and Haringey health authorities. Consideration of this matter is at an early stage and the hon. Member may wish to write to the chairman of the regional health authority for further information about any proposals which may be made. If, following public consultation, the regional health authority decides to proceed with a proposal for the merger of the two health authorities, such a proposal will need to be approved by Ministers. As part of the approval process we would expect to enter into discussions with a wide range of interested parties prior to any final decision.

  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether the decision to merge the Hampstead and Haringey district health authorities will affect in any way the previous decision to retain the regional cancer screening unit at the North Middlesex hospital; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  [holding answer 18 April 1988]: No decision has been taken to merge the Hampstead and Haringey health authorities. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has also stated that we are not prepared to agree to the closure of the radiotherapy unit at the North Middlesex hospital.

  District Health Authorities (Land Holdings)
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Norfolk, North on 26 November 1987,Official Report, columns 319–21, if he will list in league order, with the highest at the top, by acreage of land held, district health authority areas within the National Health Service in England, showing the valuation in each case (a) before the recent revaluation and (b) at the present valuation as decided by the district valuer.

  Mrs. Currie
  [pursuant to her reply, 18 February 1988, c. 694]: The preliminary aggregation of the 1987 returns from district valuers has now been completed. The open market value of the NHS estate of approximately 44,000 acres was about £6·8 billion at 1987 prices. This figure is subject to revision as the returns are analysed in detail. A breakdown of the respective 1985 and 1987 valuations by district health authority in a league order by site areas has been placed in the Library.

  Nurses
  Sir Peter Hordern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list the number of nurses per thousand population in each of the regional health authorities.

  Mr. Newton
  The number of nursing and midwifery staff per thousand population employed in each regional health authority is given in the table:

  NHS nursing and midwifery staff1 in post per thousand population 1986

  Regional health authority

  Ratio

  Northern

  8·9

  Yorkshire

  8·4

  Trent

  8·0

  East Anglian

  7·8

  North West Thames

  8·2

  North East Thames

  9·1

  South East Thames

  8·4

  South West Thames

  8·2

  Wessex

  8·0

  Oxford

  6·8

  South Western

  8·5

  West Midlands

  8·2

  Mersey

  9·2

  North Western

  9·5

  London postgraduate special health authority

  *

  England2

  8·5

  Source: DHSS annual census of NHS non-medical manpower; Office of Population Censuses and Surveys mid-year estimates.

  1 Includes agency nursing and midwifery staff. Ratios calculated on unrounded figures. Staff in post relate to 30 September 1986; population figures are mid-year estimates for 1986.

  2 Includes staff employed by London postgraduate special health authorities.

  * Ratio calculation not possible— separate population figure does not exist for special health authorities.

ENERGY

  Electricity Industry
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what recent discussions he has had with the trade unions regarding privatisation of the electricity industry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  My right hon. Friend and I met representatives of the Electricity Supply Trades Union Council on 13 April and we will continue to hold regular meetings to discuss matters of common interest.

  Wind Farms
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what role his Department is playing in the study and development of wind farms in both the private and public sector; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  My Department is involved in a collaborative programme with the Central Electricity Generating Board which will include evaluating the public acceptability of wind farms. The programme is expected to cost some £30 million and is expected to involve the establishment of three wind farms in England and Wales and, I hope, at least one in Scotland.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the number of full-time employees in the coal industry for(a) Yorkshire and (b) Don Valley constituency; and what proportion of the number employed eight years ago this represents.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  This is a matter for the British Coal Corporation, and I have asked the chairman to write to the hon. Member.

  Uranium
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if any uranium import contracts or uranium processing contracts have been signed or carried out since 1979 between BNFL plc. or BNFL and NUFCOR of South Africa which have required(a) bilateral, (b) International Atomic Energy Agency and (c) Euratom safeguards provisions.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  [holding answer 25 March 1988]: British Nuclear Fuels plc has a long-standing agreement with the Nuclear Fuels Corporation of South Africa, which was renewed in 1985, to process uranium ore concentrate. All civil uranium imported into the United Kingdom for processing and subsequent re-export is under safeguards.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Mr. Freddie Andrews
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Attorney-General (1) if he will inquire into the handling of the affairs of Freddie Andrews by the Official Solicitor; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will obtain from the Official Solicitor details of all transactions carried out on behalf of Freddie Andrews listing (a) the properties disposed of, (b) the date of sale, (c) the purchaser, (d) the value of property sold and (e) where the sums realised have been deposited; and if he will request the High Court to make available the above information to the Andrews family.

  The Attorney-General
  No. I refer the hon. Member to my earlier replies to him about this case on 25 February 1988, at columns 257–58.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Namibia
  Mr. Grylls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what status the British Government accord to the United Nations Council for Namibia.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We do not recognise the claim of the United Nations Council for Namibia to be the administering authority for the territory. The United Nations General Assembly acted beyond its competence under the charter in establishing such a body.

  Mr. Grylls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he was represented at the United Nations Council for Namibia conference(a) in Instanbul on 21 March and (b) on past occasions; and if he will make a statement.
  383
  Mrs. Chalker
  We have not been represented at conferences of the United Nations Council for Namibia, which we do not recognise.

  News Conference, Jordan
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether Her Majesty's ambassador in Amman has reported to him on the reasons advanced by the Jordanian Government for preventing the broadcast of the recent news conference held by the United States Secretary of State, as reported by Voice of Palestine radio on 10 April; and whether Her Majesty's Government have expressed any concern to the Jordanian Government about this.

  Mr. Mellor
  We have not raised this matter with the Jordanians.

  North Atlantic Assembly (Parliamentary Delegation)
  Mr. Curry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what changes have been made in the composition of the United Kingdom parliamentary delegation to the North Atlantic Assembly.

  Mr. Mellor
  My noble Friend the Lord Colnbrook has replaced the late Earl de la Warr as a member of the delegation.

PRIME MINISTER

  London Docklands Development Corporation
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Prime Minister when she next expects to meet the chairman of the London Docklands Development Corporation, in order to discuss the finances of the corporation.

  The Prime Minister
  I have at present no plans to do so.

  EC (Government's Achievements)
  Mr. Patnick
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list the achievements of Her Majesty's Government since 1979 with regard to the European Community.

  The Prime Minister
  We have concentrated on making European Community policies cost-effective, relevant and equitable. At Fontainebleau in 1984 we agreed that the United Kingdom should pay only its fair share of the EC budget. That agreement has already saved the taxpayer £3 billion. In our presidency in 1986, and at the Brussels European Council this February, we secured major reforms of the common agricultural policy, including a binding ceiling on agricultural spending and automatic cost-cutting regimes for all commodities.

  We have made it the Community's top priority to complete the single European market for goods and services by 1992 so as to give our industry improved access to important markets in Europe and a better base from which to compete in world markets. We have championed measures to help our citizens such as less regulation, cheaper air fares and higher product safety standards.

  We supported the entry of Greece, Spain and Portugal into the Community, thereby underpinning their democracy and strengthening NATO. At British initiative the EC member states have agreed an internationally binding basis for closer co-operation in foreign policy. We
  384
  have supported moves to liberalise the international trading system in the Uruguay round of GATT negotiations, which was launched in 1986 under the United Kingdom presidency.

  By modernising our own economy we have been able to argue from strength for up-to-date policies for the Community as a whole. We have taken Britain from the sidelines to the mainstream of Europe.

  Child Care
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Prime Minister what child care provision is provided by the Cabinet Office for the pre-school aged children of Cabinet Office employees; what child care provision, for school holiday and/or after-school care, is provided for employees' children aged five and over; what plans there are for increasing provision in the next five years; and how these are to be funded.

  The Prime Minister
  At present no child care provision is provided by the Cabinet Office for employees' children. There are no plans to introduce such facilities in the next five years.

  Government Employees
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Prime Minister how many employees of central Government are employed in(a) Wales, (b) Scotland, (c) each of the English regions, (d) Northern Ireland and (e) elsewhere; and what proportion of the total they represent.

  The Prime Minister
  Geographical analyses of all employees of central Government (including the National Health Service, Northern Ireland Government and other bodies) are not available centrally. Information for the Civil Service is as follows:

  Staff in post at 1 April 1987

  Area

  Number (Thousands)

  Percentage

  Wales

  32·4

  5·4

  Scotland

  62·6

  10·5

  South east

  225·7

  37·8

  South west

  68·9

  11·5

  West Midlands

  35·3

  5·9

  North west

  52·9

  8·8

  Northern

  33·6

  5·6

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  34·6

  5·8

  East Midlands

  23·0

  3·8

  East Anglia

  15·2

  2·5

  Northern Ireland

  5·0

  0·8

  Elsewhere

  8·7

  1·5

  All areas

  597·8

  100·0

  Engagements
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 19 April.

  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 19 April.

  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 19 April.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 19 April.

  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 19 April.
  385
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 19 April.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 19 April.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 19 April.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 19 April.

  The Prime Minister
  This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today.

WALES

  Regional Development Grant
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the(a) shortest time, (b) longest time, (c) median time and (d) arithmetic mean time that it took to process straightforward regional development grant applications processed in 1987.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  [holding answer 12 April 1988]: There is no generally accepted definition of a straightforward regional development grant application. Of the total applications dealt with by my Department during 1987, 90 per cent. were processed within four months of receipt. Of these 90 per cent. of cases: (a) the shortest processing time was one day, (b) the longest time was 17 weeks; (c) the median time was eight weeks and (d) the arithmetic mean time was eight weeks. The longer processing time incurred under (b) reflected the need to secure additional supporting information from applicants and to consider policy issues raised by particular applications.

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish in the Official Report the number of regional development grant applications under consideration by his Department on 31 March.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  [holding answer 12 April 1988]: 1,935 regional development grant applications are under consideration following the ending of the scheme. I am delighted that so many firms have come forward with applications following my invitation to apply for regional development grants before they were phased out. This total of applications received between January and March compares with only 520 in the same period last year. I am delighted that the manner in which the Government have phased out the existing RDG grant in order to make way for increased expenditure by the WDA and on regional selective assistance has resulted in this massive injection of investment into the Welsh economy.

  Child Care
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what child care provision his Department provides for preschool age children of the Department's employees; what child care provision, for school holiday and/or after-school care, is provided for employees' children age five and over; what plans there are for increasing provision in the next five years; and how these are to be funded.
  386
  Mr. Peter Walker
  [holding answer 18 April 1988]: None, but a study is under way to examine the interest in and feasibility of a day care facility for children of Welsh Office staff.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Home Ales, Nottingham
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will meet the chairman of Scottish and Newcastle Breweries to discuss the situation of the tenants of Home Ales in Nottingham; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The chairman of Scottish and Newcastle Breweries has not requested a meeting.

  I understand that the brewery is in negotiation with its tenants over the terms of their tenancy contracts. This is a commercial matter on which it would not be appropriate for me to comment.

  Bovine Somatrophin
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the purpose, with particular reference to(a) safety and (b) efficacy of the secret trials currently being undertaken the use of bovine somatrophin in milk production.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  [holding answer 15 April 1988]: The trials which are being conducted by pharmaceutical companies in the United Kingdom and other countries are to provide information on the use of the product under field conditions. Before any such trial involving a medicinal product can take place in the United Kingdom it must be authorised by means of an animal test certificate (ATC) issued under the Medicines Act 1968. Such certificates are issued only when the safety of the product to be used in the trial has been satisfactorily demonstrated.

  Section 118 of the Medicines Act prohibits the disclosure of any information supplied to the licensing authority as part of an application. It is therefore not possible to give details about the trials.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Inner London (Further Education)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will make a statement on the future provision of post-16 education in inner London.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Under the Government's proposals, each inner London council will be responsible for securing the provision of post-16 education in its area. This will be one of the subjects the boroughs will be required to cover in their development plans.

  University Funding
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received from the Universities of Dundee and Aberdeen concerning university funding.

  Mr. Jackson
  While we have received a number of representations, including some from hon. Members,
  387
  about the position of Aberdeen and Dundee, we have had no recent approaches from the universities themselves. The two universities are in continuing discussion with the University Grants Committee about planning for the future.

  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has any plans to meet the University Grants Committee to discuss the funding of Scottish universities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has any plans to meet the University Grants Committee to discuss future funding of Scottish universities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  I refer the hon. Members to the answer I gave on 19 January, at column 675. to the hon. Members for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) and for Kirkaldy (Dr. Moonie).

  Workers Educational Association
  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has any plans to meet the Workers Educational Association to discuss future funding; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has any plans to meet representatives of the Workers Educational Association to discuss future funding; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend has no immediate plans to meet the Workers Educational Association. Officials from the Department are currently discussing the future of the association with its representatives.

  Education Tests (Departmental Correspondence)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received from persons or organisations who have submitted information in confidence to his Department about the implications for the preservation of its confidentiality of the recent unauthorised disclosure of a letter from Mr. Paul Gray in the Prime Minister's Office to Mr. Tom Jeffrey in his Office, concerning education tests; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  None.

  Teachers
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will make a statement about proposed future machinery for the determination of pay and conditions for teachers.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The Government are considering responses to the Green Paper "Teachers' Pay and Conditions: A Consultative Document".

  Mr. Flannery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has any plans to meet the teachers unions to discuss future arrangements for the determination of payment conditions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The Green Paper "Teachers' Pay and Conditions: A Consultative Document" set out the Government's proposals for future arrangements for 388
  determining school teachers' pay and conditions. Several organisations have asked to see my right hon. Friend about future machinery and such meetings will take place in the next few months.

  Solvent Abuse
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will issue a circular to local authorities about the control of solvent abuse by pupils in secondary schools; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Bob Dunn
  The Department issued a safety bulletin to all local education authorities in 1984, providing advice about solvent misuse. Guidance specifically on health education concerning solvent misuse was also provided in Her Majesty's inspectorate document "Health Education from 5 to 16", issued to all schools in 1986. My right hon. Friend has no plans to issue further advice.

  Home Tutors
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the pay and conditions of home tutors.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  I understand the concern of my hon. Friend about the pay and conditions of home tutors in Cheshire. The Department is in touch with the local education authority about the position.

  School Closures
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many applications for school closures are currently being considered by his Department; and what is the average length of time they have been awaiting decisions.

  Mr. Dunn
  My right hon. Friend is currently considering 84 proposals to cease to maintain schools. The average length of time since the date of publication of these proposals is 5·4 months; this includes the period of two months allowed for the receipt of objections and the further month for the local education authority to comment on these.

  Educational Maintenance Allowances
  Mr. Stott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has any plans to meet the Association of County Councils to discuss future provision of educational maintenance allowances for 16 and 17-year-olds.

  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has any plans to meet with the Association of Metropolitan Authorities to discuss future provisions of education maintenance allowances for 16 and 17-year-olds.

  Mr. Dunn
  No.

  Nursery Nurses
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has held any recent discussions with the Nursery Nurses Examination Board about career structure for nursery nurses; and if he will make a statement.
  389
  Mr. Dunn
  No. My right hon. Friend has no powers governing the career structure of nursery nurses. The career development of nursery nurses working in the public sector is the responsibility of their local government employers, but less than one third of those qualifying annually are initially employed in this way.

  Further and Higher Education
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement concerning the future organisation and funding of higher and further education in inner London.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Government's intention is that from April 1989 the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council (PCFC) will have power to fund most non-university higher education in inner London, and that from April 1990 the responsibility for the provision of further education in inner London, and such non-university higher education as is not funded by the PCFC, will transfer from the Inner London education authority to the inner London councils.

  Student Finance
  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a further statement on the progress of his review on student finance.

  Mr. Jackson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr).

  GCSE
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Eduation and Science what representations he has received on Her Majesty's inspectorate's report on the introduction of the general certificate of secondary education; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer which my right hon. Friend gave earlier to the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam).

  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received on the effectiveness of funding to prepare pupils for the new general certificate of secondary education examinations.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend has received various representations from teachers, school governors and others about funding for the GCSE. These, and the recently published HMI interim report on the GCSE, indicate that concern about the availability of resources in schools for the new examinations has generally diminished. The Government have allowed for expenditure of over £100 million in each of the years 1987–88 and 1988–89 for the introduction of the GCSE, including specific grant for books and equipment and for the in-service training of teachers. It is for local education authorities and schools to ensure that the funds are spent where they are most needed.

  16-year-olds
  Mr. Jack Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has any plans to increase the staying-on rate at the age of 16; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Allen McKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has any plans to increase the staying-on rate at the age of 16 years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dunn
  As stated in the 1988 public expenditure White Paper, the Government wish to encourage greater participation in post-16 education and training. My right hon. Friend aims to raise the level of attainment of young people and to encourage a more positive attitude to continuing education and training. He considers that the examination reforms and new forms of provision already introduced, together with the curriculum and other school reforms proposed in the Education Reform Bill, will help to achieve this objective.

  Education Reform
  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what further consideration he has given to the advice and information which he will provide to the parents and governors of schools who are considering opting for grant maintained status.

  Mr. Dunn
  Once the Education Reform Bill has been enacted, my right hon. Friend intends to publish guidance for all interested parties on the proposals for grant-maintained schools. This will include information for parents and governors contemplating grant-maintained status for their school.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what consultations he has had with representatives of ethnic minority groups about the Education Reform Bill; and, in particular, the provisions to abolish the Inner London education authority.

  Mr. Dunn
  Copies of all the consultation documents on the proposed provisions of the Education Reform Bill were sent to a wide range of organisations known to have an interest in education, and further copies were freely available from the Department of Education and Science. Comments were received from a substantial number of organisations representing ethnic minority groups, in response to the various documents, and copies of these responses have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects to publish in full the latest version of his proposed national curriculum; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) earlier today.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has received any representations concerning the admissions procedure to grant maintained schools which may be established after the enactment of the Education Reform Bill.

  Mr. Dunn
  A significant number of the representations which my right hon. Friend received in response to the
  391
  consultation document on grant-maintained schools showed an interest in the admissions arrangements which such schools would adopt.

  National Association of Head Teachers
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has to meet the leadership of the National Association of Head Teachers; and what matters he intends to discuss with it.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend has accepted an invitation to address the annual conference of the National Association of Head Teachers on 3 June.

  LINK Programme
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will seek additional funding for the expansion of the LINK programme in 1989–90.

  Mr. Jackson
  Funding in 1989–90 for LINK programmes and for the science base generally will be subject to review in this year's public expenditure survey.

  Social Sciences
  Dr. Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what recent examination he has made of the adequacy of funding of social sciences in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Jackson
  The social sciences are mostly funded through the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) and the recurrent grant distributed to the universities by the University Grants Committee. The Advisory Board for the Research Councils each year considers the research proposals and funding needs of the ESRC as part of the preparation of advice on the allocation of the science budget. In allocating funds to universities the UGC takes into account planned student numbers in the social sciences, as in other subjects. The committee is currently reviewing national provision for sociology and social policy as part of its programme of subject reviews. Given these arrangements, my right hon. Friend has not thought it necessary to make any additional examination of the funding of the social sciences.

  Advisory Council on Science and Technology
  Dr. Bray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he last attended a meeting of the Advisory Council on Science and Technology.

  Mr. Jackson
  My right hon. Friend had an informal meeting with members of the council on 7 December 1987.

  Nursery Education
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on his policy for nursery and pre-five school education, in the light of the report by Professor Peter Mortimore, "School Matters", a copy of which has been sent to him.

  Mr. Dunn
  My right hon. Friend has so far seen only press accounts of this report, which indicate that it did not include any study of under-fives education. But my hon. Friend no doubt has in mind the broad conclusion reflected in its title. The Government accept that children 392
  can benefit from pre-school experience but believe they are being realistic in their policy of maintaining both the current discretionary arrangements and level funding of this sector in real terms.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has any plans to increase the level of nursery education; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dunn
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) on 19 January at column 805.

  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received urging him to take steps to ensure that the provision of nursery education in inner London is maintained following abolition of the Inner London education authority.

  Mr. Dunn
  My right hon. Friend has received about 60 representations on this matter.

  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) what is the average cost per pupil of local authority nursery education in(a) East Anglia, (b) Suffolk and (c) England and Wales;

  (2) what is the proportion of local authority education budgets spent on nursery education in (a) East Anglia, (b) Suffolk and (c) England and Wales.

  Mr. Dunn
  Local education authorities do not provide separate figures for expenditure on nursery classes in primary schools. The following table shows the net institutional recurrent expenditure per pupil in nursery schools for 1986–87 and the proportion of the authorities' net recurrent expenditure on education that was spent on nursery schools.

  Expenditure per nursery school pupil £ cash

  Proportion of total expenditure Per cent.

  East Anglia1

  1,340

  0·2

  Suffolk

  1,165

  0·1

  England

  1,500

  0·4

  1 Cambridgeshire, Norfolk and Suffolk.

  Information relating to Wales is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Mr. Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) what is the proportion of children in the three to five year age group receiving private nursery education in(a) East Anglia, (b) Suffolk, (c) Waveney and (d) England and Wales;

  (2) what is the number of children attending private nursery schools in (a) East Anglia, (b) Suffolk, (c) Waveney and (d) England and Wales.

  Mr. Dunn
  This information is not collected centrally. Figures for Wales are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the proportion of children in the three to five year age group receiving local authority nursery education in(a) East Anglia, (b) Suffolk, (c) Waveney and (d) England and Wales.

  Mr. Dunn
  Information for areas within local education authorities is not available centrally. In January 1987 the
  393
  number of children aged under five as a proportion of the estimated three and four population receiving local authority nursery education in East Anglia, Suffolk and England was 10, 14 and 23 per cent., respectively.

  Figures for Wales are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science, what is the number of children in local authority nursery schools in(a) East Anglia, (b) Suffolk, (c) Waveney and (d) England and Wales.

  Mr. Dunn
  Information for areas within local education authorities is not available centrally. In January 1987 the number of children under five attending maintained nursery schools in East Anglia, Suffolk and England was 1,199, 162 and 49,502, respectively.

  Figures for Wales are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Teacher-Administrator Ratios
  Mr. Holt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list the five education authorities with the highest teacher-administrator ratio and the five with the lowest teacher-administrator ratio.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The figures show the ratio of qualified school teachers to school administrative and clerical staff. They are based on estimates published by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA) in its "Education Statistics: 1987–88 Estimates".

  Local Authority

  Five highest teacher/ administrator ratios

  Dyfed

  46:1

  Powys

  35:1

  Kirklees

  26:1

  South Tyneside

  25:1

  Cumbria

  25:1

  Kingston

  12:1

  Rochdale

  12:1

  Barking

  10:1

  Leeds

  10:1

  Surrey

  10:1

  Electromagnetic Fields
  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what research he is supporting into the effects of electromagnetic fields on health in general, and on the incidence of leukaemia in particular.

  Mr. Jackson
  I understand that the Medical Research Council is not at present supporting work specifically to investigate the effects on health of electromagnetic fields. The council is, however, supporting several studies on the clustering of cancer cases, including leukaemia, and their possible causes. These studies may establish whether there is any association between the presence of electromagnetic fields and the incidence of cancer.

  Research Grants
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information he seeks from research councils on the subsequent careers of recipients of their grants.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Department and the Advisory Board for the Research Councils ask the research councils to supply such information as they collect for their own 394
  purposes about the first employment destinations of holders of post-graduate student awards. The Department will be discussing with the award-making bodies how the data might be improved and, in particular, how they might be collated on a consistent basis.

  School Building
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is his policy with regard to privatising the building of new schools.

  Mr. Dunn
  I have written to my hon. Friend on this matter.

  Small Rural Schools
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what further steps he proposes to take to encourage small rural schools.

  Mr. Dunn
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mrs. Rumbold) gave him on 16 February at column 819.

  Scientific Equipment
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will undertake a comparative survey of the scientific equipment available in academic and academically related research in the United Kingdom and other industrial countries.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Advisory Board for the Research Councils (ABRC) has commissioned a study of scientific equipment in United Kingdom higher education institutions. The board expects to advise my right hon. Friend about the outcome of the study, around the end of the year, taking into account such results as are available of similar studies in other countries.

  Child Health and Early Education
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he as any plans to implement the findings of the Child Health and Education Study which reported in 1987 on "The Effects of Early Education"; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dunn
  My right hon. Friend has taken note of t he findings of this report, which was commissioned by my Department and has been published. The broad conclusion of the report is that children can benefit from pre-school experience of a variety of forms. The Government have always accepted this and believe that their current policy of maintaining the discretionary basis of provision is therefore right.

  Truancy
  Mr. Heddle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received about his Department's plans to reduce the level of truancy in schools.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The responsibility for taking action on truancy rests with local education authorities and with schools and parents. In the course of preparing circular 2/86, "School Attendance and the Education Welfare Services", and following its publication, the Department
  395
  received information and representations from interested parties. The Department is considering issuing a further circular relating to school attendance, which would be subject to a similar process of consultation.

  Secondary Schools, Northamptonshire
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list all secondary schools in Northamptonshire, stating how many pupils are currently in each school and how many empty places exist in each school.

  Mr. Dunn
  Information on school places is not available centrally. In January 1987 the maintained secondary schools in Northamptonshire and the number of pupils on roll in each school were as follows :

  Maintained secondary schools in Northamptonshire January 1987

  Name of school

  Number on roll

  Towcester Sponne school

  1,051

  Weavers school, Wellingborough

  1,210

  Rothwell Montsaye school

  1,203

  Irthlingborough Huxlow school

  630

  Henry Gotch school

  621

  Moulton school, Moulton, Northampton

  1,050

  Manor school, Raunds

  740

  Chichele school, Rushden

  777

  Rushden boys school

  638

  Wellingborough John Lea school

  727

  Roade comprehensive school

  1,047

  Daventry school

  805

  Wollaston school

  1,024

  Kingsbrook school

  685

  Guilsborough county school

  1,129

  Beanfield comprehensive school

  621

  Kettering boys school

  696

  Southfield school for girls, Kettering

  713

  Corby Lodge Park school

  943

  Kingswood comprehensive, Corby

  947

  Bugbrooke Campion school

  1,262

  Prince William school upper

  856

  Southbrook comprehensive school, Daventry

  884

  Latimer school

  839

  Northampton Trinity school

  789

  Duston upper school

  971

  Weston Favell upper school

  1,172

  Northampton Mereway upper school

  497

  Lings upper school

  866

  Kingsthorpe upper school

  1,070

  Northampton school for girls

  831

  Northampton school for boys

  636

  Wellingborough Wrenn school

  949

  Grange comprehensive school

  892

  Chenderit school, Middleton Cheney

  909

  Montagu school, Kettering

  748

  Net institutional recurrent expenditure per pupil (£; cash prices) maintained primary and secondary schools

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  South Yorkshire Met. County

  Barnsley

  818

  894

  959

  1,016

  1,122

  Doncaster

  818

  890

  946

  1,005

  1,145

  Rotherham

  749

  813

  875

  933

  1,054

  Sheffield

  898

  992

  1,012

  1,111

  1,255

  North Yorkshire Met. County

  Bradford

  788

  832

  906

  984

  1,107

  Calderdale

  784

  828

  870

  944

  1,091

  Kirklees

  752

  779

  835

  919

  1,057

  Leeds

  759

  837

  875

  946

  1,084

  396

  Name of school

  Number on roll

  The Ferrers school

  749

  Queen Elizabeth school

  888

  Sir Christopher Hatton, Wellingborough

  953

  Magdalen College school, Brackley

  1,068

  Bishop Stopford Church of England school, Kettering

  960

  Our Lady and Pope John XIII Roman Catholic school

  792

  Thomas Becket Roman Catholic upper school

  882

  Schools (Expenditure)
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how much is spent per pupil on education in primary and secondary schools; what are the comparable figures in cash and real terms five and 10 years ago; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dunn
  The information is provided in the following table.

  Net Institutional Recurrent Expenditure1 Per Pupil in England

  1978–79 £

  1983–84 £

  1986–873 £

  Primary Schools

  Cash

  365

  725

  895

  1986–87 Real Terms2

  710

  830

  895

  Secondary Schools

  Cash

  530

  1,015

  1,340

  1986–87 Real Terms2

  1,035

  1,160

  1,340

  1. Net institutional recurrent expenditure covers the cost of salaries and wages, premises and certain supplies and services. It does not include the cost of school meals, central administration and inspection, debt charges or revenue contributions to capital outlay.

  2. The cash prices for the earlier years have been repriced to 1986–87 prices using the gross domestic product (market prices) deflator.

  3. The latest information available on actual expenditure is for the financial year 1986–87.

  Expenditure (Yorkshire)
  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science, what is the expenditure per pupil for each local authority area in Yorkshire for each of the past five years.

  Mr. Dunn
  The available information is given 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.
  397

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  Wakefield

  752

  847

  892

  988

  1,122

  North Yorkshire

  793

  846

  871

  943

  1,040

  Special Educational Needs
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what further representations he has received concerning the implications of the Education Reform Bill for children with special educational needs.

  Mr. Dunn
  Numerous representations on the Bill have been received from organisations and individuals. Of these, a substantial minority dealt with its implications for children with special educational needs.

  Polytechnics and Colleges of Higher Education (Formation Committees)
  Mr. Curry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what progress has been made in the appointment of formation committees for the polytechnics and colleges of higher education.

  Mr. Jackson
  My right hon. Friend has selected the members of over three-quarters of the formation committees and the institutions concerned are today being informed. We hope to complete these appointments shortly.

  Teachers (Pay and Conditions)
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science, when the report of the interim advisory committee on school teachers' pay and conditions will be published.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  The report of the interim advisory committee on school teachers' pay and conditions is being published today. I am also initiating the consultation required by section 3(1) of the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Act 1987 by writing today to the relevant local authority associations, teacher unions and bodies representing the interests of the governors of voluntary schools setting out my proposals. The text of the letter is as follows :Text of letter of 19 April from the Secretary of State for Education and Science to the relevant local authority associations, teacher unions and bodies representing the interests of the governors of voluntary schools.

  TEACHERS' PAY AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT
  1. On 27 October 1987 asked the Interim Advisory Committee on School Teachers' Pay and Conditions to examine and report to me on certain issues. I enclose a copy of the Committee's report which is being published today. The Committee's recommendations are summarised in Chapter 7 of its report. I propose to make an Order giving effect to the recommendations referred to in paragraphs 2 to 6 below. But before I take a decision on what provision I should make, I invite your views. This letter therefore initiates the consultation required by Section 3(1) of the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Act 1987.

  2. I propose to accept the Committee's recommendation that the salaries of all qualified teachers should be raised by a uniform percentage to the figures set out at paragraph 4.4.1 of the Committee's report with effect from 1 April 1988. As a result of accepting the recommendation in paragraph 4.1.16 about the distribution of the £300m, the salaries and allowances for unqualified teachers and the allowance for teachers of the visually impaired and hearing would be increased by the same percentage as for qualified teachers.

  398

  3. I propose to accept the recommendation in paragraph 5.3.6 that the rates of the London area allowances should be increased by 7·5 per cent. with effect from 1July 1987.

  4. I propose to accept the recommended increases in the value of the incentive allowances (paragraphs 4.3.9, 4.3.11 and 4.3.12) to the following annual amounts with effect from 1 April 1988.

  Rate

  Annual Amount £

  A

  800

  B

  1,200

  C

  2,400

  D

  3,200

  E

  4,400

  5. I see advantages in the Committee's recommendation in paragraph 4.3.7 that the programme of introduction of the A allowances should be accelerated. I had been envisaging that there would be a further 12,000 A allowances from September 1988 with additions of a similar number in each of the two subsequent Septembers. In the light of the Committee's recommendations about accelerating the introduction of A allowances I believe that this further expansion of 36,000 A allowances should be spread over two years rather than three, with 18,000 further A allowances from September 1988 and a further 18,000 from September 1989. This will mean some revisions to the limits relating to incentive allowance A in Annex A to Appendix I of the 'School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Document 1987'.

  6. I propose to accept the Committee's recommendation in paragraph 5.4.11 about the social priority allowance.

  7. The Order I propose to make to give effect to all of the above would do so by bringing into effect a new School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Document. The Committee's remaining recommendations do not require other changes to this year's revision of the Document : I do not therefore propose to change the Document in response to these recommendations. Nor is it intended to revise the RSG settlements for 1988–89 on account of the proposals set out in paragraph 2 to 6 above.

  8. Any comments on the proposals set out above and on any other matters raised in the report are invited by 10 May. If you would like to express your views in a meeting would you let my office know of this as soon as possible so that any meetings with myself or officials can take place by 13 May at the latest.

  9. Following these consultations a revised version of the Teachers' Pay and Conditions Document will be prepared. There will then be opportunity to comment on the precise wording of the amendments to the Document prior to the publication of the new Document and the laying before Parliament of an Order which will give effect to the provisions in the revised Document.

  10. The Interim Advisory Committee say that they hope it will be possible for a copy of the report to be seen by teachers in every maintained school. Enough copies of the report are being sent to each local education authority for a copy to be circulated to each school.

SCOTLAND

  Recidivism
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the recidivism rate for(a) young offenders, (b) short-term offenders, and (c) long-term offenders, in Scottish prisons.
  399
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I regret that this information is not available.

  Under-Sixes (Education)
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) when he intends to publish the report reviewing the provision of under-sixes education in Scotland;

  (2) what expenditure was incurred in compiling the Scottish Education Department report reviewing the provision of under-sixes education.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply of 16 March 1988 given to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood).

  Student Loan Scheme
  Mr. Galloway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has had from the British Medical Association-Associate Members group on the subject of a student loan scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  We have received a number of representations from two of the British Medical Association associate members' representatives, including one submitted by the hon. Member, together with a relatively small number of representations from individual medical students, both direct and from hon. Members. All representations received individual replies.

  No conclusions have yet been reached on the future pattern of student support. We hope to publish Government proposals in the summer, when the student support review group has completed its work.

  Highlands and Islands Development Board
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total subsidy expressed per head of population of the islands for the last five years paid to the Highlands and Islands Development Board.

  Mr. Lang
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  Water Rates
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the water rate applicable for 1987–88 and 1988–89 for each regional and islands authority in Scotland.

  Mr. Lang
  The information requested is set out in the table below.

  Domestic Water Rates 1987–88 and 1988–89

  1987–88 Per cent.

  1988–89 Per cent.

  Borders

  5·7

  5·1

  Central

  4·7

  5·0

  Dumfries and Galloway

  4·0

  4·0

  Fife

  4·0

  5·0

  Grampian

  6·5

  6·8

  Highland

  5·5

  5·5

  Lothian

  6·1

  5·1

  Strathclyde

  4·0

  4·0

  Tayside

  4·5

  5·5

  Orkney

  11·0

  12·0

  Shetland

  3·0

  7·5

  Western Isles

  11·5

  12·0

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consideration he has given to the comments by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, in its 18th report, on the Community Charges (Registration) (Scotland) Regulations 1988; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  The Joint Committee commented on Regulation 12(2)(b) and on the related supplementary inquiry form, contained in schedule 4 to the regulations, by means of which community charge registration officers may make follow-up inquiries of responsible persons in respect of premises in his area as part of the procedures for setting up the community charges register.

  The first point made by the Joint Committee relates to whether the supplementary inquiry form is intended to seek information which is supplementary to the information already provided in response to the inquiry form, or which is supplementary to the matters mentioned in the inquiry form. My right hon. and learned Friend's view, as expressed in the memorandum submitted by the Scottish Office to the Joint Committee, was that what was being requested was supplementary information about the matters specified in the form, while the Joint Committee takes the view that, as drafted, the supplementary information relates to information already provided by the responsible person. That criticism of the drafting of the regulations is a question of interpretation, but in my right hon. and learned Friend's view there is no practical difference in the result.

  The Joint Committee's second criticism relates to the nature of what may be requested as supplementary information. The instructions to registration officers contained in square brackets in the supplementary inquiry form suggest that documents or evidence might be requested. The Joint Committee says that it does not consider that documents or evidence can constitute information. My right hon. and learned Friend disagrees with that view. In any case, it is important to note that where the information requested does not involve documents or evidence, the point will not arise.

  The Joint Committee also questions whether, if documents or information are to be provided, there is provision for them to be returned : and it says that, if documents are information and information is to be "given" to the registration officer its ownership must change. My right hon. and learned Friend does not accept that the word "given" necessarily carries that implication. The intention is simply that the information, whether or not embodied in documents, should be provided to the registration officer in response to his inquiry. Where documents are involved, the registration officer may be expected to return them to the responsible person in due course.

  The comments made by the Joint Committee deal with matters of drafting and interpretation and relate only to certain specific uses to which the supplementary inquiry form might be put. They do not otherwise question the regulations, which have been made and are fully in force, and have been debated by Parliament. In particular, the Joint Committee made no comment upon, and has cast no doubt upon, the soundness of the registration process as a whole and the Committee's comments in no way prevent that process from going ahead as planned.

TRANSPORT

  Bus Services
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the number of bus services registered as from 26 January 1987 and the numbers of services discontinued since that date.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  The number of new bus services registered from 26 January 1987 was 6,930 and the number deregistered was 6,229.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is(a) the reduction in conventional bus service provision and (b) the increase in minibus service provision since (i) the implementation of the Transport Act 1985 and (ii) the implementation of full deregulation on 26 January 1987.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  Information is not available in the form requested. Since deregulation there has been a substantial growth in the number of minibuses which now represent some 10–15 per cent. of the vehicles used on local services. Passengers in over 250 areas are now benefiting.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if his Department has assessed the effect on bus transport facilities for the disabled arising from the Transport Act 1985; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  The Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee, which was set up under the Transport Act 1985 to advise the Secretary of State, is

  Precepts and Districts Share of total contribution Existing System (Community Charge)

  1987–88

  1986–87

  Now

  CC

  Now

  CC

  Greater Manchester

  Passenger transport authority precept

  12·96p

  (£78·8m)1

  19·99p

  (£83·5m)1

  District share of precept2

  Percentage

  Percentage

  Bolton

  9

  (10)

  9

  (10)

  Bury

  6

  ( 7)

  6

  ( 7)

  Manchester

  23

  (18)

  23

  (18)

  Oldham

  7

  ( 8)

  7

  ( 8)

  Rochdale

  6

  (8)

  6

  ( 8)

  Salford

  9

  ( 9)

  9

  ( 9)

  Stockport

  12

  (11)

  12

  (11)

  Tameside

  6

  ( 8)

  6

  ( 8)

  Trafford

  11

  ( 9)

  12

  ( 9)

  Wigan

  10

  (12)

  10

  (12)

  Merseyside

  Passenger transport authority precept

  28·48p

  (£67·)m1

  44·88p

  (£81·5m)1

  District share of precept

  Percentage

  Percentage

  Knowsley

  11

  (11)

  11

  (11)

  Liverpool

  35

  (33)

  35

  (34)

  St. Helens

  12

  (13)

  12

  (13)

  Sefton

  18

  (20)

  18

  (20)

  Wirral

  23

  (23)

  23

  (23)

  South Yorkshire

  Passenger transport authority precept

  34·21p

  (£46·1m)1

  44·07p

  (£59·3m)1

  District share of precept

  402
  keeping in close touch with the impact of the Act on the transport needs of disabled people. The Act places a duly on local authorities, in the provision of bus services, to have regard to the transport needs of the public who are disabled. In addition, section 106 of the Act enables local authorities to make grants for providing, maintaining or improving any vehicle, equipment or other facilities to facilitate travel by disabled people.

  Passenger Transport Authorities
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will list the precepts and the district share of the total precept levy income paid into each metropolitan county passenger transport authority by each of the constituent districts in 1986–87 and 1987–88;

  (2) what is his estimate of the poll tax precept and the district share of the total precept levy income to the paid to each metropolitan county passenger transport authority by each of the constituent districts on the basis of actual spending levels in 1986–87 and 1987–88.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  The figures are given in the following table. Percentage shares under the two systems are based on rateable values and population respectively. As these are fairly stable, year on year, there is very little difference between the shares for 1986–87 and 1987–88.

  The change in the percentage share under the new system is a consequence of the introduction of the community charge and is not related to the proposed change to billing.
  403

  1987–88

  1986–87

  Now

  CC

  Now

  CC

  Percentage

  Percentage

  Barnsley

  14

  (17)

  14

  (17)

  Doncaster

  22

  (22)

  22

  (22)

  Rotherham

  18

  (19)

  18

  (19)

  Sheffield

  46

  (42)

  47

  (42)

  Existing System (Community Charge)

  1987–88

  1986–87

  Now

  CC

  Now

  CC

  Tyne and Wear

  Passenger transport authority precept

  14·51p

  (£57·7 million)1

  24·27p

  (£;63·9 million)1

  District share of precept

  Percentage

  Percentage

  Gateshead

  17

  (18)

  17

  (18)

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  32

  (25)

  32

  (25)

  North Tyneside

  16

  (17)

  17

  (17)

  South Tyneside

  12

  (14)

  12

  (14)

  Sunderland

  22

  (26)

  22

  (26)

  West Midlands

  Gross passenger transport authority precept

  7·81p

  (£56·0 million)1

  10·32p

  (£58·1 million)1

  District share of precept

  Percentage

  Percentage

  Birmingham

  39

  (38)

  39

  (38)

  Coventry

  11

  (12)

  11

  (12)

  Dudley

  11

  (12)

  11

  (12)

  Sandwell

  12

  (12)

  12

  (12)

  Solihull

  8

  (8)

  8

  (8)

  Walsall

  9

  (10)

  9

  (10)

  Wolverhampton

  10

  (10)

  10

  (10)

  West Yorkshire

  Passenger transport authority precept

  23·78p

  (£59·3 million)1

  26·50p

  (£61·3 million)

  District share of precept

  Percentage

  Percentage

  Bradford

  20

  (22)

  20

  (22)

  Calderdale

  8

  (9)

  8

  (9)

  Kirklees

  15

  (18)

  15

  (18)

  Leeds

  41

  (35)

  41

  (35)

  Wakefield

  16

  (15)

  15

  (15)

  Notes

  1 Under the community charge system, precepting authorities levy a gross amount on the collection fund to cover all their expenditure. Grant in respect of their expenditure is paid into the district collection fund together with grant for expenditure by other tiers of local government and the share of the national non-domestic rate. It is not, therefore, possible to provide a figure for the passenger transport authority demand net of grant.

  2 Percentages may not total 100 owing to rounding.

  General Council of British Shipping
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received concerning the recent closure of the Cardiff office of the General Council of British Shipping; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  I have received no representations. I understand that the office in question is still open at present. It is for the General Council of British Shipping to decide what local offices it wishes to operate.

  Roads (Skid Resistance)
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the frequency of monitoring the skid resistance of trunk roads and motorways within the United Kingdom.
  404
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  On 19 January we announced a new policy which now requires the Department's agents to carry out a routine skid resistance survey on all trunk roads and motorways over a three-year period. This will make the best use of the limited number of specialist machines which are available during the summer survey period and the funds available for this work.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what type of material and seal coats are used to provide the necessary skidding-resistance on the trunk roads and motorways in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The type of material and seal coats used to provide skidding resistance on trunk roads and motorways will vary according to the condition of the road, the volumes of traffic using the road and particular characteristics of the site to be treated. The type of
  405
  treatment chosen for a particular site is a matter of judgment for the local maintenance agent in discussion with the Department's regional office.

  Roads (Surfaces)
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the allotted funding for the surface testing, and treatment when necessary, for all trunk roads and motorways in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  It is estimated that over the first four years of this new approach the cost of surveying and treating the trunk road and motorway network will be £36 million. Thereafter it is estimated that the annual cost of continuing this policy will be approximately £2·5 million per annum. When the standard is fully implemented financial benefits from accident reductions on trunk roads will amount to £35 million a year, representing a return of £5 . 50 for every £1 spent.

  Motorway Safety
  Mr. Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about his recently announced initiatives to improve motorway safety.

  Mr. Channon
  On 7 April I announced the outcome of a review of motorway safety begun shortly before last Christmas. Although motorways remain our safest roads, they account for nearly 250 deaths and 1,600 serious injuries each year. And when accidents occur at high speed the consequences are horrific. In the course of our review we looked at where and why accidents happen, ways of improving driving standards and skills, relevant aspects of road design and equipment, and the scope for improvements to vehicles, with the object of improving features which are particularly important on motorways. In the light of the review, we now propose to take action in the following areas:—encouragement and promotion of better driving skills on the motorway, including encouragement to newly qualified drivers to take additional tuition in respect of motorway driving.
  —introduction of mandatory speed limits at all major motorway contraflows and roadworks, and special requirements for heavy goods vehicles in contraflows.
  —improved communication with drivers, through more consistent use of matrix signs, and the introduction of new, clearer versions of the "lane restriction" and "end of restriction" signs.
  —changes to some regulations and standards for vehicle lighting, and improvements to measures to prevent vehicle fires.
  —improvements to the design and protection of roadside features, to make them safer in the event of accidents.

  I have also published, and shall be widely distributing, a new leaflet advising motorists on safe motorway driving. I am arranging for copies of this leaflet, and the pamphlet giving fuller details of all the measures to be placed in the Library of the House.

  London City Airport
  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he is yet able to announce the formal arrangements for public safety zones at London City airport.

  Mr. Channon
  The London Docklands Development Corporation is today being informed of the arrangements 406
  for public safety zones. The Civil Aviation Authority is also making formal arrangements to safeguard the airport in respect of future building in the vicinity which could be a hazard to aircraft flying close to the airport. In accordance with normal practice, the arrangements allow for possible development of the airport over the next 12 to 15 years. But they do no more than keep open existing options for the time being: any such development would be subject to normal planning controls.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Police Establishment (Leicestershire)
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to approve the appointment of 91 additional police officers over the next three years, and 45 new police officers during the current year, as applied for by the chief constable of Leicestershire.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham) on 18 February at column 707.

  Nationality Applications
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for British nationality he has received during the year 1987; how many of these his Department has commenced processing; and how many remain (a) unacknowledged, and (b) unprocessed.

  Mr. Renton
  The information is not readily available in the form requested.

  In 1987 we estimate that about 290,000 citizenship applications were received of which all but 33,000 had been acknowledged by 11 April. Provisional figures for 1987 indicate that grants of citizenship were made to 64,800 applicants.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for British nationality he has received since 1 January 1988; how many of these his Department has commenced processing; and how many remain(a) unacknowledged, and (b) unprocessed.

  Mr. Renton
  We estimate that we have received about 12,000 citizenship applications since 1 January 1988. Applications are acknowledged and processed broadly in order to receipt. Only a few applications received by post in 1988 have yet been acknowledged since priority has been given to acknowledging those received in 1987.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many passports he estimates are at present held at Lunar house, received from applicants for British nationality; and what is the minimum, the maximum and the average time during which such passports are held.

  Mr. Renton
  It is not possible to say exactly how many passports are contained within the 45,000 citizenship applications currently awaiting opening and acknowledgement at Lunar house.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for British nationality he estimates have been lost during the past six months; and what steps are being taken in order to find the same.

  Mr. Renton
  There is no reason to suppose that any applications have been lost.

  Mr. Paul Hill (Marriage)
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the names, addresses and professions of the persons, excluding prison staff, who were present at(a) the marriage and (b) the reception following the marriage of Paul Hill to Miss Maria Seranville at Long Lartin prison : and what was the cost of this ceremony to public funds.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I do not think that it would he right to disclose the personal details requested. There were no additional costs to public funds arising from the ceremony.

  US Armed Forces (British Citizens)
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether any requests for extradition of British citizens deserting from the United States armed forces have been received from the United States Government or its armed forces in the last three years in respect of individuals who did not have dual citizenship.

  Mr. John Patten
  The total number of requests from the United States authorities for the return of deserters from the United States armed forces during the last three years was three. I now understand that one of these requests was in respect of a British citizen who does not also hold United States citizenship. I regret that the information given in my reply to a question by the hon. Member on 12 April, at column 5, was incorrect in this respect.

  Inquests (Police Investigations)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for reports from the appropriate chief constables as to whether there were any police investigations prior to verdicts being recorded at the inquests of Mr. Vimal Daihjhai, Mr. Peter Peapell and Mr. David Sands and as to whether there have been further investigations subsequently.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand from the appropriate chief constable that each of these cases was fully investigated by the police both before and after the inquests.

  Transfrontier Broadcasting
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made at the ministerial conference in Vienna towards the establishment of a European convention on transfrontier broadcasting; if he expects such a convention to be ready for adoption and signature at the second ministerial conference on mass media policy due to take place in Stockholm in November; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  I represented the United Kingdom at an informal meeting of Council of Europe Broadcasting Ministers which took place in Vienna on 12–13 April. The object of the meeting was to discuss various outstanding points of difficulty on the draft Council of Europe convention on transfrontier broadcasting with a view to guiding the further work of the Council's steering committee on the mass media which is charged with finalising the text of the draft instrument.

  The meeting endorsed the general framework of the draft convention and made useful progress towards
  408
  resolving a number of issues, including European programme content, duration of advertising, the field of application of the convention, and its enforcement procedures.

  The main issue still outstanding concerns the rules governing advertising breaks within programmes, on which no formula has yet been found which satisfactorily accommodates the differing arrangements in individual member states of the Council. Further meetings of the steering committee are plannned over the next few months at which the text will be considered in the light of the ministerial discussions, and it remains our hope that the convention can be finalised and opened for signature at or before the ministerial conference in Stockholm in November.

  Residential Care Licence Applications
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will appoint additional staff to clear the backlog of accommodation for residential care licence applications; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  No.

  Citizenship Applications
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the progress of the measures announced by the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex on 16 February,Official Report, column 863, to reduce the delays in the processing of citizenship applications.

  Mr. Renton
  Good progress has been made as a result of the measures announced, and I am grateful for the cooperation of the staff and trade union side at Lunar House which has helped us achieve this. Of the 150,000 applications for citizenship received before the deadline of 31 December 1987, 117,000 have now been acknowledged, and any passport inside has been returned. Provided the present rate can be maintained, the remaining 33,000 applications will have similarly been dealt with by the middle of May 1988.

  It is the Government's aim that all citizenship applications received by 31 December 1987 should be completed within two years, and further measures to achieve this will be announced shortly.

  Passports
  Sir Dudley Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take steps to improve the service to those who telephone his Department's passport processing office at Peterborough so that they no longer continually get the engaged tone.

  Mr. Renton
  [holding answer 31 March 1988]As I said in answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham) on 7 March, at column 4, a new 24-exchange line telephone system was installed at the Peterborough passport office in July 1987.

  The recorded message facility to which I previously referred is now installed and provides information simultaneously to 12 waiting callers : as this should answer many general inquiries, callers will on average ring off earlier, freeing more lines for incoming calls.

  Prisoners (Brixton and Holloway)
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons were remanded to(a) Brixton prison and (h) Holloway prison for the purposes of social inquiry and psychiatrict reports in each of the years from 1980 to 1987.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 31 March 1988]Figures relating to remands for social inquiry reports are not available. Numbers of prisoners on whom psychiatric reports were prepared by prison medical officers in the years in question were as follows:

  Psychiatric reports by Medical Officers on persons remanded in custody

  Brixton

  Holloway

  1980

  2,440

  638

  1981

  2,502

  653

  1982

  2,551

  612

  1983

  3,137

  568

  1984–851

  3,202

  613

  1985–86

  2,885

  477

  1986–87

  2,624

  403

  1 15 month period.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Home Helps
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the pay increase to home helps in the current year: and what was the percentage increase.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 15 April 1988]With effect from 1 July 1987 home helps' basic weekly pay was increased by £16·40, which represents 16·95 per cent.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the number of home help hours available in each unit of management in the Western health and social services hoard area in(a) 1975–76, (b) 1980–81 and (c) each year since then, including the projection for 1988–89, showing for each year the percentage change on the previous figure and the number of persons receiving home help in each year, and the applications refused.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 15 April 1988]The information is given in the following tables.

  Table 1 Home Help Hours worked

  Financial year

  Hours worked

  Per cent. change from previous year

  Londonderry-Limavady-Strabane UoM

  1975–76

  Not available

  —

  1979–80

  604,349

  —

  1980–81

  592,285

  -1·99

  1981–82

  602,877

  +1·78

  1982–83

  631,771

  +4·79

  1983–84

  649,001

  +2·72

  1984–85

  609,112

  -6·15

  1985–86

  635,385

  +4·31

  1986–87

  578,952

  -8·88

  1987–88

  575,327

  -0·63

  1988–891

  511,000

  -11·18

  Omagh UoM

  410

  Financial year

  Hours worked

  Per cent. change from previous year

  1975–76

  Not available

  —

  1979–80

  242,639

  —

  1980–81

  216,197

  -10·9

  1981–82

  253,291

  + 17·16

  1982–83

  256,448

  + 1·24

  1983–84

  244,380

  -4·70

  1984–85

  254,615

  + 4·19

  1985–86

  248,467

  -2·41

  1986–87

  217,226

  -12·57

  1987–88

  228,469

  + 5·18

  1988–891

  205,000

  -10·27

  Fermanagh Uom

  1975–76

  Not available

  —

  1979–80

  266,632

  —

  1980–81

  261,503

  -1·92

  1981–82

  284,650

  +8·85

  1982–83

  300,075

  +5·42

  1983–84

  295,088

  -1·66

  1984–85

  302,137

  +2·39

  1985–86

  299,326

  -0·93

  1986–87

  276,271

  -7·70

  1987–88

  273,732

  -0·92

  1988–891

  247,000

  -9·77

  1 Projection

  Table 2 Persons receiving Home Help Service

  Year ended 31 December

  Londonderry, Limavady and Strabane

  Omagh

  Fermanagh

  1975

  1,171

  611

  549

  1980

  1,869

  615

  678

  1981

  1,905

  689

  822

  1982

  2,066

  754

  985

  1983

  2,144

  734

  1,078

  1984

  2,227

  757

  1,110

  1985

  2,552

  759

  1,173

  1986

  2,646

  780

  1,206

  Table 3 No. of Applications not approved for Home Help Service

  Year ended 31 December

  Londonderry, Limavady and Strabane

  Omagh

  Fermanagh

  1975

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1980

  82

  n/a

  18

  1981

  117

  n/a

  9

  1982

  135

  n/a

  11

  1983

  55

  n/a

  46

  1984

  35

  n/a

  23

  1985

  51

  n/a

  18

  1986

  35

  n/a

  58

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Clothing, Hats and Gloves
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will publish the number of production units classified to clothing, hats and gloves on the register maintained by the Business Statistics Office.

  Mr. Atkins
  In 1987 there were 9,865 such units classified to group 453 of the Standard Industrial Classification 1980, that is clothing, hats and gloves. Figures in respect of the individual headings within that group, and within the production sector as a whole, are published in table 8 of Business Monitor PA 1003.

  Records and Tapes
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what information he has on the increase in the volume of United Kingdom trade deliveries of records, CDs and tapes between 1986 and 1987.

  Mr. Atkins
  Figures released by the British Phonographic Industry show that the percentage changes between 1986 and 1987 in United Kingdom trade deliveries were as follows:

  percentage

  Singles

  -6

  LPs

  0

  Cassettes

  + 7

  CDs

  + 117

  Combined Albums

  + 11

  Techsearch Programme (Newcastle)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what support he has given to the Newcastle technology centre's Techsearch programme; what conclusions and evaluation he has made of this programme; and what further development of this programme he proposes to support.

  Mr. Atkins
  Under the business improvement services scheme a grant of 55 per cent. of the cost of providing database services to eligible small firms (Techsearch) up to a maximum of £145,323 was offered on 13 August 1986 for the period up to 31 March 1989. Techsearch is a pilot project which is monitored by DTI/NE officials to ensure compliance with the terms of the offer before payments are made. Progress measured by numbers of initial subscribers has been satisfactory. It is too early for a fuller evaluation, which will be influenced by the ability of Techsearch to continue on a self-financing basis when grant payments have ended. There are no present plans to support further development on Techsearch.

  Northern Region
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list all the projects in the northern region sponsored under his Department's support for marketing, support for quality, and support for design schemes : to provide a regional breakdown of(a) number of projects and (b) expenditures under each of these three schemes; and if he will list all the consultants engaged in these schemes, and their main or principal office.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The detailed information requested is available only at disproportionate cost. However, the hon. Member may wish to know that in DTI's north-east and north-west regions 232 companies have been assisted under the support for marketing scheme, 494 under the support for quality scheme and 295 under the support for design scheme. Payments made by DTI totalled £0·99 million, £1·82million and £0·91 million respectively.

  Enterprise Scheme
  Mr. Rathbone
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many applications for assistance under the DTI enterprise scheme have been received during its first 412
  three months of operation; and how many have been granted for each of the consultancy functions being offered.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  In the period from 13 January, when the consultancy initiatives were launched, and 14 April, 3,929 applications for assisted consultancy were received.

  Referral of applications to the relevant scheme contractor (who matches consultant to applicant) takes place on the basis of a short initial Business Review carried out by a DTI enterprise counsellor.

  By 14 April, 1,422 applications had been referred, as follows:

  Referrals

  (a) Schemes available from 13 January 1988:

  Marketing Initiative

  638

  Design Initiative

  243

  Quality Initiative

  307

  Manufacturing Initiative

  150

  (b) Additional schemes available from 1 April 1988:

  Business Planning Initiative

  55

  Financial and Information Systems Initiative

  29

  Support for Design Scheme
  Mr. Rathbone
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many applications for assistance were received and granted under the support for design scheme for each quarter of its operation.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The numbers of applications received and granted under the support for design scheme in each quarter, until its replacement by the design initiative in January 1988, were as follows :

  Applications received

  Applications granted

  1985

  Quarter 2

  429

  0

  Quarter 3

  416

  38

  Quarter 4

  488

  134

  1986

  Quarter 1

  553

  219

  Quarter 2

  525

  291

  Quarter 3

  535

  283

  Quarter 4

  503

  315

  1987

  Quarter 1

  455

  378

  Quarter 2

  446

  280

  Quarter 3

  567

  246

  Quarter 4

  495

  321

  1988

  Quarter 1

  120

  262

  Totals

  5,532

  2,767

  Vosper Thornycroft
  Mr. Peter Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if, in the light of the flotation of Vosper Thornycroft, and the price secured, Her Majesty's Government's policy remains that the compensation to the original shareholders was adequate, prompt and effective.

  Mr. Maude
  The recent flotation of Vosper Thornycroft is not material to the valuation of the business
  413
  at the time it was nationalised. The Government's policy is still as was stated by the then Secretary of State for Industry on 7 August 1980, that there was no satisfactory way to alter the compensation terms imposed by the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Act 1977.

  Leyland Bus
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, pursuant to the reply of 12 April,Official Report, column 28, what information he has as to how much of the £680 million of state aid to the Rover Group plc was used to fund (a) the write-off of the debts of Leyland Bus and (b) the restructuring costs arising from its sale, respectively; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  My Department receives regular returns from Rover Group giving details of the expenditure of the £680 million in its former commercial vehicle businesses and how this compares with the estimated amounts at the time of the injection. I am sure that the hon. Member will appreciate that these details (including how much, if any, remains to be spent in any business) are commercially confidential.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, pursuant to the answer of 12 April,Official Report, column 28, if his Department was informed of the arrangements made for the payment of the purchase price of Leyland Bus from the Rover Group plc; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  No. The arrangements for the payment to the Rover Group plc of the purchase price of Leyland Bus were a matter for the companies concerned.

  Steel
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what proportion of the crude steel production of the United Kingdom was produced in(a) each of the standard English regions, (b) Wales and (c) Scotland in the last year for which full figures are available.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 18 April 1988]: The figures are as follows:

  Proportion of total crude steel production in 1987

  Per cent.

  North

  18·7

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  33·2

  East Midlands

  0·1

  South East

  3·4

  West Midlands

  0·6

  North West

  1—

  Wales

  31·2

  Scotland

  12·8

  Total

  100·0

  1 Negligible.

  Source Iron and Steel Statistics Bureau.

  Working Breakfasts
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the total cost of the working breakfast in Newcastle on 13 April; how many business people attended; and how many civil servants were present.
  414
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  [holding answer 18 April 19881: The working breakfast in Newcastle on 13 April was the first of six such presentations to be held during the next three months and was not costed separately. The overall estimated cost of these presentations was given in my reply to the hon. Member on 14 March 1988.

  Over 200 business people and representatives of major public corporations attended the working breakfast. About 50 civil servants from headquarters and regional offices were present in a working capacity in the reception area, in the associated exhibition and as management arid information support.

  British Shipbuilders Ltd.
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what information he has to what sum of compensation was paid by British Shipbuilders Ltd. to Caledonian MacBrayne for errors in the design and construction of, the MV Isle of Mull; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 18 April 1988]: No compensation has yet been paid to the Scottish Transport Group though the basis for claims, which are likely to prove considerable, has been agreed. The taxpayer will also have to bear British Shipbuilders' costs for essential modifications to the vessel. These will also be considerable.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he has any plans to reduce the annual state subsidy paid to British Shipbuilders Ltd.; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 18 April 1988]: Although no new decisions have been taken since last autumn on the level of annual state subsidy paid to the corporation, my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has made it quite clear to the House that the costs of British Shipbuilders are far too high.

  Airbus
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if any progress has been made in reviewing the financing and company structure of the Airbus company, following the initiative he took in asking Sir Jeffrey Sterling to review the situation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 18 April 1988]: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Irving) on 13 April.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Third World Debt
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, further to the answer to the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith)Official Report, 14 March, column 429, he will indicate on what basis the figure of £270 million reduction in tax take due to debt write-down has been calculated; and what profit level has been assumed in arriving at this figure.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The estimate was arrived at by comparing the tax paid in 1987–88 with the estimated
  415
  amounts that would have been paid if no deduction had been available in respect of losses on irrecoverable loans in the tax computations for the relevant accounting periods. The calculations are based on the taxable profits of individual banks for the relevant accounting periods where these have been agreed, and on estimated figures where tax computations have not been finalised.

  Taxation
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many tax units paid the basic rate of tax only in 1979–80, 1983–84, and for the latest available financial year; what the total revenue received in respect of those units was, in each of the three years; and what percentage this was of total income tax revenue.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Estimates are as follows:

  Tax units liable at basic rate only

  Year

  Number of tax units1 (million)

  Tax liability (£ million)

  Percentage of total tax liability (per cent.)

  1979–802

  220·9

  18,500

  81

  1983–84

  19·6

  27,200

  78

  1988–893

  19·7

  31,100

  70

  Percentage of gross income paid in income tax, NIC and VAT

  Multiple of average male earnings

  ½

  1

  1½

  2

  3

  5

  10

  One earner couple with 2 children under 11

  1978–79

  Income tax and NIC

  2·5

  20·9

  26·2

  27·9

  34·8

  48·8

  65·6

  VAT

  —

  2·6

  2·7

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1988–89

  Income tax and NIC

  6·1

  20·0

  23·2

  24·8

  29·9

  33·9

  37·0

  VAT

  —

  5·1

  5·7

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Two earner couple with 2 children under 11

  1978–79

  Income tax and NIC

  -4·6

  12·9

  21·8

  26·2

  31·2

  36·2

  52·3

  VAT

  —

  3·4

  3·3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1988–89

  Income tax and NIC

  -5·6

  14·1

  21·3

  24·5

  27·3

  30·9

  35·5

  VAT

  —

  6·1

  6·1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Notes:

  Child benefit treated as negative income tax for consistency with 1978–79 when there were still child tax allowances.

  Two earner couple assumed to jointly earn the multiple of male average earnings, split 60 per cent. earned by the husband and 40 per cent. by the wife.

  Reliefs and Allowances
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will estimate the gross cost to the Exchequer in 1989–90, or the most recent available date, of all reliefs and allowances other than personal tax allowances;

  (2) if he will show the proportion of tax revenues forgone in 1989–90, or the most recent available date, through tax reliefs and allowances other than personal allowances which accrued to (a) the top 1 per cent., (b) the top 5 per cent., (c) the top 10 per cent., and (d) the bottom 50 per cent. of all taxpayers.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The total direct revenue cost of all tax reliefs and allowances other than personal
  416
  1 Single people and married couples.

  2 Including 2·7 million tax units liable only at the reduced rate of 25 per cent. with liability of £250 million (1 per cent.)

  3 Forecast.

  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the yield in 1989–90 of an alternative minimum tax of 20 per cent. of gross income minus personal allowances for all taxpayers with incomes in excess of £22,000.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The full year yield at 1988–89 levels of income from an alternative minimum tax of 20 per cent. of gross income less personal allowances for taxpayers with incomes over £22,000 is estimated to be £130 million. An estimate for 1989–90 could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the proportion of gross income paid in income tax, national insurance contributions and value added tax by(a) a married man with a non-earning wife and two children and (b) a married man with an earning wife and two children at half, one, one and a half, two, three, five and 10 times national average earnings in 1988–89; and what were the comparable figures in 1979.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 12 April 1988]: Estimates of VAT payments are only available between three quarters and one and a half times average earnings. The available figures are shown in the table.

  allowances cannot be estimated reliably. Costs of each relief are published annually in the White Paper on the Government's expenditure plans.

  The proportion of the cost of reliefs other than personal allowances going to quantile groups of income tax payers can be estimated for reliefs for mortgage interest, the business expansion scheme and pension contributions by employees and the self-employed. Estimates for 1988–89 are as follows:

  Quantile group of taxpayers

  1Per cent.

  Top 1 per cent.

  9

  Top 5 per cent.

  24

  417

  Quantile group of taxpayers

  1Per cent.

  Top 10 per cent.

  36

  Bottom 50 per cent.

  16

  1 Proportion of cost of reliefs.

  Estimates are provisional and subject to error.

  Net Earnings
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will update to April the information on net earnings provided in his reply of 10 February 1987, to the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Carrington),Official Report, columns 177–8.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Estimates of the levels of earnings for the top 5 per cent. of earners are not published. The information in the table for April 1979 and April 1987 is based on estimates of these levels derived from distributions of earnings published in the relevant new earnings surveys. Information for 1988 is not available yet. Earnings levels are for full-time men or women as appropriate paid at adult rates with pay unaffected by absence. Taxpayers are assumed to have no reliefs or allowances other than the appropriate personal allowances.

  Earnings after tax, national insurance contributions1 and child benefit at the level of earnings for the lop 5 per cent, of earners

  (£ per week)

  April 19794

  April 1987

  Single man

  At current prices

  114·17

  294·25

  At constant April 1987 prices2

  214·05

  294·25

  Married man3

  At current prices

  117·98

  304·79

  At constant April 1987 prices2

  221·19

  304·79

  Married man3 with two children under 11

  At current prices

  125·98

  319·29

  At constant April 1987 prices2

  236·18

  319·29

  Single woman

  At current prices

  72·23

  181·36

  At current April 1987 prices2

  135·41

  181·36

  Range of total income in 1988–891

  Number of units paying tax in 1988–89

  Reductions in income tax with 1978–79 indexed compared regime

  £

  (million)

  Amount (£ million)

  Average per tax unit(£)

  Under 5,000

  2·50

  400

  2120

  5,000–10,000

  7·00

  2,490

  2350

  10,000–15,000

  5·20

  3,430

  660

  15,000–20,000

  2·90

  2,810

  980

  20,000–30,000

  2·30

  3,510

  1,540

  30,000–50,000

  0·80

  2,580

  3,310

  Over 50,000

  0·25

  4,780

  20,760

  Total

  20·90

  20,000

  910

  1 All information is in terms of tax units that is, married couples are counted as one and their incomes combined.

  2 By reference to the estimated numbers who would be liable to pay tax under the indexed 1978–79 regime; this number is some 1,100,000 greater than the numbers paying tax in 1988–89, some 900,000 in the income range below £5,000 and 200,000; in the range £5,000 to £10,000.

  418
  1 At the contracted in rate

  2 By reference to the retail prices index.

  3 Assuming no wife's earnings.

  4 Under the April 1979 tax/benefit regime.

  SAYE Schemes
  Sir William Clark
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state the cost to the Exchequer for SAYE schemes for the years 1985–86, 1986–87 and 1987–88.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The cost to the Exchequer of exempting from tax any interest and bonus received under SAYE contracts is estimated at about £25 million in each of the three years.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a table showing the reductions in income tax liabilities, at 1988–89 income levels, of the proposed 1988–89 allowances, thresholds and rates and comparable figures for the 1978–79 regime indexed to 1988–89 showing(a) the number of tax units, (b) the total amount of reduction and (c) the average reduction per tax unit in each of the following income ranges : under £5,000, £5,000 to £10,000, £10,000 to £15,000, £15,000 to £20,000, £20,000 to £30,000, £30,000 to £50,000 and over £50,000.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 30 March 1988]: The table shows estimates of reductions in income tax liabilities at 1988–89 income levels of the proposed allowances, thresholds and rate for 1988–89 compared with an indexed 1978–79 regime. For the comparison, the 1978–79 allowances and thresholds have been indexed in line with the increase in the RPI between December 1977 and December 1987. As child tax allowances were being phased out in 1978–79, they have been excluded from the comparison.
  419
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the value to the Treasury of income tax receipts from Scotland in 1985–86, 1986–87, 1988–89 and 1989–90; and if he will express these figures as a percentage of total income tax receipts.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 13 April 1988]: Available information for Scotland is from the 1985–86 survey of personal incomes and relates to liability to income tax rather than amount of income tax collected. Total liability in that year in Scotland was £3,420 million, before allowing for mortgage interest relief given at source. This was 8·5 per cent. of the corresponding United Kingdom figure. Information for later years is not yet available.

  Budget Proposals (Effects)
  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the average individual gain arising from each relevant

  Gains (£ per week) from the main income tax proposals in the 1988 Budget

  Multiples of average earnings1

  ½

  ¾

  1

  1½

  2

  5

  10

  Single person (Non·aged)

  Current prices: change in personal allowances

  0·93

  0·93

  0·93

  0·93

  1·56

  2·08

  2·08

  basic rate limit

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3·50

  3·50

  3·50

  reduction in basic rate

  1·45

  2·67

  3·89

  6·34

  7·42

  7·42

  7·42

  abolition of higher rates above 40 per cent.

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2·35

  119·01

  363·71

  Total2

  2·38

  3·60

  4·83

  7·27

  14·83

  132·01

  376·71

  Net of indexation: change in personal allowances

  0·47

  0·47

  0·47

  0·47

  0·78

  1·04

  1·04

  basic rate limit

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1·75

  1·75

  1·75

  reduction in basic rate

  1·45

  2·67

  3·89

  6·34

  7·42

  7·42

  7·42

  abolition of higher rates above 40 per cent.

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1·58

  114·49

  359·19

  Total2

  1·91

  3·14

  4·36

  6·81

  11·53

  124·70

  369·40

  Married Man (Non·aged)

  Current prices: change in personal allowances

  1·56

  1·56

  1·56

  1·56

  2·60

  3·46

  3·46

  basic rate limit

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3·50

  3·50

  3·50

  reduction in basic rate

  0·87

  2·10

  3·32

  5·77

  7·42

  7·42

  7·42

  abolition of higher rate above 40 per cent.

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0·92

  113·28

  357·98

  Total2

  2·43

  3·65

  4·88

  7·32

  14·44

  127·66

  372·36

  Net of indexation: change in personal allowances

  0·78

  0·78

  0·78

  0·78

  1·30

  1·73

  1·73

  basic rate limit

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1·75

  1·75

  1·75

  reduction in basic rate

  0·87

  2·10

  3·32

  5·77

  7·42

  7·42

  7·42

  abolition of higher rate above 40 per cent.

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0·15

  108·76

  353·46

  Total2

  1·65

  2·87

  4·10

  6·54

  10·62

  119·66

  364·36

  1 Full time adult males (all occupations) forecast earnings for 1988–89 £244·70 week.

  2 Due to rounding, components may not sum to total.

  Gains (£ per week), net of indexation, from the main income tax proposals1 in all budgets from 1979 to 1988, at 1988–89 income levels

  Multiples of average earnings1

  ½

  ¾

  1

  1½

  2

  5

  10

  Single Person (non-aged)

  change in:

  personal allowances

  2·98

  2·98

  2·98

  2·98

  4·52

  7·50

  7·50

  reduced rate band

  -2·54

  -2·54

  -2·54

  -2·54

  -2·54

  -2·54

  -2·54

  basic rate limit

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2·56

  2·56

  2·56

  reduction in basic rate

  5·78

  10·67

  15·57

  25·36

  29·69

  29·69

  29·69

  higher rates and thresholds

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4·12

  232·79

  758·90

  Total3

  6·22

  11·12

  16·01

  25·80

  38·35

  270·01

  796·11

  Married man (non-aged) change in:

  420
  component of the 1988 Budget, both at current prices and net of indexation for those at (a) one half, (b) three quarters of average, (c) average, (d) one and a half, (e) two, (f) five and (g) 10 times average earnings; and if he will provide comparable figures for each Budget since 1979.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 30 March 1988]: Information is in the tables. Further information could be supplied only at disproportionate cost. Average earnings are those for men in all occupations paid at adult rates who work a full week and whose pay is unaffected by absence. The level of average earnings for 1988–89, £244·70 per week, is a projection in accordance with the assumptions given to the Government Actuary for reviewing national insurance contributions in paragraph 3.02 of the Autumn Statement 1987; estimates are therefore provisional.
  421

  Multiples of average earnings1

  ½

  ¾

  1

  1½

  2

  5

  10

  personal allowances

  4·89

  4·89

  4·89

  4·89

  6·97

  12·29

  12·29

  reduced rate band

  -2·54

  -2·54

  -2·54

  -2·54

  -2·54

  -2·54

  -2·54

  basic rate limit

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2·56

  2·56

  2·56

  reduction in basic rate

  3·49

  8·38

  13·28

  23·06

  29·69

  29·69

  29·69

  higher rate and thresholds

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1·69

  220·47

  746·58

  Total 3

  5·84

  10·73

  15·62

  25·41

  38·37

  262·48

  788·58

  1 Excluding abolition of investment income surcharge

  2 Full time adult maleds (all occupations) forecast earnings for 1988–89 £244·70 per week.

  3 Due to rounding, components may not sum to total.

  Allowances
  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the cost to the Exchequer at the 1988–89 tax rates announced in the Budget of the married man's tax allowance in excess of the corresponding single person's allowance; how much of this cost is attributable to taxpayers aged below 65 years; and what is the weekly value of this extra relief to the married man paying income tax at the standard rate.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 30 March 1988]: The direct revenue cost, at 1988–89 levels of income, of the married man's allowance in excess of the single person's allowance is estimated at £4·7 billion, of which £4·1 billion is attributable to those aged under 65. The extra relief is worth £7·16 per week to a basic rate taxpayer not entitled to age allowance.

  Age Allowance
  Mr. Squire
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the cost in the income tax year 1988–89 of amending the withdrawal rate of age allowance for pensioners incomes over £10,600 per annum so as to prevent any pensioner paying(a) more than a 40 per cent. effective tax rate and (b) more than a 25 per cent. effective tax rate.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 28 March 1988]: The full year cost of reducing to 40 per cent. the effective rate on the band of income over which age allowance is withdrawn would be about £1·5 million at 1988–89 levels of income. An effective rate of 25 per cent. Could be achieved only if age allowance was not withdrawn at all, which would cost about £190 million. Both costs are calculated by comparison with the income tax regime for 1988–;89 proposed in the 1988 Budget.

  Privatisation
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give for each year since 1979 the amount of debt written off in each of the industries privatised, showing the amount of this expenditure which was met from(a) the relevant departmental programme as given in the public expenditure White Paper and (b) the reserve.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 28 March 1988]: The normal practice on privatisation (of a nationalised industry or company wholly or majority owned by Government) is to repay, rather than write off debt. This repayment may be financed from the company's existing resources, the injection of new equity, or new debt finance. In some cases, the Government provide the finance to
  422
  repay debts (for example, by an equity injection). Such finance is shown in the relevant departmental programme of the public expenditure White Paper. Subsequent sales of the Government's interests in a company are recorded in the privatisation programme in the PEWP.

  National loan fund debt has been formally written off only in the following cases :

  Year

  Company

  Amount £

  1980–81

  National Freight Corporation (under Section 45 of the Transport Act 1980)

  100,000,000

  1982–83

  British Transport Docks Board (under Section 6(1) of the Transport Act 1981)

  81,293,616

  1984–85

  British Telecom (BT (Extinguishment of Loans) Order 1982)

  2,789,865,772

  1986–87

  BAA (under section 3 of the Airports Act 1986)

  43,503,340

  However, these write-offs had no direct effect on public expenditure in as much as they represented a reconstruction of the balance sheets of the industries concerned. In each case, having had NLF debt written off, the successor company issued new securities to be held by the Secretary of State as assets of the Consolidated Fund pending realisation.

  Student Covenants
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the number of students supported by covenants who, following the measures announced in the Budget will(a) receive an increase in grant from their local education authority and (b) receive no such increase; and if he will give (a) the saving to the Exchequer in withdrawal of the tax relief on student covenants and (b) the expected cost of any increase in grant payments which results from the Budget measures.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 12 April 1988]: Under the Budget proposals student covenants made on or after 15 March 1988 will not be eligible for tax relief. But students receiving payments under covenants made before 15 March will continue to be eligible for tax repayments under the previous rules. The changes in levels of grant paid by local education authorities apply essentially to new students.

  The yield to the Exchequer from the withdrawal of tax relief on new covenants to students is estimated at £35 million in 1988–89 rising to £135 million by 1991–92. The cost of the increase in grant payments is estimated at some £15 million in 1988–89 rising to about £50 million in 1991–92.

  Mortgage Tax Relief
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the saving that would accrue to the Exchequer from limiting all mortgage tax relief to the basic rate in 1988–89.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 12 April 1988]: The direct revenue yield in a full year, at 1988–89 income levels, from restricting mortgage interest relief to the basic rate is estimated to be £280 million. This estimate is based on the mortgage interest rate of 10·25 per cent. at the beginning of 1988–89 and makes no allowance for the effect of any consequential changes to the distribution of outstanding mortgages.

  Personal Tax Allowance
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received on the question of making the personal tax allowance fully transferable between the spouses where the income into the household is low; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 15 April 1988]: We continue to receive representations from time to time in support of the system of transferable allowances for husband and wife described in the 1986 Green Paper, "The Reform of Personal Taxation" (Cmnd. 9756).

  In his Budget my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed a new system of independent taxation of husband and wife to take effect from April 1990. Under these proposals there will be a new married couple's allowance which will go to the husband unless he has insufficient income to use it himself, in which case any unused part can be transferred to his wife.

  Taxation Receipts
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the value to the Treasury in 1987–88 of(a) expenditure taxes raised in Scotland and (b) national insurance and other contributions raised in Scotland; and if he will express both figures as a percentage of total Treasury receipts in respect of these two categories.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 13 April 1988]: This information is not available.

  Multiple Mortgage Tax Relief
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has estimated the effect of the withdrawal of multiple mortgage tax relief on the take-up of low-cost 100 per cent. mortgages being offered by the Nationwide Building Society to nurses and announced by the Minister of Health, on 15 December 1987,Official Report, columns 495–6.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 12 April 1988]: Take-up of mortgages being offered by the Nationwide Anglia Building Society under the special mortgage scheme for nurses and other National Health Service staff will depend on many factors. It is not possible to produce estimates of the impact which the changes to mortgage interest tax relief proposed in the 1988 Budget will have on take-up.

  Consumer Credit (Tax)
  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received in favour of a tax on consumer credit; what response he made; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 12 April 1988]: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has received no recent representations.

  Tax Credit
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the cost of introducing a system of tax credits on the basis of the personal income tax threshold and rates proposed for 1988–89 and of the new social security system, assuming that no person in receipt of benefit would be made worse off; and if he will give the estimated cost for each of the next five years assuming that(a) the rate of inflation averages 4 per cent. per annum, (b) the lowest rate of income tax is reduced to 20 per cent., (c) tax thresholds rise at twice the amount needed to keep pace with inflation, and (d) benefits are increased in line with inflation.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 12 April 1988]: It is not possible to estimate the cost since my hon. Friend has not provided sufficient information about the types of individual who would be covered by the tax credit scheme or about the level of tax credits which would be payable.

ENVIRONMENT

  CFCs and Halons
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 8 March, to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan,Official Report, column 119, what action he is taking to help producers and users of chlorofluorocarbons and halons to switch to environmentally safe substitutes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The Montreal protocol itself provides an incentive to switch to environmentally safe substitutes even before consumption of CFCs and halons has to be reduced. British producers and users are actively engaged in research and development. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has awarded a grant for development of a process for recycling CFCs used in the manufacture of polyurethane foam. He will consider any application for support for research and development of substitute products, technology or processes against the criteria and objectives of the schemes which his Department operates.

  Green Belt
  Mr. Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he proposes to take in the light of the judgment in the Queen's Bench Division on 29 March in the case of Regina v. Secretary of State for the Environment, ex parte Enfield London borough council.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We are considering the implications of the judgment in this case.

  Richmond House
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle) of 28 March,Official Report, columns 302–3, whether consideration was given to the use of his own staff for the valuation of Richmond house prior to the decision to employ outside contractors.

  Mr. Chope
  No. For the reasons I have already explained in my answer to the hon. Member for Warrington. North (Mr. Hoyle), I decided that an independent valuation was required in this case.

  Common Land
  Mr. Madel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will place in the Library copies of the responses to the Department's common land consultation paper.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Some 336 responses were received to this consultation paper. I have today arranged for copies of those where the respondents have agreed to their comments being open to public inspection to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament.

  Planning Applications
  Sir Hugh Rossi
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if, in the light of recent announcement that many major planning applications will require environmental assessments in accordance with EC directive 85/337 from 3 July, he has any proposals to streamline the development control system at local authority level in order to reduce delays in handling planning applications.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We expect only a small proportion of applications to require environmental assessment in accordance with EC directive 85/337. The figures which we publish quarterly show that a significant proportion of authorities find it perfectly practicable to deal with planning applications promptly under the existing system. We have commended to all authorities the National Development Control Forum's recent guidelines for the handling of planning applications.

  Official Hospitality
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much was spent by his Department on official hospitality in the financial year 1987–88.

  Mr. Ridley
  [holding answer 18 April 1988]: The 1987–88 provisional outturn for expenditure on official hospitality by my Department (including the PSA) is £66,000.

  Don Valley UDC
  Mr. Duffy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to publish the names of(a) the chairman and vice-chairman and (b) the other members of the new urban development corporation in the lower Don Valley of Sheffield.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 18 April 1988]: I hope to do so as soon as possible.

DEFENCE

  Joint Defence Procurement
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence to what extent he co-operates with other Commonwealth countries in joint defence procurement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  There is regular contact with various members of the Commonwealth to explore co-operative opportunities in joint defence procurement, and I expect this process to continue. A number of equipments have resulted, including the CL89 drone and a magnetic anomaly detector with Canada, and the Ikara antisubmarine system, Barra sonobuoy and Jundivik target drone with Australia.

  Mr. Peter Peapell
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what work Mr. Peter Peapell was involved in whilst in the employment of his Department.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Mr. Peter Peapell, was a lecturer at the Royal Military college of science, Shrivenham.

  Dr. John Brittan
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what work Dr. John Brittan was involved in whilst in the employment of his Department.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  It is not our policy to disclose details of the work of employees at the Ministry of Defence.

  Professor Keith Bowden
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether Professor Keith Bowden was ever employed by his Department.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Professor Keith Bowden was a part-time member of one of the advisory boards operating under the auspices of the Defence Scientific Advisory Council.

  Mr. Richard Pugh
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether Mr. Richard Pugh was ever employed by his Department.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  No.

  Nuclear Weapons Transport
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what have been the conclusions of his Department's constant review of procedures concerning nuclear weapons convoys following an incident in which one of these convoys was left standing on a public road by a locked gate of RNAD Dean hill on 9 April; whether any military of civil organisation was requested to grit the roads used by this convoy; what steps his Department has taken to seek to improve the road from West Grinstead to RNAD Dean hill subsequent to the accident involving a weapons convoy in January 1987; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  As has been the practice of successive Governments, I am not prepared to discuss the movements
  427
  of nuclear weapons or their associated procedures, nor to confirm or deny that they may have been in any particular location at a particular time.

  Harrier GR5
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to place the order for production of the second batch of Harrier GR5s.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I am pleased to announce that, following the earlier announcement of the placing of orders for long lead items, an order is being placed with British Aerospace for the production of a second batch of 34 Harrier GR5s, making a total of 96 ordered for the Royal Air Force. Deliveries are scheduled to start in 1990. the additional aircraft will maintain the Harrier GR5 force into the 21st century.

  Belize (Overflying)
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the minimum height at which Royal Air Force aircraft are permitted to fly over land in Belize.

  Mr. Freeman
  1 refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 18 April 1988, at column 336.

  Low-flying Aircraft
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of the land area of Wales is included within the United Kingdom low-flying system.

  Mr. Freeman
  The whole of the land area of Wales is included within the United Kingdom low-flying system.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the average duration of a low-flying sortie by a fast jet.

  Mr. Freeman
  The average duration of a low-flying sortie by a fast jet is approximately 42 minutes.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what geographical area, expressed(a) by county and (b) by parliamentary constituency, is covered by low-flying area 3.

  Mr. Freeman
  Low-flying area 3 covers(a) part of the county of Cornwall and (b) the parliamentary constituencies of St. Ives, Falmouth and Camborne, and most of the constituency of Truro.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of complaints received about low flying in 1987 were identified as relating to(a) British military aircraft, (b) United States Air Force aircraft and (c) other military aircraft.

  Mr. Freeman
  1 refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave him on 15 April 1988, at column 249.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what were the reasons for the decline in the number of low-flying sorties over the United Kingdom in 1987 as compared with 1986; and whether he expects this downward trend to continue in 1988.

  Mr. Freeman
  Low-flying activity is influenced by several factors, including the number of aircrew in training, their experience, timing of major exercises,428
  budgetary constraints and the weather. While no increase in low-flying activity is expected for the foreseeable future, the reduction in low-flying activity between 1986 and 1987 was very small and not considered significant.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many confirmed breaches of low-flying regulations in each year since 1974 were caused by inadvertent negligence on the part of aircrew;

  (2) how many confirmed breaches of low-flying regulations in each year since 1974 were caused by wilful negligence on the part of aircrew.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information requested cannot be provided without disproportionate effort.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the reply to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy of 21 January,Official Report, column 776–7, what impact the planned reductions in Royal Air Force fast jet operational training flying hours is expected to have on the number of low-flying sorties over the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Freeman
  It is too early to quantify the expected reductions in fast jet flying hours referred to in the answer I gave the hon. Member on 21 January, although the effect on low-flying sorties is likely to be minimal.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the minimum height at which Royal Air Force aircraft are permitted to fly over land in Norway.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 22 February 1988]: RAF fixed wing aircraft training over land in Norway may be authorised to fly down to a minimum height of 250 ft in Norwegian low flying areas. RAF helicopters may fly below 500 ft.

  RAF (Accident Statistics)
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the accident rate for Royal Air Force fast jet aircraft in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) on 18 April 1988, at column 336.

  Tornado Crash, Nevada
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the circumstances surrounding the crash of a Royal Air Force Tornado in Nevada in late March.

  Mr. Freeman
  On the 30 March a Royal Air Force Tornado GR 1 of 20 Squadron, RAF Laarbruch crashed in the Nevada desert, USA during the course of the tactical flying exercise, Green Flag. Both crew safely ejected.

  The Royal Air Force has convened a board of inquiry into this accident, which will examine fully all the circumstances with a view to establishing its cause, and preventing recurrence. A summary of the board's findings will be published in due course in the usual way.

  Aircraft Accidents
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list all major accidents to British military aircraft in 1987, giving the date, location and type of aircraft in each case.
  429
  Mr. Freeman
  The information requested is as follows:

  Date

  Service

  Location

  Aircraft type: lost/severely damaged

  1 February

  RAF

  Ben More, Scotland

  Wessex

  24 February

  Navy

  Falmouth Bay

  Sea King

  27 February

  RAF

  Mount Pleasant, Falkland Islands

  Chinook

  19 March

  RAF

  Binbrook, Lincs.

  Lightning

  23 March

  Army

  Soest, Federal Republic of Germany

  Lynx

  30 March

  RAF

  Near Wesel, Federal Republic of Germany

  Tornado

  22 April

  RAF

  North Sea, off Wick

  Buccaneer

  3 June

  RAF

  Manby, Lincs.

  Tornado

  17 June

  RAF

  Near Keswick

  Jaguar/Tornado

  24 June

  RAF

  Near Builth Wells

  Jaguar

  1 July

  RAF

  Near Akrotiri, Cyprus

  Lightning

  16 July

  Army

  BATUS, Canada

  Gazelle

  27 July

  RAF

  Fadmoor, Yorkshire

  Tornado

  26 August

  RAF

  Near Aberystwyth

  Phantom

  7 September

  RAF

  North Sea

  Phantom

  23 September

  Navy

  Culdrose

  Sea King

  15 October

  Navy

  At Sea, off North West Scotland

  Sea Harrier

  16 October

  Navy

  Off Lizard, Cornwall

  Wessex

  23 October

  Army

  Middle Wallop

  Gazelle

  2 November

  RAF

  Otterburn Range, United Kingdom

  Harrier x 2

  16 November

  RAF

  Welton, Lines.

  Hawk x 2

  25 November

  Navy

  Predanneck, Cornwall

  Gazelle

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

Geothermal Power: Policy
Lord Rodney Lord Rodney asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their policy towards the development of geothermal power as a source of energy in the future.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the policy of Her Majesty's Government is to develop and promote all renewable energy technologies which are environmentally acceptable and indicate that they have potential to make an economically viable contribution to the United Kingdom's energy supply.
Lord Rodney: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend for that encouraging reply. How much have Her Majesty's Government already invested in this project? Are there plans to continue supporting this system of alternative energy?
Viscount Davidson: Yes, my Lords. The Government have invested over £25 million in the hot dry rocks technology. Prospects are encouraging, with further investment planned. The further work programme on this promising technology has recently been announced. It is to be undertaken by government funding amounting to £8.15 million over three years and will involve work by the Camborne School of Mines on an existing reservoir.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House what will happen to this project after privatisation, should privatisation take place? Is it the Government's intention to continue with funding or are they putting this project on the market too?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, it is the Government's intention that competition will be introduced into the electricity supply industry. Plans published on the privatisation of the industry provide for the purchase of electricity from generators and require a proportion of the electricity purchased to come from non-fossil fuel sources. The programme has already received small but helpful contributions from RTZ and Taylor Woodrow, and discussions are now under way with these bodies about involvement in the future programme. But the money that is presently being made available is for a three-year programme, privatisation or no.
The Earl of Kimberley: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether this investigation is being conducted in places other than Cornwall, for example, in Scotland?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the main investigation is taking place in Cornwall, but other parts of the United Kingdom show similar
1354
possibilities. It may be for the interest of your Lordships if I produce this technical bulletin called Drawing Heat from the Earth. I shall place a copy of it in the Library. It is technical, but also very interesting.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, without troubling the noble Viscount with questions about how long our stocks of coal or oil will last, may I ask him whether he accepts that our energy resources are finite, which means that sooner or later they will run out? If he accepts that, does he agree that it behoves us to do two things: first, to husband those sources of energy that we now have with much greater care than we do and, secondly, to pioneer and develop alternative sources? Is this alternative source to which the noble Lord, Lord Rodney, has referred, one that is much neglected?
Viscount Davidson: It is indeed a renewable source, my Lords. That is why the Government are backing it to the hilt and putting a great deal of money into research.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, is it not the case that part of the heating of the new hospital at Newport on the Isle of Wight is being provided by geothermal energy? That is another county that my noble friend would like to hear about.
Viscount Davidson: I require notice of that question, my Lords.
Lord Elton: My Lords, can my noble friend enlighten me on a technical point? Did he tell us that the Camborne School of Mines is investigating the hot dry rock process in a reservoir? If that is so, what kind of a reservoir is it, and how does the hot rock stay dry?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I think that at the moment it is a dry reservoir, but I shall look into this and write to my noble friend.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I hope my noble friend does not get wet!
The Earl of Bessborough: My Lords, can my noble friend tell me what is being done in other parts of the world, especially, for example, in Italy and elsewhere, on the American continent?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I understand that much work is going on in Sweden, but there again I shall have to send my noble friend a copy of this leaflet. The print is very small and I cannot find the exact answer to his question.

Home Shopping by Telecommunication
2.40 p.m.
Lord Wolfson Lord Wolfson asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are encouraging a more rapid timetable for the provision of cable facilities for a home shopping service by telephone and television similar to those being developed in countries overseas.
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Lord Young of Graffham): My Lords, the Government have established one of the most liberalised environments in the world for telecommunication networks and services. A framework has been put in place to allow companies to respond to customers' needs. The speed at which particular services are developed will be determined by the market and by commercial judgments of service operators.
Lord Wolfson: My Lords, as one with an interest in catalogue trading, I thank the Secretary of State for his reply. Will he keep in mind that a telecommunication-based home shopping system could be the forerunner of an EC single market project in 1992, backed by computer link-ups programmed for ordering payment and simultaneous translation?
Lord Young of Graffham: Yes, my Lords. This is one of the matters which the negotiations towards a single market will undertake; that is, to agree common standards for the whole of Europe. I hope that this will be one of the beneficiaries of such an agreement.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, does the noble Lord recall that when the Banking Bill was before the House there was, I believe, a special clause in the Bill (which is now the Banking Act) relating to access directly to terminals in retail stores by banks? Would similar legislation be required in respect of a home shopping service such as that mentioned by the noble Lord?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, no, it is my impression that such legislation would not be required. Some years ago my department gave limited support to interactive systems, but without great success. However, I shall look into the matter and if I am wrong I shall write to the noble Lord.
Lord Sainsbury: My Lords, is the Minister aware that this system is functioning in France but that retailers must pay a commission of between 7½ to 9½ per cent. on sales and that the system is subject to public support by public money?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I hope that the private sector and the market will develop cheaper ways of providing such services.
Lord Morris: My Lords, am I right in thinking that the Cable Authority has done a magnificent job in encouraging the use of cable within the United Kingdom and that it has recently announced the franchise for a further 26 cable areas?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, yes. Approximately 24 wide-band cable franchises—wide-band cable is required for the purpose—have been awarded. So far 10 are in operation. There are approximately 250,000 total subscribers in both wide and narrow-band cable facilities covering approximately 1·3 million homes which are now capable of receiving the service. The growth of cable has been slower than earlier' expectations but one hopes that it will be faster in the future.

European Parliament Headquarters
2.45 p.m.
Lord Chelwood Lord Chelwood asked Her Majesty's Government:
When and by whom they expect the meeting place of the European Parliament to be decided, and whether the endorsement of a decision by the Parliament would be subject to a veto in the Council of Ministers.
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, under the EC Treaty, the permanent seats of the institutions are to be determined by common accord of the Governments of the member states; in other words, they would all have to agree. No proposal for such a decision is currently under discussion or is likely to be discussed in the foreseeable future.
Lord Chelwood: My Lords, that is a disappointing Answer. I should like to ask my noble friend whether he sees any prospect of common accord in the near or distant future as regards this matter? Secondly, is he aware that the perpetuum mobile between Strasbourg and Brussels, leaving out Luxembourg altogether, probably cost the European taxpayers £45 million last year and that, without doubt, since 1965 it has cost between £400 million and £500 million? Is that not both extremely wasteful and extremely inefficient?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I certainly agree that the present arrangements under which the European Parliament operates result in considerably increased costs. That is not a satisfactory situation. However, the fact remains that the member states of the Community must agree unanimously if any change is to be effected.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, will the noble Lord be more specific? Can he say whether Her Majesty's Government favour a single site? If so, what site do they favour; is it Strasbourg, Brussels or even Luxembourg?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I believe that the Government can be easily persuaded to accept a single site but we have no views as to where that should be. However, the fact remains that there is a good deal of sensitivity among the other member nations of the Community and the likelihood of unanimity in the near or middle-term is pretty remote.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that commodious premises suitable for occupation by the European Parliament will shortly be available on the other side of the river in the former County Hall?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, whether that particular location will be suitable I cannot say. Perhaps the way forward in this matter will be for members of the European Parliament to reach a concerted view. Then no doubt the members of the Community can consider the matter further.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, will the Government think again about not having a preference for a possible single site? Will they also consider what would have been the history of British democracy if this Parliament had never been allowed closer to London than Newcastle, which is approximately the same distance as between Strasbourg and Brussels?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, there is a considerable degree of sensitivity in relation to this matter among the other member nations, in particular, not surprisingly, those members in whose country the Parliament meets from time to time. I do not think that it would be helpful for the Government to declare an interest in the way suggested by the noble Lord. However, we recognise the difficulties created by the present arrangements and we shall support a proposition which brings those difficulties to an end.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that there is a widespread view, shared by many members of the European Parliament, that under no circumstances will France agree to the Parliament being moved from Strasbourg? Have Her Majesty's Government addressed themselves to that problem? Do Her Majesty's Government propose to use the best of their persuasive powers to talk with their French allies about this matter?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am afraid that the problem is not as simple as the noble Lord suggests, because the European Parliament meets not only in Strasbourg but elsewhere. As I said earlier, the problem can be resolved only by unanimity among the members of the Community.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, does the Minister agree that this country and the Community would be much better run if they were run from Newcastle?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the noble Lord may well have a point but I dare say that there are other cities within the Community which would take the same view.
Lord Chelwood: My Lords, lest it be thought that I am as stuffy as I am told I sometimes look, may I ask my noble friend whether he is aware that for some five years I enjoyed enormously the fête champêtre in Strasbourg?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am bound to say that I too have enjoyed the delights to which my noble friend refers.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, in view of the Auld Alliance, perhaps the French might agree to consider Edinburgh as a permanent site for everybody?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, sometimes an immovable object comes up against an irresistible force, and I daresay that this will be such a situation.

Organ Donor Cards
3.51 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton Baroness Masham of Ilton asked Her Majesty's Government:
What they are doing to encourage more people to carry organ donor cards.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Skelmersdale): My Lords, we have recently publicised the organ donor card through a series of advertisements in national newspapers. The advertisements have drawn particular attention to the need for potential donors to discuss their wishes with their families. This campaign is part of a wider initiative to stimulate the availability of organs for transplantation, and follows advice prepared for Ministers by the medical Royal Colleges.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. Is the noble Lord aware that I took over this Question, which was in the name of Lady Lane-Fox, and I am sure that the whole House will be deeply saddened by her death? She was a very courageous and splendid person. I should like to ask the Minister whether there is an upper and lower age limit for organ donations.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, yes, I am aware of the history of this particular Question. Of course the whole House concurs with the sentiments expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, as to whether there is a restriction on the age of the donor, there is no such restriction by law but it is for the clinicians involved to decide whether organs are suitable for transplant. That will depend on a number of matters, including the age and physical condition of the donor and the organs involved.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, does the Minister agree that Lady Lane-Fox was a shining example of what can be done by disabled people not only for Parliament but also for other disabled people for whom she cared so much?
In relation to the subject of the Question, does the Minister accept that from these Benches we totally support the policy that the Government are pursuing in relation to donor cards?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, on both counts.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, may I join in expressing our profound regret at the loss of Lady Lane-Fox, whose courage and cheerfulness were an example to us all, able-bodied and disabled alike? Her expertise was invaluable and will be sadly missed, as indeed will she herself.
On the Question, perhaps I may congratulate the Government on solving the problems of distribution in relation to the computerised scheme. However,

1359
there is not much point in solving the distribution problem if the production problem has not been solved. Much more has to be done to make these organs available.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I can advise the House that, following advice from the medical Royal Colleges we are drafting a health circular which will ask health authorities to establish procedures for identifying potential organ donors and referring them to transplant units. That will be issued by the end of the year. Therefore, in essence, I agree with the noble Lord.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, may I ask what guidance has been given to the regional health authorities in respect of patients in hospitals with regard to advice on carrying donor cards in return for the admirable treatment which the National Health Service gives to patients from all communities?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, perhaps I may advise my noble friend to await the arrival of the circular.
Viscount Monckton of Brenchley: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that many of us are becoming more and more worried about donors and parts of the body which may or may not be given? Perhaps like the Government, we are awaiting some words of wisdom from the Churches, and indeed other religions in this country, on what is right and what is wrong. If one's own wife or child is suffering from something which can be cured by the use of an organ from an aborted foetus, one will selfishly want that to be done. However, is that right? Many of us are becoming more and more worried and we should be grateful for some advice.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I understand the particular worry which the noble Viscount has, which concerns, as I understand it, the use of foetal material. This is a subject which has gained prominence in recent days. The use of that material in this country is subject to the guidelines set down in the code of practice recommended in the report of the advisory group on the use of foetuses and foetal material for research, known as the Peel Report, which was published in 1972. There is no evidence that that code of practice is being abused, but of course we shall consider whether there is need to supplement it.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, can the noble Lord say where the donor cards will be made available? As I understand it, doctors' surgeries are the main source at present, and not everybody visits his or her doctor regularly.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am afraid I have totally missed the purport of the question of the noble Countess. If she will rephrase it, I shall do my best to answer it.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, can the noble Lord say where the new donor cards will be made available? Perhaps they could be made more easily available to people who wish to donate organs. As I
1360
understand it, in the past they have been available in doctors' surgeries but not in many other places.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, recently those cards have been available in post offices and indeed, there is a supply available in the Central Lobby at this moment. However, I agree with the noble Countess that it is necessary to have good stocks more widely available at points where people will regularly seek them. Such places include doctors' surgeries, hospital waiting departments and post offices, and it may well be possible to enter into an arrangement with the banks to hold stocks of these cards.
Lord Whaddon: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware of allegations in the press that the computerised system for linking donor with patient in Western Europe and a similar system existing in East Europe are not linked one with the other? Can he say whether or not this story is true and, if it is true, can he say what steps the Government are proposing to take to ensure a link-up in the interests of all?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, with the deepest regret, I am unable to confirm or deny such stories, but I shall look into the matter and write to the noble Lord.

Universities: Education Reform Bill Proposals
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, I beg to present a petition from academic teachers and scholars of the universities of the United Kingdom which prays that this House will reject the Government's proposals on state control and funding of universities, will reinstate academic tenure as a bulwark of intellectual freedom, will insert safeguards for liberty of learning, teaching and research and will resist all attempts to undermine the long and distinguished tradition of autonomy for our universities and colleges.
Petition presented.

Housing (Scotland) Bill
2.58 p.m.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an Instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the Housing (Scotland) Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order—

Clause 1,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 2 and 3,

Schedule 2,

Clause 4,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 5 to 12,

Schedule 4,

Clauses 13 to 19,

Schedule 5,

Clauses 20 to 43,

Schedule 6,

Clauses 44 to 68,

Schedules 7 to 10,

Clauses 69 to 70.

—(The Earl of Dundee.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Court of Session Bill [H.L.]
2.59 p.m.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Cameron of Lochbroom): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee (on Recommitment) on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee (on Recommitment)—(Lord Cameron of Lochbroom.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee (on Recommitment) accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 51 agreed to.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Repeals]:
The Lord Advocate (Lord Cameron of Lochbroom)The Lord Advocate (Lord Cameron of Lochbroom) moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 18, line 11, column 3, after ("14") insert ("the words").
The noble and learned Lord said: In speaking to this amendment, I shall speak also to the remaining amendments. This Bill was considered by the Joint Committee on 23rd March. Further consideration of the Bill since then has uncovered a number of printing errors or minor technical inconsistencies in Parts II and III of Schedule 2.
This amendment and Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 correct printing errors which have crept into the latest print of the Bill. The remaining amendments are aimed at making clear which of the repeal provisions are re-enacted in the Bill or are repealed without re-enactment. Therefore the amendments are minor drafting points that do not affect the scope or legal effect of the Bill.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Oliver of Aylmerton, the chairman of the joint committee, has been consulted on the amendments and has indicated that he is of the view that those amendments are appropriate to a consolidation Bill, and further that the amendments do not change the legal effect of the Bill.
I intend to move the remaining amendments en bloc. However, if noble Lords require an explanation of any of them, I shall of course be pleased to provide it. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved amendments Nos. 2 to 8:
Page 20, line 18, column 3, at end insert ("In section 6, the proviso").
Page 20, column 3, leave out lines 29 to 31.
Page 22, line 14, column 3, at end insert ("except the words "although such law is not pleaded on the record".").
Page 22, column 3, leave out from ("causes") in line 17 to end of line 20.
Page 23, line 2, column 3, at end insert ("Section 24(5)").
Page 25, column 3, leave out lines 4 to 6 and insert ("Section 22.").
Page 25, line 39, column 3, leave out ("and 30") and insert ("to 31").
The noble and learned Lord said: I have already spoken to Amendment No. 2 and the remainder. Therefore I beg leave to move the amendments en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Education Reform Bill
3.1 p.m.
Second Reading debate resumed.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I very much look forward to the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Carlisle of Bucklow in this debate on the Bill which builds on the policy which he developed during his distinguished period as Secretary of State for Education and Science. I am also very much looking forward to the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Russell.
The Bill aims to change important aspects of our education system. Nothing less will achieve our urgent objective of raising standards throughout our schools, colleges and universities. The Bill ensures for the first time that all children will receive a broad, balanced and relevent curriculum—a truly national curriculum. However, the Government believe that setting national standards is not enough. The way to ensure that in practice those standards are achieved is through the healthy competition that arises from encouraging parental choice which is, in any case, a good in itself. Therefore the Bill widens parents' choice of school within the local education authority sector and makes provision for the establishment of two types of school—grant maintained schools and city technology colleges—which will extend still further the range of choice available.
We believe that schools and colleges, and their governing bodies, are best placed to make day-to-day management decisions, and accordingly the Bill builds on developing local practice to devolve responsibility as far as possible. The same principle—that local decisions are best made at the most local level—underlies our proposals for education in inner London. I believe that that gives a lie to those who have argued that the Bill is concerned to arrogate power to the centre. That claim is sometimes made in the most lurid terms. We are told of the 182 new powers which the Secretary of State is taking to himself—and Opposition noble Lords may add some more if they wish! However, noble Lords who have taken the trouble to study the Bill will have seen that that is sheer fantasy. Anyone attempting to tot up the figures to anything like that number, or beyond, is treating it as though it were a separate power, each subsidiary, secondary or minor provision designed to bolster the much more limited number of substantive powers given to the Secretary of State. In any case, most of those substantive powers are designed to enable the Secretary of State to ensure that power is devolved to the most local level.
Financial delegation to the schools and colleges—is that a centralising measure? The setting

1363
up of polytechnics as free-standing institutions—is that also a centralising measure? Similarly, freedom for schools to apply for grant-maintained status, without interference from local education authorities, but at the same level of resources as those other local schools—is that, too, a centralising measure?
Noble Lords: Yes.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, noble Lords on the Opposition Benches will understand that my answer would be the opposite to that.
There is wide agreement that a national curriculum is desirable. That plainly requires some degree of central co-ordination. The Government's provisions include checks and balances which means that attainment targets and programmes of study will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny following two stages of national consultation in which the independent curriculum councils will have key roles. We have taken the utmost care to ensure that those provisions do not permit a Secretary of State merely to take power into his own hands. In short, at whichever part of the Bill that one looks, the charge of centralisation simply does not stand up. That fact is especially clear in relation to higher education.
At the time of the Bill's publication there was much criticism about the nature of the powers being sought for the Secretary of State in respect of the university funding provisions of the Bill. As I understand it, the essential concern was that they placed inappropriate and dangerous powers into the hands of the Secretary of State. Notwithstanding the amendments which have been made, many of those criticisms continue and that, I understand, is the burden of the Petition made by the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury which was read to your Lordships' House this afternoon.
I cannot accept the contention that the powers conferred on the Secretary of State are inappropriate. Between them the funding councils will dispose of some £2·5 billion per annum. Surely it cannot seriously be argued that the Government, on the taxpayers' behalf, have no right to determine how those substantial sums are disbursed? If such powers are appropriate, where is the danger? That must lie in the suspicion that some future Secretary of State might use those powers improperly to involve himself in the detailed provision of higher education. However, that ignores the fact that over many years similar, if not wider, powers have been available to successive Secretaries of State and have never been abused. It also ignores the important point—surely this is fundamental—that the Secretary of State, the Government, are answerable to Parliament.
The contents of this part of the legislation were well canvassed. The starting point is the report of the committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Croham, which was published in February 1987. That report was debated in this House on 18th March, shortly before the publication in April of the White Paper Higher Education: Meeting the Challenge. That was debated in this House on 6th May, almost immediately before the publication of the detailed consultation paper on the University Funding Council with a deadline for comments on 30th June.
1364
That certainly, at least for the most part, was not during a holiday period.
The new provisions will provide a proper statutory framework for the funding of universities and higher education generally. This will clarify presently confused lines of responsibility and accountability. The aim has been to carry forward into the new situation the necessary powers available to the Secretary of State under the present non-statutory arrangements. The reactions to the Government's proposals before the publication of the Bill indicated that the conventions were well understood. Provision for the necessary new powers were therefore drawn in fairly broad brush terms.
The criticisms which these attracted on publication arose from dark suspicions of the Government's motives. This Government—any government who cared about the health of higher education—simply could not square the needs of society with the kind of subjugation of the funding councils and the institutions that has featured in some of the wilder scenarios canvassed since the publication of the Bill. However the Government have met these criticisms by a studied package of amendments now embodied in the Bill before this House. These make explicit the always-intended limitations on the Secretary of State's powers. Of course, he needs to be able to attach conditions to the funds he puts at the funding councils' disposal, but these—and this is vitally important—may neither affect the use to which institutions put their private funds, nor require the funding councils to treat specified institutions in particular ways. Similarly, institutions' private funds are explicitly outside the funding councils' influence.
Given the importance of higher education, the Secretary of State needs long-stop powers to direct the funding councils to take particular actions in the nation's interests. The Bill now provides for any such direction to be subject to parliamentary veto under the negative resolution procedure; in other words, under direct parliamentary control. Explicit provision has been made for the funding councils to advise the Government on any matters which the councils wish to raise. The powers of the funding councils to secure repayment of funds in particular circumstances have been clarified, as have the powers of the Secretary of State to delegate additional functions to the funding councils.
There is an obvious tension between the public funding of higher education institutions and the need to preserve their essential autonomy. This Government, as did all our predecessors, fully recognise the need to safeguard the essential nature of our higher education provision. What was implicit in the Bill as introduced has now been made explicit, and it seems to me that on this aspect of the matter the provisions are now in good shape.
Linked with the concerns to which I have referred have been some misunderstandings of the implications for academic freedom of the Bill's entirely separate provisions for academic tenure. The Government have repeatedly stressed their belief in the importance of academic freedom as a vital element in our higher education system. I shall seek to explain briefly, in order to emphasise them, the measures in the Bill aimed at safeguarding it.

1365
I believe the best way to protect academic staff from potentially hostile management and colleagues—and that is what we are dealing with at this stage—is to ensure access to due processes which will protect them from arbitrary dismissal. In view of a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn of Charlton, last night, perhaps I may say that the processes which are here in question are processes which are designed to prevent the dismissal taking effect.
These are: by requiring the commissioners to establish proper procedures for dismissing staff; by requiring the commissioners to provide for an appeals machinery for staff who are dismissed or under notice of dismissal. This should ensure that all academic staff have a means of testing the grounds for dismissal and an effective measure of protection against any victimisation by their colleagues on account of their views. If their appeals were well-founded their positions would be secure. Thirdly, by removing the exclusive jurisdiction of the visitor over cases of dismissal of academic staff, so enabling staff to bring actions in the courts for wrongful dismissal which they cannot now do. This right of action in the courts will be in addition to the right that academic staff have, like other employees, to contest the fairness of their dismissal in an industrial tribunal. That, of course, is the later stage in the matter and perhaps the stage to which some of the observations made by the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn of Charlton, were more appropriately directed.
I believe it is also important to note that what is proposed by the Government is that commissioners shall have the responsibility of following these provisions in making specific provisions for individual institutions. I believe that this deals effectively with the point made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester yesterday about adapting the situation to the individual institutions which are in question.
In establishing new procedures and machinery, the commissioners will be required to consult, and to take into account the representations of, both the institutions and representatives of the staff concerned. The Privy Council will not confirm the changes in statutes put forward by the commissioners unless it is satisfied that the dismissal and appeals procedures and machinery are just and fair. The requirement for fairness is central to the whole process and recognises, surely, the sensitivities of these academic issues. Fairness is at the very essence of the procedure which we suggest is appropriate in this Bill for dealing with these matters.
There is continued pressure for provisions protecting academic freedom to be written into the Bill. Whether one calls it academic freedom or scholarly freedom, I do not particularly mind. However, I suppose that scholarly freedom emphasises that it is the freedom of the individual scholar, whereas academic freedom might mean either the freedom of the individual academic or the freedom of the academy itself.
The argument is that a new specific protection is required to replace that currently afforded by tenure, that is, "unsackability", if I might use that word, on grounds of redundancy. What are the implications of this? I pass over the point that tenure in this sense
1366
exists in only half our universities and none of our polytechnics, so that in law and in logic it cannot provide the protection some people want. The implications of that demand can only be that academics are afraid of malign university management and of being persecuted by their colleagues on account of their views. Some odd arguments have been advanced about the magic powers of tenure; for example, that its existence in one institution protects in some way staff in a neighbouring college which does not have it. For my part, I must say that I find this a little less than compelling in logic than some of the other arguments on the law that I have heard from noble Lords.
In practice of course the Bill will do no more than ensure that all universities have the means that other good employers have to run their concerns effectively. Academic staff appointed or promoted after the introduction of the Bill will no longer have complete protection against redundancy. But the Bill in no way gives universities free licence to dismiss people. They would have to be shown to be genuinely redundant, and they would be able to test whether they had been fairly selected for redundancy. Neither is there anything in the Bill which would enable an academic to be dismissed on account of his views in circumstances in which this could not already happen. This is surely right: merely holding an opinion which has no bearing on job performance should not be a ground for victimisation.
It seems to me that putting a specific reference to academic freedom in the Bill could result in some considerable difficulty. It has not as yet been shown to be possible to give academic freedom a definition that would be applicable in all circumstances. The noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn of Charlton, last night put forward in broad terms a suggestion in this connection, but I believe it has to be tested against examples.
Perhaps a striking example of these problems arises in the case of lecturers in theology in institutions with a denominational or creed tradition. There are instances where holders of such posts are required to certify that they hold certain beliefs or that they adhere to a particular creed, for example, the Apostles' Creed. What if one of them loses his faith or is converted to another? Should he be entitled to continue to teach even though his views now may be far from the purposes of the institution and indeed quite subversive of them?
These are deep waters. Any reference to academic freedom might lead the courts to conclude that since Parliament had deliberately mentioned it in the Bill, it must mean something quite distinct from justice and fairness, concepts with which they are familiar. Applications could be made to the courts for declarations that the amendments proposed by the commissioners in particular institutions conflicted with the provisions protecting academic freedom, thus exposing the work of the commissioners to fruitless and disruptive litigation. This would be, in a way, counter to the suggestion made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester, that it would not be wise to make too much provision in the Bill and that it would be a matter for application by the commissioners to particular institutions. It could also give new and unmerited protection to staff who

1367
would seek to defend themselves by claiming that they were being dismissed for holding dissident views. The Government's approach, which I have described, is the sounder.
At the risk of trespassing on the patience of the House, I should like to digress briefly. Yesterday, the noble Lord, Lord Swann, suggested that Ministers and their advisers should acquaint themselves better with the lives of the universities. As I think the noble Lord knows, I started off my working life as a lecturer in mathematics at St. Andrew's University in 1948. I know that many changes, not all for the better, may have overtaken universities since then. I also had the experience of being legal assessor to the University Court of the University of Edinburgh during the distinguished tenure of the office of principal by the noble Lord. Therefore I have at least an interest in the universities if not the same experience as the noble Lord.
Another very important issue on which I should like to touch briefly is the special position of the universities in Scotland. The Government fully appreciate that the constitutional arrangements of some Scottish universities are rather different from those in England and Wales. One of the commissioners will therefore be a person with a special knowledge of Scottish universities. In addition, the requirement on the commissioners to have regard to the nature and circumstances of the particular institution in each case will be a safeguard for valuable traditions.
In closing, I wish to emphasise that the Government have not closed their ears or mind to what is being said on these issues. They have recognised that circumstances might occasionally arise which did not involve an immediate threat of dismissal but which nonetheless could leave individual academics in doubt about their assurance of academic freedom. Therefore, at Committee stage, the Government will be considering how best to provide for appropriate procedures, including provision for appeals, to be extended to cover issues concerning grievance and discipline short of dismissal.
The idea of the grievance procedure is to provide protection where what is being threatened is not dismissal but something short of dismissal. That point was not fully understood in some of the remarks I heard in your Lordships' House yesterday. I expect shortly to have discussions on these matters with, among others, the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Oxford. In some situations the vice-chancellor is almost as important as the chancellor.
In the Government's view, these safeguards will give academics a substantial measure of protection against victimisation by their colleagues on account of their views. As I have said, the further suggestions so far made to us do not appear appropriate because they will put our objectives at risk. However, the Government are perfectly prepared to continue to consider any proposals that will secure effective and practical protection for academics from victimisation on account of their views but are at the same time compatible with sound administration.
3.24 p.m.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, yesterday the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, complained of his uncomfortable position, sandwiched between two former Secretaries of State. I suggest that my position is rather worse, being crushed between two active chancellors. However, I shall do my best. Yesterday we had a most interesting and informative debate and no doubt today's contributions will be fascinating and constructive.
Yesterday we heard several suggestions from speakers on the Benches opposite that those on this side of the House were complacent. I should like to refute that suggestion. We on these Benches represent a reforming party. We are in favour of reform if it is improvement, especially in education. To attack us on the basis of complacency is very strange.
As noble Lords, including my noble friend Lady Blackstone, pointed out, we recognise many failings in British education. The pity is that this Bill does little or nothing to correct them. Education for under-fives, the standards achieved by those who leave school at 16, the provision of education and training for 16 to 19 year-olds and the damaged morale of teachers at all levels of education are areas where we on this side of the House consider that much requires to be done. However, on these issues the Bill is not significant and in some areas makes matters worse.
In considering the Bill, your Lordships should have regard to why it causes so much worry to so many people concerned with education. Every association of local authorities involved in education, the teaching unions, the National Children's Bureau, the Churches, the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, NALGO and even the parents of London children all express deep worries. What is wrong with the Bill? Is it a question of a change in the philosophy of education?
I shall not attempt to cover the whole Bill, but I wish to discuss the position of Scottish universities and then try to deal to some extent with academic freedom, The Bill has nothing whatsoever to do with Scottish education except for its provision as regards the Scottish universities. It does not touch Scottish schools or any of the local or central government colleges of further education. There is a major difficulty in that the Secretary of State for Scotland has responsibility for all education in Scotland except universities, and the eight Scots universities are tacked on as a nuisance of an adjunct to the responsibilities of the English Secretary of State, whose major concern is the totality of English and Welsh education.
The Scottish Tertiary Education Advisory Council, appointed by this Government, stated that there was a need for,
"an over-arching body responsible for academic planning and co-ordination of provisions across the university and non-university sectors in Scotland and for the formulation of advice in respect of both sectors to government".
The Government have not accepted that proposal.
The Croham Report recommended that on the assumption that a separate Scottish planning and funding body was not established, at the very least

1369
the University Grants Committee should have a Scottish committee. Croham also reported:
"More than elsewhere in the United Kingdom Scottish universities do operate in a distinct environment and serve Scottish needs and this needed explicit recognition".
However, there is no recognition explicit on the face of the Bill of the special position of Scottish universities. There should be.
The Scottish position is different. The school system is different. The examination system is different. Because the examination tends to be in the fifth year instead of there being A-levels in the sixth year, the university course tends to last four years. In Scotland a far higher proportion of professional qualifications are based directly on university attainment than is the case in England. The law is a prime example. We do not have separate Bar or solicitors' examinations and training in the way that England has. The Church is another example. In Scotland there is also a different system of teacher training and different proportions of post-graduate students.
On this side of the House we shall have to study what the noble and learned Lord said about Scottish universities. But my immediate impression is that the Government's position is inadequate. There is a general feeling in Scotland across party divides that the Scottish universities, especially at this time Aberdeen and Dundee, have been unfairly treated by the University Grants Committee. There is no confidence that the new University Funding Council, appointed at the whim of the English Secretary of State, will do any better when the promised Scottish committee has no statutory basis.
We on this side of the House believe that the answer is to have a Scottish body responsible for all post-school education. As a further Scottish matter, perhaps I may mention the concerns of the Church of Scotland. Under the Universities (Scotland) Act 1932, the Church has rights in the appointment of chairs to the faculties of divinity in the older Scottish universities. The continuation of these faculties with Church of Scotland approval of their teaching is of course of vital concern to the Church. It is difficult to see how these existing procedures fit in with Clauses 173 to 176 of the Bill. The 1932 Act is nowhere mentioned in the Bill; it is not repealed; it just exists. It is unfortunate that there has apparently been no consultation, or even apparently no acknowledgment by the Government of the Church of Scotland's concern.
On a more general matter, I as a lawyer with some little experience in redundancy in industrial law have difficulty in applying that experience to a concept that appears to be in this Bill—that a professor may be declared redundant and then replaced by a lecturer who would do exactly the same job at a cheaper cost. That is a very strange concept of redundancy to somebody who deals sometimes with the present law on redundancy.
On academic freedom, after the powerful speech by the noble Lord, Lord Swann, I need say very little. In his excellent speech he pointed to the problems and dangers of excessive central government control in what the universities do, especially in the field of research. It is this aspect of control of research and what precisely is to be done that we see as one of the
1370
prime dangers of centralised control which is dangerous to academic freedom. Academic freedom in research and scholarship is crucial to freedom as we understand it. I suggest it is also crucial to the development of new ideas.
We accept that the Government have moved some way since the Bill was first published on the aspect of unjustified dismissal. Of course we agree that the Government have and must have an input as they control and should control the major part of the finance involved. In making sure that the balance is correctly struck, we consider it to be essential that the concept of academic freedom is written into the Bill. It is said to be difficult to define. I agree with noble Lords who yesterday pointed out that natural justice and fairness are also concepts that are difficult to define. But I see no difficulty in noble and learned Lords or other judges understanding what is involved in academic freedom and applying that to any question with which they may have to deal.
We on this side of the House do not see the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council, the Universities Funding Council or the University Commissioners as buffers to protect education from the centralising tendencies of central government. I suggest those tendencies are very strongly centralising, in spite of all the recent eloquence of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor on the subject. We see them as a means by which the whims of each successive Secretary of State can be forced through, on an ad hoc basis, on to education. The Secretary of State is given numerous and wide-ranging powers to do what he wants by instructing those councils. There is a general need on all the 366 occasions, as I am informed, when the Secretary of State is given power to require that he should state his reasons for exercising that power and the general criteria on which he purports to act.
This is another Bill which appears to have been drafted specifically to avoid the chance of judicial review. We on this side of the House believe this to be wrong in principle. A government in a democracy should not be afraid of challenge to their administrative actions in the courts but should recognise that that is essential to democracy and freedom. I suggest most strongly that it is wrong to try to draft Bills specifically to avoid recourse to the courts.
It is for this reason and because of the dangers involved that we believe that academic freedom must be written in. Tenure is in some ways the other side of the coin in academic freedom. My noble friend Lord Peston will deal more fully with this aspect. All I need say at the moment is that the present proposals are having a disastrous effect on staff at universities. They are making people who have tenure reluctant to move even when they should because they would lose tenure. They are diminishing recruitment from countries like the United States of America where they have tenure.
Earlier in my speech I asked why so many people oppose this Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, suggested yesterday, it may be that there is a new philosophy. If that is so, it is a philosophy with which we profoundly disagree. The philosophy behind this Government's approach to education was described

1371
last year by the Church of Scotland Board of Education thus:
"a carriage and four has been driven through some of the aims contemplated in 1982, by the various government announcements, making correlations between financial grants and educational systems that are economically productive—correlations that are now beginning to appear at all levels of education, not least in technological, tertiary and secondary institutions. The kind of ecomomic twist that is thereby given to the entire system is so unashamedly utilitarian as to be almost incredible within our western culture. It does not gain any support from educational philosophy across four thousand years of reflection, unless perhaps among Marxists. More seriously, it fails to realise that in fact many of the discoveries which have proved most profitable economically have been inspired by those who were not seeking economic profitability, but were content to try out an idea, or follow a vision. When the Robbins Report on Tertiary Education in 1963 defined the aims of tertiary education—and they would easily apply to secondary education—it included not just the provision of skills and expertise as well as the imparting of a body of information and expert knowledge, but also the ability to think and argue, to assess evidence and judge the validity of conclusions. It is this latter ability which is at risk in an educational theory which is obsessed by quick economic results … and which in its shortsightedness may defeat its own ends".
That is a fairly long quotation, but we on this side of the House fully agree with that view. The Government's philosophy, as expressed in this Bill, is wrong-headed and shortsighted and will not produce the results that we hope for.
3.38 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, there is a convention of fairly recent date that your Lordships' House does not destroy major Bills which have the weight of an elected government behind them—at least, I should perhaps add today, so long as that government are able to preserve their normal majority in the House of Commons.
Speaking as someone who wrote 35 years ago of the unwisdom 40 years before that of this House allowing itself to become the poodle of the Leader of the Opposition in another place, I could not possibly contest the general principle with which I began. However, I do not interpret that as meaning that debates in this House should concern themselves only or principally with the margins of issues, where a little ground can be lost or won without serious offence to the legislative authority of the Government. We may have to sheath the sword sometimes in the Division Lobbies but we do not have to muzzle ourselves in this Chamber. And in particular we do not need to be grateful to the Government for undoing part of the damage which they have gratuitously proposed.
It is overwhelmingly to universities that I wish to devote my speech today, although clearly no one could be present throughout the debate yesterday without noting the widespread dismay which the proposal to abolish ILEA, for instance, attracted right across the House. However, as regards universities, it should, I think, be firmly stated that this started as a Bill which they would be much better without and that it remains precisely in that category.
Those concessions already made and those which we hope will be forthcoming are welcome but they are not a subject on which we should be expected to congratulate the Government. It is highly desirable that the Russians should be withdrawing from Afghanistan but it remains discreditable that they were there in the first place and withdrawal hardly
1372
makes their occupation an episode for which they deserve the Nobel Peace Prize, any more than Mr. Baker deserves—perhaps I should be careful when I make such remarks—an Oxford honorary degree for having marched his troops to the top of the hill and then having marched at any rate some of them down again.
The value of the concessions which have so far been firmly made—which relate entirely to the composition and powers, vice the Secretary of State, of the Universities Funding Council—will depend very largely on the good faith of the Government. For instance, on the point that the UFC should, like the UGC, be a two-way channel of communication between Government and universities and not just an instrument of accountancy discipline, the UFC is now rather half-heartedly empowered to provide the Government with information and advice,
"in such manner as the Secretary of State may from time to time determine".
If he determines well, that can be helpful: if not, not. The evaluation of that provision and of other parts of the Bill therefore requires us to look at the Government's record towards universities over the past nine years. It is really almost impossible on this record to find any rational basis on which we can trust the Government's good educational intentions. I believe that the policies of the present Government towards universities have been the most shortsighted that this country has had the misfortune to encounter. Nearly every previous administration, including the overwhelming majority of Conservative administrations, has been responsible for some major advance—some creative act—in our academic framework. This one alone is distinguished in creating nothing and for inflicting great damage on teaching, research, morale and students.
I should be surprised if any noble Lord, including even the Minister, with her departmental responsibilities and whose unprovocative lucidity we greatly admired yesterday, could give us an example of something positive and precise in our university framework which would not have been there without the work of this Government.
Therefore the Government's record towards universities, far from offering a platform of confidence from which to approach the Bill, can only inspire profound mistrust. After three or four debilitating twists of the squeezing machine, the universities face the threat to their independence contained in the Bill from the most attenuated position that they have been in for decades.
I am not sure whether the case for university independence needs to be argued in your Lordships' House. My noble friend Lord Annan deployed yesterday what one might call the Rue St. Dominique argument in favour of the Secretary of State running schools. "Tell me the time of day and I will tell you which Alexandrines of Racine they are declaiming in every lycée from Limoges to Lisieux" was, I think, the proud boast of French Ministers of Public Instruction at the time of the argument between Church and State at the beginning of this century. But I do not think that my noble friend suggested that Provosts were to be as subordinate as head teachers. Nor has any Government spokesman made up his or

1373
her mind as regards what is now the accepted message for universities.
Are universities to be more centrally directed or are they not? And if not what is the purpose of tacking them uncomfortably on to a schools Bill? If the Government do not intend a major change in the relationship between state and universities, they have certainly gone about things in a remarkably ham-fisted way. They have caused themselves a vast amount of unnecessary trouble. The Secretary of State must have had to spend more time with more Vice-Chancellors—I agree with the noble and learned occupant of the Woolsack that they are much more important than Chancellors and he is lucky, or rather unlucky, not to have one in this House—than are seen gathered together even in this House. Ministers have increased their already well-earned reputation for philistinism and, as my noble friend Lord Blake told us yesterday, they have further reduced the already low morale of the academic community.
If, on the other hand, universities are to be more centrally directed, do the Government really believe that this is the way to sustain their great traditions as centres of independent and critical thought, as guardians of humane values and as instruments for extending the frontiers of knowledge?
It is difficult to think of any field of human endeavour in which central regulation is a greater enemy of excellence than that of the organisation of the teaching and research of universities. Do the Government really think that they have got a new philosopher's stone stored in the basement of Queen Elizabeth House which will enable them to dispense with the principles of independence which have infused every great and successful university from Bologna 900 years ago when it started to Harvard in the past half century? It really is quite extraordinarily perverse that a government which in every economic, welfare and planning field is dedicated to rolling back the frontiers of the state should in relation to the universities be dedicated to expanding them. If that threat of interference becomes a reality—and if not, what is the point of the part of the Bill which relates to the universities?—then I am extremely doubtful as to whether we shall have a university of the foremost world class in this country by the end of the century.
What can still be done to improve the position? I shall mention three points, although I stress that I am against getting so involved in the modalities of the Bill at Second Reading stage that we forget the monstrous undesirability of imposing those measures on universities at all. First, we must have a clear declaration on academic freedom. It will not outweigh the inherent danger of contract funding which broods alongside the Bill and about which the noble Lord, Lord Swann, was so quietly eloquent yesterday. However, it will be something. It will not be totally watertight legally. But it is regularly the case, if I may say so with respect to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, that when governments wish to use vague phrases in legislation they do so without hesitation—this Bill is spattered with them—and they only become dedicated logical positivists when they are trying to resist what other people want. Yesterday, the noble Lord, Lord Blake, put forward a form which is perfectly possible.
1374
Secondly, there should be a limitation on the conditions which the Universities Funding Council may attach to the payments which it makes to universities. That could be done in Clause 115(6) with some statement to the effect that any term or condition imposed by the council should not unreasonably constrain a university in the exercise of its judgment as to the best use of resources in pursuance of its academic objectives. Again, it is not perfect and it does not have many teeth. However, it is of some use from the point of view of institutional autonomy.
Thirdly, there is a point relating to private funding. The Government have said that success in that direction will not lead to any diminution of the flow of public funds. That should be put in a statutory form. Clauses are better than promises. Universities would be reassured and so would potential benefactors who, however great their admiration may be, do not wish just to finance Mr. Lawson. I hope to return to those points at a later stage.
What I failed to hear, either from the Minister yesterday or from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor today, was any fundamental positive justification for the clauses of the Bill dealing with universities and other higher education institutions. We hear a great deal about how the Bill will not be operated so as to do some of the damage of which it is capable. What sort of justification is that?
I ask the Minister, when she answers this evening, to announce when she will be dealing with that point and to give us three sentences of positive statement showing how the Bill will improve the performance of our universities. If she finds that difficult, I ask her to reflect on the disadvantages of belonging to a government who constantly practise a restless superficiality masquerading as radicalism. The result is a society many aspects of which increasingly both offend our consciences and threaten our intellectual and cultural inheritance.
I noticed the conjuncture of two events last weekend. One was the publication by the Secretary of State for Education of an anthology of poetry. The other was the 100th anniversary of the death of Matthew Arnold, which was already mentioned most appropriately in this debate by the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham. I have always understood that Arnold met his death as a result of the somewhat un-Oxonian activity of running for a tramcar in Liverpool. He was nonetheless the pastoral poet of 19th century Oxford. The Scholar Gypsy roamed the Berkshire moors, past the Fyfield elm to some lone alehouse where his memory was occasionally jogged by looking down upon a,
"line of festal light from Christ Church Hall".
The Berkshire moors have been put into another county by the colleague of the Secretary of State, Mr. Peter Walker. The Fyfield elm and nearly every acre within miles of it are being obliterated by the enthusiastic bulldozing of most of the South of England encouraged by his other colleague, Mr. Ridley. Will not our Minister poet at least desist from dimming that line of intellectual light from the university beyond Christ Church and from other universities and institutions beyond Oxford?
Lord Joseph: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I have waited until the end of his philippic before noting that in the last sentence of his peroration he referred to higher education. Will he not, before stigmatising the Government so severely, acknowledge that there are now 100,000 more students in higher education than there were when the last Labour Government left office? Will he not acknowledge the charge of complacency that may be levelled against his whole speech, a complacency that he shares with one of the Opposition leaders in this House and a number of her colleagues? Let him acknowledge that even the universities in this country, great though many of them are, are worried by falling standards in our schools compared to what they should be. Let him acknowledge that he has been very complacent—
Noble Lords: Order! Speech!
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, I should do so with pleasure. However, I do not think that I could easily reply to the noble Lord without making an intervention which was even more in the nature of a speech than was his.
3.58 p.m.
Lord Dainton: My Lords, it is difficult to follow the Chancellor of the University of Oxford. It is difficult to follow so many vice-chancellors. I am mindful of the fact that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor referred to the relationship between vice-chancellors and chancellors. Having been the one and being now the other, I rely upon the definition of an 18th century divine:
"Vice-chancellors whose knowledge is but small and chancellors who nothing know at all".
Perhaps I may first say how much I welcome the provisions in the Bill to ensure that polytechnics become higher education corporations. Very little reference has been made to that. It has always seemed to me to be entirely appropriate for local education authorities to have the responsibility for post-school but sub-degree level education of young people who live locally and are likely to be employed locally. However, students who aim for a degree and for whom, after graduation, the world is their oyster should be able to apply for admission wherever their education can be best and most economically provided. Consequently the planning and resource allocations mechanism for institutions such as the polytechnics should be national rather than local. That is certainly one step in the right direction and one can but hope that it is not the last towards a national system of higher education which is unified but—and this is an important proviso—allows for diversity and experiment in its component institutions.
Great changes for universities and their relationships with government are foreshadowed in the Bill. As we have been told, a new Universities Funding Council is to replace the UGC. What that UFC can do, the powers it can exercise vis-á-vis the universities, and how it is to interact with the Secretary of State are delineated in some detail. I confess that—based on my experiences as vice-chancellor and former chairman of the University
1376
Grants Committee—I still fail to see the necessity for most of those changes.
The system of university education which we have had in this country since 1919 has been rightly admired by other countries. It is also cost-effective. About 10 years ago I found that, compared with other developed countries, the cost of producing a first degree graduate (which is surely a better measure of efficiency than the cost per student year) was lowest in the United Kingdom. That was because the courses here were shorter, better structured, more intensive, and the drop-out and wastage rates were lower than overseas. The product was not inferior. British university graduates were and still are not just internationally acceptable but are internationally sought after.
Nor in my experience of the system as it then existed, extending over half a century, was change inhibited. I have seen departments superfluous to needs, for example in mining and agriculture, disappear, and I have seen new activities introduced without the business of a Bill. Those changes included a doubling in the size of medical education, centres for Japanese and Chinese studies, the establishment of building schools—the list is endless.
The reasons for that success, in addition to a commendable commitment of staff to teaching, were threefold. First, the relationships on the one hand between the Government and the UGC and on the other between the universities and the UGC were not tightly drawn in the original Treasury minute of 1919 or in the subsequent revisions. Therefore those relationships—which your Lordships have heard are very delicate—could evolve in the light of experience.
Secondly, the planning periods were—as they should be—comparable in length to that of a degree course. The universities had a clear idea of the resources which they could command during that period. In addition, they knew that within that period they had to live within those resources with no bailing out in respect of any deficits which they might incur. That is the most useful financial discipline one can have.
Thirdly, despite earmarking and allocation by the UGC of some part of their funds for particular purposes, the block grant (which was the traditional instrument of the UGC) which was awarded to each university left scope for the university to exercise initiatives. I am bound to say that some of them showed that the UGC judgment was unsound. I always considered that not to be bad for the UGC but good for the system as a whole. It was particularly good for the humility of the UGC and those who would overcentralise decision-making.
The words that I have just spoken sound valedictory. The force of the present circumstances makes one believe, I suppose sadly, that they are. They also serve another purpose. They warn us that arrangements can be too prescriptive, too "top-down", that they can contribute to the centre more wisdom that it can ever possess. That is my reaction to the provisions of Part II of the Bill and various of its schedules as first drafted. I welcome with modified rapture those amendments, many proposed—no doubt after consultation—by the Secretary of State himself, which allow membership of the UGC to be broadened by including distinguished members of the

1377
professions, which confer discretionary power on the UFC over repayment in whole or in part of a grant that has been made, which remove UFC jurisdiction over money received by universities from sources other than the UFC itself—though how in law they could ever claim that jurisdiction defeats me—and which restrict the powers accorded to the Secretary of State himself in the first draft.
I am sure that all your Lordships will be glad that the Secretary of State has accepted that it is wholly advantageous for the UFC to proffer him advice and information. I hope that that will be more often in private than in public as it has been in the recent past, so that conversations can take place to resolve differences rather than views become entrenched in published documents and therefore difficult for either side to retreat from.
Clause 175 of the Bill, which prescribes the power of the commissioners, and to which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has already referred, has given rise to a great deal of anxiety and some practical difficulty in the universities. It has done so on two counts. In the first place, it would prevent universities from either promoting a member of their own staff or offering a higher or similar grade post to someone from another university unless the new contract deprived him or her of a benefit of tenure already held under his or her existing contract. Consider this: those whom universities have identified after rigorous selection procedures as outstanding in quality suffer a contractual penalty while those rejected by the very same procedures do not. That is surely absurd and it is illogical to maintain that an increased salary should be sufficient compensation.
Moreover, I can assure your Lordships that events cast their shadows before and that the very existence of the Bill, let alone the passage of the Act, is already having adverse effects on one very distinguished school of the University of London. There, one person appointed to a chair is reconsidering his acceptance. Another will refuse promotion to a senior lectureship and several of those whom the school is putting forward for promotion to readerships and professorships in the university have indicated that they may not wish to accept promotion. I urge the Secretary of State at least to engage in discussions with those who are knowledgeable in such matters and who have relevant experience with a view to modifying the Bill to prevent such a damaging outcome.
The second cause for concern has already been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Swann, and many others. I support his arguments. I hope that it is an oversight that there is no reference in the Bill to the principle that the academic staff, in the exercise of their duties, have a right to express their opinions in speech and writing in any manner which they think fit which is within the law. Why is that an issue? That is the question which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor posed. Perhaps I may attempt my own answer.
Those of my students holding responsible posts in a wide range of employment tell me that the really useful legacy bequeathed by a teacher to his students is a thorough understanding of general principles and how to apply them to new and currently
1378
unforeseeable concrete situations. That is the only reliable survival kit which a graduate can have in a rapidly changing world. The facts can look after themselves. After all, they can always be looked up in the relevant text books and journals. But the attitude—perhaps habit of thought would be a better phrase—induced by that experience is not transmitted by the teacher to his students unless, through scholarly work and research, he is constantly seeking new perspectives on old knowledge or searching for new knowledge with which to challenge conventional wisdom and conventional principles. Any university teacher who has come to the end of his subject and is not actively engaged in the revaluation or advancement of knowledge can only burden the minds of his students. He cannot quicken them. University teaching of the highest quality is therefore indissolubly bound to the scholarship and research of the teachers. It is idle to pretend otherwise.
Imaginative consideration of knowledge stimulated by research and scholarship does not always reinforce old ideas. Indeed, in my field of science we become accustomed to, and therefore live quite comfortably with, the reality that progress is inevitably the supplanting of old ideas by new and more comprehensive ones. We recognise that the latter may in their turn have to give way in the future. We also know that such progress is crucially dependent on an untrammelled individual thought and imagination applied by someone to a subject freely chosen by him because he thinks he may be able to make an advance.
He must also be free to publish his views so that they may be submitted to critical examination by others. That is the only sure way to maintain high standards in teaching as well as in research, and to expose the charlatans and the second-rate for what they are. I shall not weary your Lordships with examples from my own and others' experience of how the slightest infringement of that freedom can inhibit progress, and how it has in fact done so. When orthodoxy goes unchallenged progress is stultified.
I am sure that what I have said applies to the imaginative teaching and consideration of knowledge of all kinds, not just science at this level. I freely admit that the kind of thinking and inquiry that goes contrary to what is accepted, which is unconstrained, unobstructed and imaginative, which wants to test and re-test every premise and every idea when it is applied to matters which touch us more closely in, for example, ethics, political thought, philosophy, and historical interpretation, may be less welcome because the conclusions and opinions to which it leads can be uncomfortable. They may indeed be so unacceptable as to be labelled by some people as subversive. That is not a sufficient reason for attempting to suppress opinion or for designating certain fields of knowledge as unsuitable for study.
I am not suggesting that there is any intention on the part of those who drafted the Bill to impose censorship, but I am saying that if we want the best universities—which means that they must secure the best staff—the staff must know that their jobs are not at risk simply because what they publish in speech or writing is currently unpopular with authority, always provided that those views are within the limits set by the law of the land.

1379
Therefore, I regard it not as just prudent but as absolutely essential that a place be found in the Act where this over-riding principle is clearly affirmed. After all, it is a principle which is essentially no different from that which is the basis of the Act passed last year, to which the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, drew our attention yesterday, and one which requires university authorities to ensure free speech for visitors. In logic what is thereby granted to mere visitors surely cannot be denied to those whose responsibility for education and the advancement of knowledge comprises a permanent duty and vocation.
4.13 p.m.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, I soon discovered when I came to your Lordships' Chamber that one of the pleasures was to listen to the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, talking about education. He has certainly not disappointed us this afternoon.
I must begin with two apologies, which may be thought to be a little excessive. First, it was not until I returned to London late last night that I discovered your Lordships had been sitting and debating the Bill. I must therefore apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, for not having been here to hear her speech. Even worse, as I really genuinely looked forward to listening to this debate, I had agreed some time ago—my honourable friends may wonder at my lack of discretion—that this evening I would debate the issue of the Education Bill with the Secretary of State himself, no less. As I cannot escape that obligation, that means that I shall miss a number of speeches, including, I regret to say, the maiden speech of Lord Carlisle. At least my not being here yesterday gave me the opportunity of reading the 29 speeches that were made. I came to the conclusion that there was really nothing more to be said. But your Lordships need not look too hopeful about that. It seemed to me that there are two or three points that yesterday's debate focused on, and I should like to draw attention to those a little later if I may.
My first observation is that education seems to be in a dilemma. Speaking for myself, and only for myself, and having passed through the system from elementary school to the level where I am now president of a university college—and what can be greater than to be Chancellor of Oxford University?—there is no doubt in my mind as I go round schools and see what is happening today, that the chidren who are being educated have a far broader education, a far wider knowledge of the world, than I ever had in my youth. Admittedly, I do not believe they can recite all the capes and headlands from St. Abbs to St. Bees Head, but I am not sure that I have ever had much need to use that knowledge in my adult life. Apart from that, and the very necessary basic facts that must be taught and learnt by everyone, I believe our children today in the primary and comprehensive schools are far better educated than ever I was. I think we should begin by acknowledging that.
Let me say straight away to Lord Beloff that that does not mean that I am complacent about the state of education. One can say that standards have risen, as indeed they have, and at the same time that they are not high enough, as Lord Joseph has repeatedly
1380
said. Both facts are true. That is the position today. I recently had the experience of meeting a number of people from other countries who are concerned with education. It was impressed upon me how deeply and vividly they regard the need for higher educational standards in their countries, as we regard it as necessary in our country.
I am not satisfied with the state of education which exists in our country today. This Bill gives us the opportunity to discuss education in general terms, and the question which arises is whether the Bill itself does a great deal to improve those standards. I am bound to say that I am not convinced. I should be more convinced if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had diverted some of the budget largesse to additional resources to allow for more mathematics and physics teachers. Whilst I would never suggest to the Lord Chancellor that he would be better employed elsewhere, he does at least have an alternative occupation to return to if that should become necessary. But we are short of essential resources in education.
One can produce barrels of statistics. Lord Joseph may bubble over again and interrupt me to tell me how much more he has spent and his successors are spending on education. That is true, and it should be true. The standards required must be higher, and not enough is being spent. One can raise the debating point of why our government did not do more. Of course all of us could always do more, but those who complain must understand that the revolution in information technology and the speed with which technology and the production of new products is overtaking us at the present time demand more and better educated people in our society if we are to maintain our position as a leading industrial country.
I do not think it irrelevant to this debate to say that we cannot be working the system properly if the number of girls who, as undergraduates, study science, technology and engineering is pathetically low. It cannot be irrelevant to this debate that the number of young men aged 18 who are at this moment in higher education is lower in this country than in any of the major industrial countries of Europe, with the possible exception of Italy—about which I am not sure. It cannot be irrelevant to this debate that the number of male undergraduates in the universities today is lower in this country than it is in any other major industrial country, as is the number of people as a whole in postgraduate education.
There must be something wrong. We do not need to have a party political battle but the problem has to be solved. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, is quite right. What does this Bill do to solve that problem and ensure that we maintain the lead that we undoubtedly used to have? We have faltered a little, but we can still recapture that lead. I have no doubt about it. However, frankly, I do not believe that the proposals in this Bill will do much to assist us in that direction.
I do not intend to discuss academic tenure, except to say that in my small capacity I agree entirely with what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor had to say on that matter. With respect to him, I have known a great many Lord Chancellors and they have always been very good at telling me that something could not be put in a Bill because it would not be

1381
legally perfect. Perhaps I may say to the noble and learned Lord, as to your Lordships, that if we were to wait for lawyers to find something legally perfect to put in a Bill, then we might never have any Bills at all. That of course might be an improvement!
However, having aroused a suspicion, the Government now have the obligation to remove it. I hope I may say to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that I am glad that he is apparently one of the people who is negotiating on this issue. It is important that a formula should be found. I do not believe that it will wreck anything that the Government feel they have to do.
I think that the curriculum is set on the right lines but dangers have been pointed out. In my view, even with all the brakes that are put on the Secretary of State, the power given to him is still too great. When I made the Ruskin speech 12 years ago, to which reference has been made by the Government from time to time, I did not have the idea of a rigid code for the national curriculum. I am very impressed by those who say that if we codify it in the way suggested, there will be a grave danger that the new subjects which are beginning to overtake the old curriculum will be ignored.
Perhaps I may say to the noble Baroness, to whom I shall never be unkind, that this is not a Bill which is wholly bad; there must be some good things in it. However, one of my criticisms of the Bill is that in some ways it is too backward-looking. I have been deeply impressed when visiting schools to be told about subjects of which I had never heard 30 years ago. What on earth did continuous assessment mean, I asked myself? I soon found out. It meant something pretty profound. The idea of child-centred learning and of projects learning are new phases which have overtaken us. Noble Lords will agree with me that every time there is a new series of ideas flooding into a system, as they have done into the educational system, there are bound to be excesses. I believe that there have been excesses in some schools.
I am a believer in the essential good sense of the British people. I am also a great believer in the dedication and care given by the teaching profession as a whole. Excesses are being corrected now and to some extent this Bill is out of date. When I go round the country and visit schools I am aware that much of this curriculum has already been adopted. Much of it is already there. I would not take it out of the Bill now that it is there. But I feel that the Secretary of State must be very flexible. My fear is that he may allow himself to be imprisoned by the excesses of the past in these fields and fixed at a point where he is unable to assimilate what is necessary for the future.
I am bound to say, especially as the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, intends to follow me, that another trouble with the Bill is that it is too party-orientated. He himself will certainly understand what I mean. Unlike the Butler Act, to which much reference has been made, this Bill derives from a Conservative manifesto—and one cannot say much worse than that, whether they are Conservative or other manifestoes. Even though I say this with humour, my words are spoken in all sincerity: It is really bad that Ministers should have to rely upon the statement that this measure was set out in their manifesto and therefore it must be carried
1382
through—not when dealing with education. Even though there has now been an attempt to pour scorn on the Butler Act and say that it was not as good as it should have been, the reason why it stood for so long was the great effort that was made between Chuter Ede and R.A. Butler to ensure that all the issues were met and dealt with before the Bill came before the House.
That is why a long time ago I said that it would have been much better if the Secretary of State had delayed this Bill for 12 months. Instead of now having the hurried consultations with all the vice-chancellors to which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, referred and having to meet the Churches afterwards, those matters could and should have been settled before the Bill ever appeared. We need not then have given the appearance of having a party dog fight on an issue which is of national concern; namely, how to raise the standards of our educational system. I fault the Government for hurrying through this Bill. However, it is over and done with and there is nothing that can be done about it now. Yet they have aroused suspicions unnecessarily by the speed and the dogmatism with which they have approached this subject.
Before passing to my conclusion, I should like to make one further point. In my view it is vitally important that adult education should receive greater weight in our discussion than has been the case so far. We are at school for only a few years; many remaining years of our existence make up the whole of our lifetime. If there is one thing that I have been told over and over again it is that the skills which are learned at age 16 will not be of very great relevance at age 26; they are even less relevant at age 36 and certainly not relevant at 46 years of age. A continuous period of training and retraining is needed as well as a need to give people the opportunity of a second chance.
I speak with some feeling about this matter. I did not have the advantage of going to a university. I do not know whether I would ever have got there anyway, but in any case I did not have that advantage. I have experienced adult education and, even to the limited and unstructured extent that I knew it through such organisations as the WEA (Workers' Educational Association), it opened my eyes to possibilities that were never apparent to me when I was at elementary school or even the secondary school which followed.
Adult education is important not only for training, retraining and such purposes, but also—and I say this knowing that there are many noble Lords of good will on both sides of the House—because it gives everybody, young or old, the opportunity to fulfil themselves in the way that the best of those who go to Eton can do. I firmly believe that adult education is of vital importance if we are to have a cohesive society. I trust that it will be put on a parallel with higher education, with primary and secondary education and with technological education in every way. I put it as high as that. It needs to be done if we are to have the cohesive and united society that has always been my desire.
I was glad to hear what the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, said yesterday about teachers. Hers is a small voice—not a silent voice. It is a very sweet

1383
voice. I do not want to hear the Government paying half-hearted tributes from time to time to the value of teachers. It is time that the Government understood that if our educational system is to be a success it will be the teachers who produce that success and not the Government. In my view the teachers have been very badly treated. Probably many of those who have visited schools recently will have been deeply impressed by the care—I would almost use the word "dedication"—and the professional pride of school teachers as a whole. They will have been impressed by their feelings of frustration that the Government do not understand, and indeed attach to them the kind of general contempt that they seem to attach to all kinds of public service and public servants at the present time. The Government must get away from their ridiculous prejudice and must value teaching at its proper worth.
How shall we meet the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, that we have to concentrate our attention on some of the things that can be changed? There are three, on one of which I have already touched. The House must not exceed its powers. I shall keep an open mind about what happens to the poll tax when it comes to your Lordships' House. There are issues, as has been said, upon which we are entitled to ask the Government and another place to think again. Reading 29 of the 44 speeches made yesterday, I think it is very clear that there is a general desire on the part of everyone who spoke that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, those associated with him and the Secretary of State should find a solution to academic freedom. The House must concentrate on that. We must compel the Government to ensure that there is a proper amendment to send back to the Commons for consideration.
The second issue concerns opting out. I do not know whether noble Lords have read the clauses on opting out, but they are terrible. This applies to the manner of opting out, the method by which it is done and the way in which opting out by one generation makes it impossible for another generation to come back again, and indeed the way in which it is assumed that one generation of parents is the only generation capable of deciding the permanent future of a school. This surely cannot be; it must have been rushed through at some late stage in the Bill. It is absurd to assume that the long-term future of a school should be settled on the basis now contained in the Bill. I beg noble Lords to read the clauses. I think they will agree with me.
How can it be justifiable that a parent whose child is within six months of leaving should have a vote but the parent whose child is within six months of coming into the school from the junior school should not have a vote? It is idiotic. We shall develop this further in Committee. I hope that your Lordships will attend to this matter, to see whether or not we can devise a better system to send back to the Commons for consideration.
The final issue is the ILEA break-up. I read what the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, had to say. I thought that she made the best of a bad job. Whatever political prejudice or, indeed, political rectitude may exist about the ILEA as an institution,
1384
I have not yet heard anyone make the case for breaking up and dissolving a unitary education system in London. The ILEA may not be the most perfect body in the world, but that is not the point at issue. If the Government are dissatisfied with the ILEA, they should find a better solution than allowing the whole thing to crumble into the hands of 12 local authorities, a number of which are quite incapable—no, I withdraw that—a number of which do not have the resources to cope with this at present. (I have some friends, even among local authorities!).
I beg the Government to reconsider the matter because they have put forward a case that does not stand up. After all, even Joshua had to march round the walls of Jericho seven times before the walls of the city fell. It only needed the appearance of Mr. Heseltine and Mr. Tebbit and the whole system collapsed. I suppose that that is the reason why the honourable gentleman did not succeed over the poll tax yesterday: the Government could not give him two successes in the space of a few weeks.
Let those of us who really care about the subject, as I am sure every noble Lord does, concentrate on three main issues. We should consider these and work out what will be the best solutions as we can see them. No body in the country has more experience of education in many different ways than we do. Let us work them out ourselves, then politely ask the Government to think again and tell them that, if they do not, we shall be very sorry.
4.35 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, it always a joy to listen to the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan of Cardiff, even if his observations are politically orientated. He remarked that I would understand that expression when he used it. I retort that, when used by him, it is an expression used with full knowledge, because the record of the government over which he presided, whatever else it was—he will agree that, unhappily, it was not a very successful government—was highly politically orientated.
I was glad to note the line that the noble Lord took on the Bill. His noble friend Lord Morton of Shuna thought it necessary at an early stage of today's proceedings to say that the Labour Party was a progressive or reforming party. I am bound to say that yesterday's debate, with its sturdy defence of the status quo by most Opposition speakers, did not give that impression. The noble Lord, Lord Callaghan—I must give this to him at once—indicated that he accepted that much needed to be done to improve our education system, that its standards compared badly with those of many of our European neighbours and that great improvements were needed.
I should have been even more impressed by that had the noble Lord not echoed in somewhat less formal language very much what he said in the speech, to which he himself referred, that he gave at Ruskin College in 1976. He said then very much the same thing. Although he was head of a government that still had two and half years more to live, absolutely nothing was done to implement it: nothing was done to deal with the weaknesses and the evils that he then accepted, and now accepts, require a remedy.

1385
In passing, I am sorry that on his visit to Ruskin he did not innoculate the officers of that college with the ideas of academic freedom of which we have heard a good deal in the debate. Your Lordships will recall the way that Ruskin College recently treated a member of its faculty for the terrible offence of writing an article for The Times when that newspaper was in conflict with one or two trade unions. We have not yet heard any withdrawal by Ruskin College and those who run it as regards the desirability of allowing academic freedom to the college's own members.
The noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, accepts that there is need for improvement now. Indeed, that is the essence of the spirit behind the schools part of the Bill. One can of course differ as to whether the remedies proposed are precisely the most effective or the most apposite. However, the problem throughout this debate has been that, with the exception of the noble Lord, on the schools side we have heard nothing but criticism of what the Government propose without any constructive proposals about what needs to be done to deal with what is an increasingly serious situation. I propose, therefore, to address myself to one or two points which arise on the Bill and which, rightly or wrongly—I think rightly—are designed to ensure that some improvements are made.
Incidentally, I cannot forbear to quote to your Lordships from a document that I received this morning from the National Union of Teachers. Apparently thinking that it was arguing that all was well, it said:
"Eighty per cent. of lessons observed during the year were satisfactory or better".
In other words, it was accepting complacently that 20 per cent. of the time of our children in the schools was not being as well employed as it should be, and regarding that as a matter of satisfaction. It recalls to me the story of the Chinaman who said of another businessman, "He welly good man. He 80 per cent. honest". It is a very interesting indication of the innate conservatism, the innate resistance to change, which exists in the trade unions, as it does to a considerable extent—though I have excepted the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan—in the party opposite. It is necessary for progress to be made.
The noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, referred to opting out. He made what, on the face of it, seems to me to be a good point as to whether those who have opted out could at some subsequent stage opt in again if they wanted to. It seems to me that that possibility should exist and that, although regular opting in or opting out would introduce chaos into the administrative system, opting out should not necessarily be a life sentence. It seems a reasonable point which I hope my noble friend Lady Hooper will deal with when she comes, some hours hence, to wind up.
What the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, entirely omitted to appear to understand over opting out is this. What better stimulus to an education authority can there be than the knowledge that, if it makes a mess of the affairs of a particular school, that school can up and leave? Obviously, as administration is carried on, if there were to be a question of opting out there would be preliminary contacts. There would be
1386
suggestions to the local education authority about what was the matter and what it could do to improve matters. In very many cases that would result in those matters being put right. It will be a powerful weapon in the hands of the governors of a school to be able to say to its local education authority, "If you go on in this way and make a mess of our affairs, we can leave you". That is totally different from the present situation, in which a school is absolutely subservient to the local education authority.
The general theme of the schools part of the Bill is to remove some of the powers from local education authorities. Some go, as we have been told, to the Secretary of State. Many go to the parents; many go to the masters and particularly to the head teachers. This seems a profoundly good thing. Whether, had we been starting from scratch, we should have taken the view that so important a subject as education was suitable for administration by local authorities, I do not know. However, we are not starting from scratch. We have inherited the system, which we have to adapt and adopt as necessary.
It seems clear that to reduce to some extent the powers in education of local education authorities will help with the objectives to which I referred earlier of making greater improvements in our schools. It has been generally accepted that to free the polytechnics from the local education authorities is good and the suggestion has been most warmly welcomed by the polytechnics. The polytechnics are doing a first-class job already. They will be doing an even better job with the freedoom they will have under the new arrangements. That will make a considerable contribution to what, above all, is needed; that is, that some of the products of our educational system should be, when they emerge from education, well fitted to take a part in industry, commerce and the general activities of life.
There is then the very interesting proposal to transfer powers to the governors and to the head teachers. Though I agree wholeheartedly with the spirit of that, I should like, if I may, to put a point to my noble friend Lady Hooper. It is quite clear that in many cases parents will require some serious instruction in the duties of governors. I speak as one who is a governor of an independent school and has been so for many years. I realise that this is not an art which is learnt off the cuff, not just a job to be taken on suddenly, but a job which one requires training and understanding to do properly.
The same goes for the giving to head teachers of the financial powers proposed in the Bill. In the independent sector the headmaster is not in general entrusted with financial powers. There is an official called a bursar who very firmly keeps him in order on financial matters. I suggest that where a school becomes grant-aided someone such as a bursar will be needed in most cases to assist the headmaster with the serious and large financial problems of managing a school.
I wish to say only one word more on another subject. That is ILEA, which has aroused so much excitement. The excitement is, however, not only one way. This morning I received a letter from the leader of the Kensington and Chelsea Council and I should

1387
like, if your Lordships will permit me, to read a line or two from it:
"As you will know the Council of the Royal Borough has for many years been calling for the abolition of the Inner London Education Authority. Reasons for that have been two-fold. First we have contended that the Authority is far too extravagant and has had a devastating effect upon the rate bills of the residents of the Royal Borough…Of the total rate levy of 117.4p in the £ (reduced to 98.9p for domestic ratepayers) 81.8p is attributable to the precept of ILEA…Secondly we have argued and continue to argue that the standard of education provided, particularly in the schools in the Royal Borough and indeed in Inner London generally has been unacceptably low".
I believe the same views are taken in Westminster. It is on the face of it ridiculous that such great local authorities as Westminster and Kensington and Chelsea should not be education authorities. We are, for better or for worse, committed to the principle that education is a locally administered service and a service which is not locally administered in great boroughs or cities such as those is not following the spirit of local administration.
It has been argued that it is all right for them, but what about the smaller boroughs? The size of a borough does not determine its competence to be an efficient education authority. Some of your Lordships may recall that I was for 27 years Member of Parliament for the Royal Borough of Kingston-Upon-Thames, which I think is the smallest of the boroughs in the Greater London area. It had a very fine education record with some of the best schools in the country, with two schools, the Tiffin Boys' and Girls' Schools, taking a considerable percentage of Oxbridge scholarships. This was run by one of the smallest authorities in the country. Therefore it is simply not true to say that small local authorities cannot be efficient education authorities.
If indeed some of the 12 London boroughs in ILEA are not even capable of becoming education authorities, or are not competent to do it, then I would suggest to my noble friend that the right thing is to consider amalgamating them altogether with some other boroughs, because, if they are not competent to be education authorities, they are not competent to be local authorities. Confronted with that, I think that one would find that most of them would find it perfectly possible to take on these matters.
I hope, therefore, that we shall get on with the abolition of ILEA. There have been appeals to delay it. Nothing could make less sense because, if the matter is to be delayed and if there is to be further consideration, then uncertainty covers the whole system and those who work there, good, bad, efficient, inefficient, will all be working under the shadow of uncertainty. It is much better, the decision having been taken, to go ahead and implement it. There are of course problems with the joint organisations which ILEA maintains—some of them excellent organisations—but, just as with the Greater London Council, where the same point was raised about joint organisations and has been largely overcome, so those problems will be overcome in this case.
This is an immensely important Bill. It is a historic Bill. It follows in the succession of the 1902 and 1944 legislation and it will govern our educational system
1388
and so mould our younger generation for many years to come. I wholly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, that your Lordships' House is a good body to discuss it. I am happy that he should say that because he once headed a party which advocated abolition of your Lordships' House. One welcomes the convert with even more enthusiasm than one who has been a true believer all his life.
I believe that your Lordships' House can do good service to our country and to a generation who will continue for many years after most noble Lords present are no longer with us. I commend the Bill to your Lordships' House and wish it every success.
4.50 p.m.
Lord Adrian: My Lords, not being a gladiator of a political kind I shall have great difficulty following the previous two speakers. As someone of a naturally conservative cast of mind, I am inclined to view with caution a Bill entitled the Education Reform Bill. It somehow seems intended to pre-empt the moral high ground. Surely it seems to say, "You cannot question what is proposed or the reasons for particular proposals. These are reforms and ipso facto they are good".
Changes are needed. I say at the outset that many of the aims of the Bill are easy to agree with. Better literacy and numeracy, enhanced work skills and life skills, are vitally important across the whole range of ability. I believe that most noble Lords will agree with that statement. I am sure that universities will welcome (indeed, they have) the Government's policy of better standards in secondary education and of increased access to higher and tertiary education. Universities will respond to the changes in secondary education which the Bill will produce. They will be looking to the Bill to provide them with greater scope to make their own responses to the challenges ahead.
We have already seen that however well meaning are the proposers of the Bill—I believe that in many respects they are well meaning—in some respects the Bill's drafting has been hasty and imperfect. It has already been necessary to amend substantially the provisions in Clauses 92 and 94 of the original Bill among others. I do not intend to discuss those changes. We know that they concern the powers of the Secretary of State and the Universities funding Council. At least, I do not intend to discuss them at Second Reading but rather to suggest that the necessity for them gives ground for close scrutiny of what the Bill will actually produce. I should like to thank the Secretary of State for his sympathy with the anxieties to which the original clauses gave rise.
I believe that the real difficulty is not so much with what the Bill says. We can spend time trying to get that right. However, we cannot here affect what the Secretary of State may do when the Bill becomes an Act. As the noble Lord, Lord Swann, has pointed out, that means what the civil servants may do. For my liking, there is too much in the Bill which does not go much beyond the setting up of statutory bodies. The Universities Funding Council, the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council and the National Curriculum Council are to be nominated by the Secretary of State and subject to his direction. They will have wide powers which, from the point of view of universities, polytechnics and schools, will

1389
virtually be powers of legislation and direction. Indeed, the university commissioners will also be appointed and they, too, will have legislative powers.
We have been encouraged by the speech of the Minister to make historical references. I recall that it is just 200 years since Edward Gibbon completed Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. In it he wrote:
"The principles of a free constitution are irrevocably lost when the legislative power is nominated by the executive".
That is a short sentence for Gibbon; but I believe its meaning is clear enough.
We are told that schools and polytechnics are being set free, and we can applaud that. However, it is apparent that universities are to be increasingly managed from the centre. On the crucial point of how that may come about the Bill is silent. The system of contracting between the UFC and the universities, so prominent in the White Paper, receives no mention in the Bill. Is one to suppose that it will be set up by executive fiat of the UFC thereby avoiding a repeat of the criticism with which it was greeted in this House?
The drafting of the Bill seems deliberately vague on where the management of universities will lie. Initially the Bill seemed to suggest a Bonapartist centralism. I am not sure that we were especially encouraged to hear the Minister of State at a debate in the Cambridge Union offer as a model for our consideration not universities in Napoleon's France but in Bismarck's Prussia. But the very next day the Secretary of State undertook to amend Clauses 92 and 94 so we in universities were able to sleep a little easier.
Again, there is no mention of new arrangements for funding students at universities and polytechnics for which we have been waiting so patiently for several years. I have said on other occasions that I believe that here lies the real solution for the problems which beset the relationships between governments and the universities and that universities will not become managers of their own affairs until they can charge real fees. If this is a reform Bill for universities, it is disappointing to see in it only the barest outline of a constitution for the UFC and the mechanism for making dons more sackable.
I do not intend to enter into the details of what is proposed on tenure. It is obviously a central intention of the Government to abolish it as it stands, come what may. However, I should like to ask that, in appropriate circumstances, the commissioners be allowed to authorise universities to offer someone—particularly a senior person from outside whom a university may wish to attract to start, or revitalise, a department—guaranteed employment for a fixed term, say five or 10 years, with stringent review before reappointment. I do not believe that that will be legal if the present proposals become law. If that is not done I believe that it will become even more difficult to attract someone—from the United States, for example—occupying a tenured position, often with a retiring age of 70, and receiving a substantially higher salary. It is hard enough to do so now. Who, in their senses, will look at a job in the UK which can be made redundant by the Universities Funding Council six months after his arrival? We are still just competitive
1390
in the international academic market. We need to be more competitive, not less.
Tomorrow, I go to the United States to give a lecture to the American Philosophical Society in Philadelphia. It is perhaps one of that nation's most distinguished learned societies, founded by Benjamin Franklin in 1743 and closely modelled on the Royal Society in London. I have been asked to speak on the crisis in British universities. I should like to say that it will give me no pleasure at all to have to report, first, that Her Majesty's Government are determined to remove tenure; and, secondly, that they have so far been unwilling to put safeguards for independent inquiry and expression on to the face of their Education Reform Bill.
I have listened carefully to the words of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. They have given me some reassurance, although, I fear, not a great deal. If there is no relationship between tenure and academic freedom, I see no reason why academic freedom should not appear on the face of the Bill. If there is a relationship, then the removal of tenure and the apparent reluctance to make alternative reference to the protection of academic freedom can only give rise to anxiety. I am afraid that my powers of advocacy will not enable me to persuade my American audience that the take-home message is not that it will now be even easier to headhunt British academics.
5 p.m.
Viscount Eccles: My Lords, my experience of British education makes me a convinced supporter of this Bill. That experience goes back a long time because I took part in all stages of the 1944 Act in another place. The war was still on. No one then foresaw how knowledge would sprout in every direction or that there would be such big changes in morals. Therefore, it is not enough today for the schools to do better what they have been doing since the war; they have to do it differently. They have to do both new and old things differently. It will not be easy because the way that young people think and behave has been transformed by such inventions as television and the pill. The schools find themselves in the thick of the confusion about what is right and what is wrong. Liberty has much increased and authority has declined.
It was forces outside the classroom which loosened the ties that had held families and generations togther. Whether we think the results are good or bad for our society, such changes have made a new Education Reform Bill essential. When the 1944 Act was being debated we assumed that the local authorities and the teachers were perfectly capable of seeing that the core subjects were well taught to all children. We also assumed that the traditional code of morals, derived from the Christian religion, would continue to be followed by both teachers and pupils. We were looking forward to the gap in standards between the private and maintained schools narrowing to the point where parents had no need to choose between them on academic grounds.
That did not happen; and why not? Up and down the country hundreds of fine new schools were built and the number of teachers was trebled, as was the

1391
number of staff on local education authorities. The teacher-pupil ratio was almost halved and the school leaving age was raised. However, as the years passed the visible tragedy of school leavers unprepared for the modern world forced itself on the attention of the public; it forced itself on the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, and I was very interested at the time in his speech. He is right to remind us today that despite that there have always been many good schools where all the pupils are doing well. Many students from comprehensives have achieved success at university, but brilliant results at the top cannot conceal the fact that British education has not met the requirements of our economy. Indeed, we have been told that it is falling behind that of our competitors.
Thousands of our boys and girls have not reached the level of proficiency in subjects like English or mathematics which they could have reached had they been taught differently. Very often the below average child has been forgotten. With this Bill every child's progress will be monitored; not one child can be forgotten. That alone is reason to support the Bill.
Your Lordships may wonder why, with all these additional teachers, the equivalent of a national curriculum could not be taught without the upheaval of transferring responsibility for what is taught to the Secretary of State. The answer is very clear: the 1944 Act placed that responsibility where, as time passed, it could not be discharged. Clause 23, after making religious instruction the only statutory subject states:
"Secular instruction … shall … be under the control of the local education authority".
Those 12 words have proved to be the great weakness of the 1944 Act.
Of course, when I look back I remember many excellent directors of education, not to mention my noble friend Lord Alexander of Potterhill to whom I owe so much. The fact is that the scientific and technological revolution overwhelmed the local authorities. Secondly, the local authorities and the teachers were far too preoccupied with restructuring secondary education to make the adjustments to the curriculum which the explosion in knowledge demanded. Party politics have invaded the schools, dividing and paralysing educational policy. My party defended the grammar schools and direct grant schools. The Labour Party were far more interested in getting rid of selection than in devising courses which would have helped children of very different ability to obtain jobs in a modern world. The weakness in the 1944 Act was revealed. No man, no institution and no elected body has had sufficient authority to stop the curriculum from going off the rails. Now we have this reform Bill and the vacuum in authority is to be filled.
I hope that the new arrangements will be given a fair trial before there is any rush to opt out. Local authorities, as has been said before, will come under mounting pressure to satisfy the wishes of parents. Let us see how they react. If any of them continues to ride roughshod over parents' wishes, I ask your Lordships what democratic alternative can the Secretary of State offer except opting out? Of course, opting out arouses political opposition. It is a way of proving that everybody does not want to be treated
1392
alike and that some are confident that they can do better for their children without the assistance of so many local politicians and bureaucrats. On the other hand, if all the schools tried at once to become grant-maintained, we should face a chaotic diversity in standards.
The principle that should guide us is not a political principle at all but simply what is best for the children; that is different in different areas of the country. In a perfect world all schools would satisfy a majority of parents, but in the world in which we live they do not. The Secretary of State should have the statutory means for dealing with cases of extreme frustration.
These reforms will take a long time and we shall not see half the results before the next election. But they are extremely urgent. The world is moving very fast. Progress at home and abroad depends on keeping British education at least on a level with that of other countries. Do we not wish to see our health service the best in the world; that is, the best that resources and skill can make it? That wish will remain a dream unless our schools and universities equip the next generation to earn the vast wealth that is needed to fund advances in medical science. Education is the productive social service; the others are distributors. Only if we know how to create more wealth can more be available for the common good.
I turn now to the teachers. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, and other noble Lords have already spoken of them. Are the teachers going to do their best to carry out the provisions of the Bill? That question is crucial. No transfer of power to the centre, no national curriculum, will make a good school without the willing co-operation of experienced teachers.
The other day the chairman of the Xerox Corporation said that teaching was the only profession he knew of where if one does well nothing good happens; and if one does badly nothing bad happens. The Secretary of State should pay attention to that observation. His Bill will only work well if the social and financial position of good teachers is progressively improved and adequate arrangements are made to assess and dismiss incompetent teachers. Outside assessment is important because it is unlikely that all head teachers will be strong enough to weed out incompetence in their staff.
I have one final point that I should like to make. Since the war home and school appear to be changing places as the chief influence on a child's behaviour. Television is now the most educational concept we have. Every school day teachers must cope with the influence on their pupils of hours and hours of viewing. What can they do to straighten out the tangle of morals seen on the screen? That is a new problem—we did not have it in 1944; we had then no television and never even thought of this as a possible problem. It makes the insistence in the Bill on religious education more important than it was 44 years ago. Matthew Arnold expressed the view that the paramount virtue of religion is to draw our attention to morality. Well, in 1988 where can religion shed its light on morality? By far the best hope is in the schools. There, if it is well-taught, it can reach everyone's child.

1393
When I was a boy at Winchester—which is a long time ago—Sir Edward Grey, who had been the Foreign Secretary in the First World War, came down for the evening's fishing and took me with him. He said:
"Our school would fulfil its function if the majority of the boys left as Christian gentlemen".
Today, would not the maintained schools fulfil their function if the core and foundation subjects had been well taught and if pupils leave knowing the difference between right and wrong; knowing what to praise and confident that ultimately the good will win?
We do not talk often enough to the teachers about the purposes of education. We think we know the kind of society we want and the virtues and values which would enable our children to build such a society. Well, with whom, rather than the teachers, are we to discuss those grave questions? Who are better placed to lay the foundations of the future? The most promising way to start those discussions will be through religious education. Therefore when the Bill is enacted what matters will be the spirit of hope in which parents and teachers, local authorities and the Secretary of State come together to carry out its provisions? In 1944 all the political parties were united in putting the interests of the children first—may it be the same in 1988.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, yesterday the Government Benches made much play on what they said was the complacency on these Benches about education. I thought that my noble friends Lord Morton of Shuna and Lord Callaghan of Cardiff had effectively dealt with that criticism. However, it seems that it might continue today. Therefore let me say that there has never been complacency in my party about the extent or quality of our educational provisions. There has certainly never been complacency about the vast majority of our young people who leave school with no progression into further and higher education. To show concern does not mean that we have to deny what is good in the system. It does not mean that we must acquiesce in the passage of a Bill which seems intent upon destroying the whole structure of our educational system.
The noble Lord, Lord Joseph, pointed out yesterday—almost defensively I thought—that he was not the first to raise the issue of standards and that it was done by my noble friend Lord Callaghan. Today in his speech my noble friend has acknowledged that fact. However, since that speech was made some 12 years ago there has been a considerable amount of agreement on a whole range of issues affecting education and standards, from primary right through to higher education. However, typically of this Government, they have gone far beyond the consensus that had emerged and have moved into the realm of doctrinal policy. Now, where there was harmony, there is discord.
I wish to deal with Part II of the Bill and I should like to make three points. The first relates to continuing education. I thought that that was one of the issues on which there was consensus. The Government will no doubt say that it is not an issue
1394
at all and that they are already putting money into the "pick-up" initiatives. The pick-up with its emphasis on updating those in employment, essential though that is—I underline the fact that it is essential—is an aspect and not the totality of continuing education. The UGC/NAB joint statement on continuing education described it as,
"in order to facilitate adjustments to technological, economic and social change, and to meet individual needs for personal development".
The Government for their part said that they would give a lead in promoting education throughout life but they do not believe that the arguments for taxpayers' support are the same as for initial education.
The difference in emphasis is clear. Moreover, there is precious little lead in the Bill on continuing education. There is but one small reference in a section of a sentence. Further, there is no reference to the need for personal development and no safeguards for continued support for liberal adult education. There is no reference to the provisions needed to widen access to higher education, despite universal agreement, in the light of both our declining number of 18 year-olds and our need to involve a far greater population right across the spectrum in higher education.
I emphasise this because it is important to involve that whole spectrum of our population, those of different ages and those of different sexes. I was very glad that my noble friend Lord Callaghan referred to the importance of encouraging more girls into the science and technological area. It is important to involve those of ethnic origin and different cultures. All of these people must be encouraged to take part in our system of higher education. But we need provision for them to do so.
If we are really to think of major alternative routes into higher education other than the A- and O-levels of our 18 year-olds and not to just tinker with the problem, then we need a philosophy, a structure and a funding to cater for this. I am afraid that the Bill completely fails to address this problem.
This brings me to my second point on further education. What provision we have had in the past for continuing education or vocational education or second chance education, call it what you will, has largely been provided through our further education system. I am not convinced that the changes that are proposed in the Bill meet our needs. It seems that a new binary line is being drawn now between advanced and non-advanced further education, whereas what we need is a continuum with sufficient flexibility for students of whatever age to move in and out of the system according to their circumstances.
Perhaps I may give an example. Bradford and Ilkley College is, I believe, the largest further education college in the country. It has 30,000 students or 6,500 full-time equivalents of which 1,600 are full-time equivalents in higher education. It caters for basic, non-advanced further education through to higher education. Some of its courses are complete in themselves; some are modular, some access and feeding into university courses in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, mentioned yesterday in regard to ILEA and London University. Some of the

1395
access courses lead into its own CNAA degree and professional courses. This is surely the kind of institution we want to encourage, yet the Bill removes from local education authorities the duty to provide higher education. Those authorities that continue to do so will not have, as in the past, the same claim to direct funding from the new Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council as they do now. Ironically, Bradford and Ilkley College comes into that category but that is a matter to which I might return during Committee stage.
I now turn to my third point, which is the concern and the anxieties in the universities about academic freedom. Like the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester, I speak not as an academic but as a lay person involved in three universities. Apparently the Secretary of State was pained and bewildered at the reception of his Bill by the universities. They misunderstood him. The transfer of control over their own affairs to the centre should not be regarded as an attack on individuals or upon institutions—or so he said.
The Secretary of State seems completely unaware of the deep-down damage that has been done to the morale and to the trust of the universities. It is damage caused both by the financial constraints and by the continual criticism of not being close enough to industry, not earning their keep and not possessing management skills. The attack has continued despite all the changes that have been made as a result of pressures which have come not just from government but from a fast-changing world. I do not want to see the changes go too far. I do not want them to go so far as to set the universities in the mould of private enterprise. Yes, I want the universities to be enterprising but not the enterprise of the market place.
Several of your Lordships have given definitions of academic freedom. I shall not follow that line, yet I was struck by something that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester said yesterday. Perhaps it is because we are both lay persons. He said he was concerned with three fundamental freedoms of lasting value and I quote his words:
"These are the freedoms to research in subjects of as yet unrecognised importance, the freedom to question received wisdom and the freedom to be protected from direct and narrow political interference".—[Official Report, 18/4/88; col. 1292.]
Again I give an illustration of just how important these freedoms may be. In 1973 Bradford University established a department or a school of peace studies that was concerned with the philosophy, psychology, geography and economic and social consequences of, on the one hand, war and friction, and, on the other, peace and development. Peace studies is not a very popular subject now in some circles. Indeed even in your Lordships' House we have witnessed something of a vendetta against such courses—at any rate in schools.
Bradford University itself did not entirely escape this atmosphere of oppression. No less a person that the chairman of the UGC himself visited the university and put the department under scrutiny. But the rigour of his scrutiny was more than matched by the academic rigour and the scholarship that had
1396
been applied to the courses and to the research work under way.
Here I believe that it would be only fair and proper to Bradford University to say this in the light of the current atmosphere. It is widely recognised as having contributed to extending the frontiers of knowledge and of having contributed considerably to a better understanding of some of the trouble spots of the world.
I mention this because I wonder whether in the climate of 1988 a university would have the courage to establish the first department of peace studies in the United Kingdom. I believe that to be the important test of academic freedom and that is the point that I ask your Lordships to bear in mind.
5.29 p.m.
Lord Home of the Hirsel: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan of Cardiff, said at the start of his speech that he had concluded this morning, having read all the speeches of yesterday, that there was nothing more to be said. Happily, he recovered early in the afternoon and we enjoyed his contribution. I hope that my noble friend the Minister was listening intently when he talked about the importance of adult education. I believe that that subject has been mentioned too seldom until now in this debate.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, and I have listened to almost every speech made yesterday and today. I am afraid that I cannot agree with her, if I heard her rightly, when she said that the Bill was aimed to destroy the structure of education. I have seen no justification at all for that accusation.
A number of the speeches yesterday expressed so clearly and admirably the points I wish to emphasise in support of the Bill that I need not repeat them now. For example, I found very persuasive the arguments deployed by my noble friend Lady Young, with all her knowledge of education, in favour of the national curriculum. A national curriculum is overdue. If our boys and girls are to become useful and responsible citizens of an increasingly educated democracy they must be able at least to speak and write English clearly so as to be understood. At present, far too many fall short of any acceptable standard in that respect. That is true too, I am afraid, of the comparison with contemporaries in other countries in the basic subject of mathematics.
Of course the proof of the pudding will be in the eating in terms of the curriculum, but if the curriculum and the core subjects are well taught—and my noble friend Lord Eccles was clearly right to emphasise that—and the knowlege of the individual is regularly tested the young will be provided with a much better springboard for careers than they have at present.
The other part of the Bill to which I should like to call the attention of the House for a few moments only is that of religious education and the Christian element in it. Over the century preceding the 1939 war each generation of British children was taught by a team effort. The team was composed of the mother, the school master and the minister of religion. That gave to the children the story of Christianity and a

1397
Christian code of values for life on earth. They learnt that by the authority of the Founder of the Christian religion they were commanded not to kill, not to steal, not to covert and to treat their neighbours as they would be treated by them. That instruction did not produce a nation of saints but at least when boys and girls went into the world outside they were provided with a yardstick by which they could measure their actions and the behaviour of others. The majority of the young in those days took notice of the instruction because the example was set by people they loved, respected and admired because they practised what they preached.
Some time after the war—and probably because of the economic and socially destabilising effect of war—it became fashionable to question nearly all moral values, disciplines and restraints associated with the Christian code of conduct. The permissive society was not the happiest or the most creditable interlude in our national story. We are paying a heavy penalty in indiscipline, crime and intolerance which derives from that period. I hope the lesson has been learnt that in community life, whether it is in the profession of politics, business or any other activity—for example, on the football or cricket field—morals and manners matter. We have been perilously near forgetting that. We have gone a long way down the road of ignoring the code of morality of which I have spoken.
I have heard it said in Parliament and among the Church leaders that Britain is no longer a Christian country. I find that too facile a judgment. The Queen is head of the Church of England. That Church is the established Church of the realm. Parliament, the highest court of the land, starts its proceedings every day with the prayer,
"Prevent us O Lord in all our doings".
All that is not a sham. It is real, and our young people ought to know about the story of Christianity and the commitment of their predecessors to its values. Far too many of them do not know about that today.
They probably do not know because of the economic and social changes in our society. The great majority of mothers work, and young mothers work. At the end of a long working day it is unreasonable to expect them to be able to spend the evening instructing their children in religious values. The manpower of the Church, if I am not wrong, is overstretched. So inevitably a greater and greater responsibility in preparing the young for the moral choices in life is placed on the schools. That has to be so.
The question that will face us at the Committee stage is whether to insert into the text of the Bill words that will steer the local bodies which will create the syllabuses for religious teaching in the direction of teaching the Christian religion and the Christian story. The case for that was put eloquently yesterday by my noble friend Lady Cox. The case against it—and I hope I shall be corrected if I am wrong—was expressed paradoxically by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London. If that view is to prevail (and there are strong arguments which the Bishops of the Church on the whole support that no further words should be put into the Bill) the right reverend Prelate will have to give a better explanation
1398
than the House has so far heard as to why the Church so signally failed to take advantage of the 1944 Act. Unless we get a better explanation than we have had so far the question is bound to be asked: why should the House be persuaded that the Church will do better this time?
Between now and the Committee stage we have plenty of time to search this question out and I hope that we get the answer right. At present I am inclined to think there is a case for putting in some additional words if we can find the right wording. That is not easy. There are many other aspects with which this important Bill deals, but I cannot help thinking that we must try to give back to the young of this nation the code of values of which I have spoken. It will have to be a united effort by the Church, the school teachers and the parents, all together. For myself, I do not know a better one.
5.40 p.m.
Lord Young of Dartington: My Lords, I must start by apologising for my cold and the effect it has on my voice; but at least it will mean that I shall try to be very brief, not only to save noble Lords but also to save myself.
My noble friend Lord Kilmarnock said yesterday that I would be speaking about the subject of parental choice. I intend to limit myself to that in my remarks today and in talking about the amendment on this subject which I hope to put down at an appropriate stage next month. The noble Baroness, Lady David, almost at the beginning of this debate, quoted Mr. Baker:
"We are removing the balance of power from the producers and giving it to the consumers of education".
The extraordinary thing to me is that Mr. Baker appears to believe that that is what he is doing.
A great deal has been said both today and yesterday and in other places about parental choice, but to my mind without getting to the guts of the matter, which is that there can be no genuine choice without diversity. Who wants to choose between six blue shirts or six red shirts? Or between more or less identical schools? We need diversity not only to enhance freedom but also to stimulate and nourish the mainstream schools.
The history of education in this and other countries is the story of experiments and diversity which become adopted as orthodoxy later on. The noble Baroness, Lady David, quoted Sheila Browne to that effect yesterday. Yet there is only one new kind of school featured in this Bill: the city technology colleges which will stress science and technology and which are, as we know, to be supported in some measure by the state. My question is: why only that? Why should the Bill not also allow parents and teachers in rural areas as well as cities to have a go and set up new, non-fee-paying schools with emphasis not just on science and technology but also on the visual arts and the performing arts, ecology and the environment, outdoor pursuits, a particular faith or philosophy that may be held by a group of parents, or new methods of learning?
I stress most of all the need that I believe many parents feel for smaller schools than those to which

1399
they are ordinarily able to send their children—small schools, not just in villages (important as they are there) but also in towns, if that is what parents and pupils want. I should like to see all this happening as it is in the United States, to some extent, in a different way with the Magnet schools. In many counties in the United States parents can choose between science and technology-based schools and others which stress the visual and performing arts, those which stress foreign languages and many other subjects. The question is: why not here?
The same thing has happened again in a different way in Europe, notably in Holland and Denmark. I was in Denmark a fortnight ago and had the pleasure of a talk with the Minister of Education there, Mr. Haarder. He told me how proud he was not just of the high standards of education in his country but of the nation's free choice schools, set up by parents of different persuasions, which are attended in all by about 10 per cent. of the children in that nation. He was proud for two reasons. The first was the competition that was provided, not between different schools but between different types of schools in their fairly ordinary large state schools, and also the co-operation they had with those same state schools. It is quite common in Denmark for children to spend part of their school life in a free choice school and most of it in a state school. Ideas and practice are therefore freely interchanged.
My hope is that one day we in Britain will also have mainstream schools with a ring of small maintained schools around them, all benefiting from the variety that they represent and from the exchange of ideas and experience between different types of school, between teachers with different experiences and between parents who have had different experiences of their children's education. I fear that, unless that is done, real choice in education in this country will remain the privilege of a privileged class. If you are well off, you will have the choice of all manner of schools. If you are poor, you will have none or very little. Britain is divided and the social classes are, to quite a large extent, divided between those with money who can afford fee-paying schools and the great majority who cannot.
However, we could as a nation move towards equality of opportunity and choice, and I dearly hope that we shall in May this year.
5.46 p.m.
Viscount Ingleby: My Lords, I rise metaphorically at least to make two points, the first on religious education. I should like to support the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and others in asking that religious education should be predominantly Christian or predominantly biblical. I understand that in some schools almost anything is taught under the heading of RE. It seems to me that clear guidance is needed. I think that this is what the great majority of parents would like. Those of other faiths can opt out if they so wish.
Secondly, perhaps I may say a word on home economics. I should like to ask that this should have a place in the national curriculum. Our homes form
1400
the essential background to our lives, affecting for good or ill everything else. Together with the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie of Dundee, and others, I ask that home economics in its more modern and much broader form of life management skills should be an obligatory subject for all boys as well as girls.
We must give all young people the know-how to make better homes. Many will not be able to learn it from their own homes: to learn about budgeting and the debt trap, for instance; to learn about health; to learn about human relationships; about responsible parenting; about careers; about the individual and the community, including where to get help if necessary; leisure and the ways in which to use it; as well as the more obvious and very important skills of cooking, home-making and being a good handyman. I wish I had been better taught on those subjects.
The co-ordination of home economics as a subject in its own right is also essential. If the contents of this subject are simply spread about among other subjects, it will lose its coherence and young people will not be able to put it all together. It is for this reason that I ask very fervently that home economics should have a place of its own in the new national curriculum.
5.49 p.m.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, in asking your Lordships to extend to me the indulgence which is traditional to someone addressing the House on the first occasion let me, like the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan of Cardiff, start with an apology. As some of your Lordships may know, I am at the moment chairing a committee set up by the Home Secretary to review the parole system. In that capacity I arrived back at Heathrow during the course of this morning from America having flown overnight from Washington. Therefore I fear that I rise to address your Lordships without having had the advantage of hearing any of the speeches of yesterday, although I have had the opportunity and the time since I have been back to read both the speech of my noble friend the Minister and that of the noble Baroness, Lady David.
It also means that should I during the course of the rest of this afternoon at any time be seen to be slowly closing my eyes, your Lordships will appreciate that it is done for the purpose of increasing my power of concentration and with no intent of disrespect.
I realise looking through the list of yesterday's speakers that I am the fifth ex-Secretary of State for Education to speak in the debate. Indeed I must admit that I was somewhat surprised to learn on being introduced into your Lordships' House last November that seven ex-Secretaries of State for Education are currently Members of this House. I have been thinking about that and I cannot decide whether it reflects upon the longevity of Secretaries of State for Education or whether it reflects even more on the attitude of successive Prime Ministers to the office of Secretary of State for Education.
By any test this Bill is massive. Clearly it is bound to receive much detailed study, but its aim, which is one that I certainly accept, is to improve education standards in this country. However much we may

1401
disagree about the means by which it achieves that aim, I hope at least that we can agree on the aim. I welcome wholeheartedly the proposal for a national curriculum and for the testing of children at different ages so as to ascertain their level of attainment in basic subjects. I believe that that part of the Bill in itself will help to raise education standards.
At the present time the school curriculum is attacked simultaneously both as being too diverse—it is often said that a proportion of time is given up to teaching subjects which do not appear wholly to fit into the school life—and as being too narrow in that too many people are encouraged to give up subjects or indeed whole fields of study at too early an age.
We must remember that the duty to educate is not the duty of the state; it is the duty of the parent. The responsibility of the state is to provide the facilities whereby that parent may carry out his duty. I believe that parents are entitled to require and expect that the state will provide for all children in maintained schools a broadly based and balanced curriculum which will prepare them for adult life. I believe that a national curriculum can achieve that end provided, as has been said, it retains a degree of flexibility.
The same principle applies to choice in education. Parents should surely be given the widest choice possible to decide the school at which their children are to be educated. It was for that reason that in the 1980 Education Act for the first time we provided a statutory right for a parent to express a preference for the school at which his child should be educated. However, I would say to the Minister that choice at the end of the day can never sadly be absolute in a state provided service. The Secretary of State must remember that the holder of that office has a responsibility not to 90 per cent., not to 95 per cent., but to 100 per cent. of the children in those schools.
In 1980 I had to accept that, faced with a substantial drop in the number of children of school age, local authorities must be able to have a degree of control over admission policy so as to ensure that the policy of any individual school did not prejudice the provision of efficient education for children throughout the rest of the area of the local education authority.
I accept that much has changed over the intervening years and I hope that we now may be able to move to a period of total open enrolment. It is quite wrong that local authorities should be allowed to use their powers to reduce admission levels below the 1979 capacity merely as a means of keeping down the numbers in a popular school or purely to increase the numbers in an unpopular school. Nevertheless I believe that complete open enrolment in itself contains some difficulties and certainly would be expensive as regards resources.
I welcome the proposed financial delegation to individual schools. Obviously it will put a lot more pressure on the heads of those schools, but the control that it will give them and their governors over the budget for their school and the responsibility for day-to-day management will give greater independence to the individual schools.
That leads me on to say something about the proposal to allow schools to opt out of local
1402
education authorities altogether. I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said earlier this afternoon that the power of opting out as a matter of last resort may and probably will in itself have a salutary effect on many local education authorities. But in view of the control which is to be exercised over the school curriculum through the proposals for a national curriculum, and in view of the far greater financial freedom to be given to individual schools, I find it hard to see that very great benefits will accrue.
As we have been told that there is to be no change in the admission policy or ethos of a grant maintained school, that they will be debarred from charging fees and that the level of funding at such schools will be exactly the same as at all other local authority maintained schools, I find difficulty in seeing how the very fact of opting out of the malevolence or the benevolence of a local education authority and the opting in to the benevolence or the malevolence of the Department of Education and Science by its very nature will necessarily improve the standard of education.
As I say, I believe and accept that that final power will have a salutary effect on relationships with certain local education authorities. But what is important is that we recognise that opting out would indeed be a major step and one which needs to be adequately thought through before it is acquired.
As regards higher education, the only point I wish to make is that I welcome very strongly the proposal to take polytechnics out of local authority control. I believe that they are an important and a rapidly growing part of higher education in this country and they should be recognised as being so.
Finally I turn to the proposals in the Bill to abolish the Inner London Education Authority. It is no secret to your Lordships' House, and indeed the noble Baroness, Lady David, in her speech yesterday referred to the fact, that not only did we hold an inquiry into ILEA in 1980 but as a result of that review I announced in another place in 1980 that the Government had decided at that stage to maintain a single unitary authority for education throughout inner London. It was not that I did not recognise and do not recognise very fully the very powerful arguments that can be mustered and advanced against the Inner London Education Authority—above all the fact that it is an enormously extravagant authority. But, in the end, the two matters which weighed most with me and which led me to come to my conclusion at the time were, first, my belief that some of the weaker authorities—they were not necessarily the smaller authorities—did not have adequate capacity to take over responsibility for the education of children in their boroughs and, secondly, the effect that abolition might have on further, adult and continuing education in London.
Clearly, the decision to wind up the Inner London Education Authority has been taken. However, I believe that thought will have to be given to how the schools in those boroughs are to be run. I believe that careful thought ought to be given to the need for a framework to provide for the substantial co-operation between the various boroughs which I believe will be essential if special education, further education and continuing education are not to suffer

1403
and if the education of children in certain London boroughs is not to be damaged as a result.
I started by saying that the aim of the Bill was to increase educational standards. Perhaps I may conclude by saying that I get extremely concerned, as the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, said, hearing people talk about falling educational standards in this country. I believe that by any objective test educational standards are rising, whether the test used is the results of exams or, in contradiction to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, the growing numbers of students in higher education in this country.
That is totally different from saying that standards are still far too low and lower than those in most of our competitor nations. I hope that we shall not involve ourselves in arguing that in absolute terms standards have come down. I believe that to do so casts unnecessary blame on many dedicated people in the teaching profession who, I believe, are doing their best to continue to raise—although not fast enough—those standards.
6.5 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to follow and to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle. One is expected to follow a maiden speaker by saying nice things about him. I can honestly say many nice things about him because we have had a long association, working together in many ways.
I first knew the noble Lord when he was a member of the Northern Circuit. He was then a young barrister going from quarter session to quarter session to try to get briefs. I was the leader of a county borough local authority which was responsible for providing lunches for the Recorder and barristers attending the quarter sessions. We had very interesting lunchtime discussions ranging over many subjects. I next came into contact with the noble Lord when he became Secretary of State for Education and Science.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Elton, I have prepared three speeches. One goes on for 25 minutes, another for 15 minutes. I shall watch the clock and try to keep to 10 minutes. I feel that Second Reading debates are a time when one should concentrate on general principles and not get to much involved in detail. We can do that at Committee stage. However, there are several points which I feel I should draw to the attention of your Lordships.
I do not want to go into a great deal of criticism of the Bill, although one could do that very easily. However, I feel very disappointed that the Bill is being taken as it is. In my opinion, it should have been in three parts. The first part should have dealt with the abolition of the ILEA, if that had to be done. The second part should have looked at general principles and at ways to improve education in the general sense of the term. The third part should have dealt with higher and further education. I should have liked to see three separate Bills rather than the one cumbersome Bill before us today. I do not believe we can do justice to it. Many things are wrapped up together which should not be.
1404
As regards abolition of the ILEA, I cannot understand why so many authorities should be penalised because of those few authorities which are straying at the present time. Many of them will come back into the fold as time goes on. I am sure that there is a great deal of pressure and thought within local authorities to try and get back to the path. I must point out to your Lordships that there are 104 education authorities in England and Wales. Is it fair to penalise 103 authorities for misdeeds elsewhere?
I cannot understand the way the Government are going about giving power to the boroughs within the London area. When I was a member of a county borough education authority—it was a good, small education authority which catered for a population of 130,000—I realised that we could not go the way which we wished regarding higher education. We were nevertheless doing a good job within our own capabilities; we had a number of good successes. I am not judging success simply in terms of academic success but rather in terms of people who were able to start factories, introduce new industries and so on. That is how I judge a school—by all-round success, not just by academic success. Now we are reversing the situation, exactly as happened when reorganisation took place. I cannot see the logic of that. Nevertheless, there will be more time later to get involved in detailed discussions.
Many noble Lords will know that I was privileged to chair for three years a committee which looked at governors and managers in schools. We produced many recommendations. I am pleased to say that out of all those recommendations, according to the department's figures given in an Answer to a Question of my noble friend Lord Peston some time ago, 39 were accepted. I am also pleased that in the present Bill another of our recommendations concerning the giving of financial control to schools is included. Forty recommendations out of about 70 is not a bad job. Of all the reports published by eminent educationists, I cannot remember a case where so many of the recommendations were published and accepted by the Government. I look upon that as an achievement and hope to see some of those recommendations implemented in my lifetime.
Many of the recommendations were implemented in the 1980, the 1982 and the 1986 Acts. If one looks at those Acts, one sees that many things contained there are in the present Bill. Many of the powers that the Government are trying to bring together already exist, if the Government want to use them. If they used them in the right way, there would be no need for many of the things contained in the Bill. I am simply voicing my opinion at this stage. We will get down to the details later.
I am grateful for the changes in religious education that the Government have accepted. That is a move in the right direction. I support the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, on that point. Your Lordships might say that we are two strange—I shall not say bedfellows, because I must be careful about that—people from opposing sides who agree on this point I accept what the noble Baroness has to say. We fundamentally disagree about most matters in education; but on religious education, we agree.

1405
I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, for what he has said. I go a stage further. I wish to re-emphasise adult education. Many of us, especially in my part of the world, are grateful for the benefits of adult education. Many people who, like myself, were compelled to leave school at the age of 14 because of financial circumstances, would have had little education if it had not been for the adult education movement in its broadest aspect. I am sorry we are not spending more time on adult education in the Bill. Many great things can come from it.
I should also like to have seen more about home economics, again something that the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, mentioned. A report called Half hour Future was published when the school-leaving age was raised. It tried to help those children who were not academically inclined but who were capable of learning a great deal about how life should be. Many of the things were simple—cooking and banking (if banking can be called simple) and how to use a cheque book. All kinds of subjects come within home economics. I should like to see them in the curriculum.
I feel that we are missing the point. The Bill does not provide what people want. We criticise schools and teachers. But who should we really criticise? We should criticise ourselves. Our generation is responsible for many things going wrong with our young people. It is not just in the schools but in the home where things really matter. Have we done our duty in our homes? Have we brought up our children in the right way? Have we said the right things to them? Those points are part and parcel of what we should have been discussing in one way or another.
We knock teachers from time to time. I have done so in the House. Not long ago I talked about teachers who after a time act like some of the children that they teach because of lack of training. Here we have an opportunity to deal with training, in-service training and re-training. That subject was mentioned yesterday. I am glad to say that a report is to be published. This matter forms part of a Question to the Minister that I have tabled for next week. I am sure that today she does not want me to go into what my supplementary question will be. I shall ask how we train teachers and whether we are training them along the right lines. Those are points that we should have been discussing in connection with the Bill.
I hope that we shall try to improve the Bill. We want to improve it. I hope that we can improve it. I am sure, given goodwill on all sides of the House, that we can improve it.
6.14 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, somewhat unusually I must begin by declaring an interest, not once but twice. First, I wish to declare an interest as an ILEA parent who voted in the ballot. I must confess that I listened with some strain on my patience to some of the things that were said about me and my fellow voters from the Benches opposite.
Secondly, I must declare an interest because in speaking to the clauses of the Bill dealing with universities I shall be speaking in defence of my
1406
profession as a university teacher. I am well aware that there are many people, some of them in the House, who think that gives me less and not more claim to a hearing on that subject. There is an anti-professionalism abroad in this Parliament, stronger than it has been in any Parliament since the rump, where it got so far out of hand, partly because your Lordships' House could take no part in restraining it.
When the Bill received its Third Reading in another place a Government spokeswoman said:
"the cohort of the education establishment and its camp followers have been gnawing away at the Bill and its provisions like rats in a cellar".—[Official Report, Commons, 28/3/88; col. 828.]
I am tempted to say that I address the House as one of the rats, save for the fact that I am visibly aboard the sinking ship. Indeed, in 1984 I gave up a good job in the United States and came back aboard the sinking ship to help to man the pumps. That speech also reminds me of the 17th century anti-clerical who said that there was no need to listen to the protests of the clergy because they were all our servants.
As the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, said yesterday, that is not the way to get good service. It is possible that the professional or the servant may on some things, especially about means, know more than those outside. Indeed, the rats may know more about the structure of the cellar than those who listen anxiously to their gnawing from above. In that context, I was pleased, if a little surprised, to hear praise for the teachers from the Minister. I was pleased by the remarks made by the Secretary of State which show that he is the universities' friend, and that his heart is with them. But if the Secretary of State wants to show that he is the universities' friend, he must accept that where his heart is there must his treasure be also.
I shall not delay your Lordships on the subject of university funding. It is something upon which I hope that I may be able to ask for your patience on another occasion. I shall quote one statistic. My college, University College London, which has been treated exceptionally favourably because of its high research rate, has lost 30 per cent. of its income from the UGC since 1980. It is normal in most institutions to credit those who take away 30 per cent. of one's income with hostile intent. Indeed, on occasion it may even be correct. I mention that point because without that context it is impossible to understand the intensity of academic reaction to the Bill, and also because, especially in relation to the tenure clause, it provides the context in which the Bill will operate.
I feel that I must answer the points made by the noble Lords, Lord Beloff and Lord Joseph, about complacency. My colleagues spend a large part of their time trying, in small and undramatic ways, to devise methods of improving what they do—the system of examining, the system of teaching and the provisioning for the library. It is not the least of academic grievances against the Government that that process has been brought almost to a halt. In a poll organised by MORI during the last election campaign 92 per cent. of my professional colleagues expressed agreement with the view that government cuts had caused chaos. I find myself that between 10 per cent. and 20 per cent. of my working time is spent trying to clear up the mess caused by

1407
government cuts. In those circumstances there is not much time for improvement. That is something that we regret.
I shall also try to touch on one or two at least semi-objective measures on the issue of quality. I think that the central thinking behind the Bill is, as it was so eloquently put by Geoffrey Smith of The Times, that, "Education is in a mess". I do not think that is correct. It is well known that people from abroad are eager to offer our professors, or indeed our readers and senior lecturers, appointments at their universities. Our postgraduates will stand comparison with those from any other country. I say that having considered them from the interesting vantage point of chairman of an American appointing committee. Our undergraduate courses are doing exceptionally well in attracting overseas students, including people taking junior years abroad from Ivy League colleges.
Even if one considers our unit costs, which sometimes seem to be the only measure of quality in which this Government are interested, they are rising at half the rate of those of our leading American competitors. Consider their contribution to the economy. I should like to quote from a survey conducted by the Japanese Ministry of International Trade reported briefly in The Times in February 1985 when investigating the national origins of research inventions of industrial significance since the Second World War. The figures the survey produced were: Britain 55 per cent.; US 22 per cent.; Japan 5 per cent. It seems to me that those figures suggest that whatever has let down the British economy since the war it is not our universities.
I shall turn now to the specific points on which this Bill affects universities, but I shall not dwell at length on the University Funding Council because my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead has so admirably said almost everything that I wished to say. However, I should like to repeat that I would welcome from the Minister an explanation of why those clauses are included in the Bill. In the original version it looked to members of my profession like the worst threat to university autonomy since the University of Oxford refused to support King Henry VIII over his divorce.
The Minister tells me that that is a misunderstanding. I welcome that assurance. However, that leaves me with no understanding at all of why the clauses are there. I think that it is not enough simply to refer to the Croham Report, first, because there are many noble Lords present who have not read it, and, secondly, because it is a controversial point as to whether or not the contents of the Bill follow the Croham Report.
Before I sit down, I want to say something about the issue of tenure. The threat to academic freedom has been mentioned. It is a real one. Only two weeks ago Mr. Digby Anderson in The Times deplored tenure because it got in the way of getting rid of anti-business ideologues. Should I say that I should be consoled about the abolition of tenure because it would make it easier to get rid of anti-service ideologues, Mr. Anderson would be entitled to the indignation which he would undoubtedly express.
1408
I speak also as the son of one of your Lordships' number who not once but twice succeeded in losing an academic job for non-academic reasons. I would welcome an amendment to protect academic freedom because I think that there are occasions, some of them already in this Bill, where hortatory legislation serves some purpose. However, I must confess to a sneaking sympathy with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor about the difficulty of defining academic freedom. I am also aware that the ostensible grounds of many dismissals are not the same as the real reasons. I think that the only proper defence of academic freedom is tenure itself.
If your Lordships will bear with me one moment more, I think that there is also an economic case to be made. If you spend many years acquiring a skill you are entitled to hope that if you do it well you can earn your living by that skill. However, we live in a market where skills are so specialised that the market is inevitably distorted. My colleague in Dutch language and literature holds the only appointment which has been made in that field in the British Isles in nine years. Your Lordships may say that that is a special case. But in my own field of Tudor and Stuart English history—a mainstream field if ever there was one—the appointment made at Cambridge a few weeks ago was the first in the British Isles for three years. In those circumstances if you lose your job through no fault of your own you lose your profession also.
Finally, I do not think that everyone appreciates the financial pressures on universities. In most universities everyone over 55 is being urged to take premature retirement—in some, everyone over 50. I hope your Lordships will agree that a man's useful life is not over at 55. I hope your Lordships will view the proposal to abolish tenure with the same misgivings you would bring to a proposal to introduce a retiring age for Peers.
6.28 p.m.
Lord Aldington: My Lords, I have much pleasure in congratulating the noble Earl on his maiden speech and in telling him how much we enjoyed listening to him even though we might not have agreed with some of what he said. Perhaps I may also say how much we look forward to hearing him again. There is one point on which I at least among the Members of your Lordships' House agree, and that is that life does not stop at 55. Having read his curriculum vitae I observe that I had left university before the noble Earl was born. I also noted that he believes in the tag that says that where his heart is there must his treasure be. I think that the noble Earl must have a very happy household.
As the first to speak from this side of the House following my noble friend Lord Carlisle, I should also like to take the opportunity to congratulate him on his maiden speech. What about jet lag about which we have all heard from doctors and elsewhere? If a man who has spent the night on the red-eyed flight, as we used to call it, from New York is able to come and address your Lordships' so cogently, lucidly and in such a nice manner we do not think much of jet-lag. I suppose that we ought to congratulate our noble friend Lord King of Wartnaby on the excellence of his services.

1409
To me this Bill is one of the most important Bills of my adult life. I strongly support its aims of improving the standards of education in the country and I strongly support those who say that there is a great need to do so now. Of course there are many good schools. Of course as one noble Lord has said—I think that it was my noble friend behind me—standards of education nationally have been improving. But they have not improved enough. They are not high enough, as we know from industry and as we know socially. They are not high enough in comparison with many other countries in the world.
I shall concentrate my few remarks on three points: first the importance of flexibility in the application of the national curriculum, particularly after the age of 14; secondly, the direction of schools by governing bodies; and, thirdly, the balance between the safeguarding of public money and of academic freedom, particularly in relation to universities.
As your Lordships know, I have no experience in teaching, nor in the management of schools or universities, but, as with many others here, my experience lies in having been a pupil long ago and a parent less long ago and in being a grandparent now. In addition, I have been a member of the governing body of the oldest of public schools for 16 years and its chairman for nine years. For three happy years I was chairman of the governing body of a maintained sixth-form college—it was a very good one, as it still is—only to be removed by the small print in an order made by one of my noble friends; I think by the noble Lord sitting behind me. I am now chairman of the Governing Bodies Association and of the Independent Schools Joint Council. However, I would ask your Lordships not to be under the illusion that I am concerned only with independent education. I am concerned with the success of education in the country as a whole, as we all are.
The first step in the Bill to improve national standards lies in the national curriculum. When the national curriculum was first published there were strongly-voiced fears that it introduced too tight a straitjacket. There appeared to those who had such fears to be insufficient flexibility both for different aptitudes and speeds of development among pupils and for individual and original teaching methods and approaches. I think that that is what worried my noble friend Lord Joseph and the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan of Cardiff.
In the independent sector it has been hoped that the national curriculum could be accepted voluntarily and wholeheartedly, for independent schools, although by definition independent of the Government as well as of each other, set out to provide the kind of framework of education which recent Secretaries of State and others had been wanting. There was disappointment at the start, but that did not last for long, since my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and his Ministers were listening well and very soon they showed by their speeches that they accepted the aim of flexibility.
They have now translated this into the Bill in Clause 10, which makes it possible for the curriculum requirement to be interpreted more flexibly in the case of pupils who can reach a reasonable standard in the foundation subjects by the age of 14 or soon after
1410
and so need not be tied to them in a straitjacket until they reach the age of 16. Many will neither need nor wish to wait until that age before they concentrate on other academic subjects for A-level or widen their studies in other fields than the foundation subjects.
Of course I am not opposing breadth in education. I know that is not the only area where flexibility is important. I know too that much depends on the terms of the regulations made under Clause 10 and that these will be affected by advice from the new National Curriculum Council and by the forms of assessment and testing decided upon. I shall listen carefully to what my noble friend the Minister has to say to us on that, either today or when we come to the clause. But let there be no doubt that flexibility is of vital importance to the success of the national curriculum system.
Perhaps I should say a word about the relationship of the independent sector with the maintained sector. I do not think it is always remembered that the Secretary of State has a general responsibility for standards in the independent sector which he can and does exercise through the registration system and through HM Inspectors' reports.
My noble friend Lady Young, to whose speech we must all have paid great attention yesterday, emphasised when speaking for the Government at the end of the debate in 1984 that there is one system only of education in the country but two sectors, and that there is a great deal of interdependence between them. For example, the Headmasters Conference and the Secondary Heads Association work very closely together on many things, and have much agreement on the national curriculum. Your Lordships may not be aware that today the independent sector includes just over 7 per cent. of all pupils of school age, but a much higher percentage, 18 per cent., of those in sixth forms. This follows a fairly rapid increase over the past few years.
The experience of independent schools in administration and direction must be of interest to grant-maintained schools and to local authorities when they have devolved the power and responsibility to governing bodies under this Bill. I was rather disappointed with the remark that I noted in the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady David, yesterday when she seemed to say that the duties which will be additional to those now being performed by the members of maintained schools' governing bodies would be too much for many of the members. I very much doubt that. I have noted that both in the maintained sector and in the independent sector the voluntary spirit of those who join governing bodies is wonderful. They are only too anxious to do everything that is required of them.
Baroness David: My Lords, if the noble Lord will allow me, I am only going by the comments that some governors have made to me and by a number of letters. They are very anxious to give their services. They are slightly worried by the additional responsibility, the financial and management responsibility, which might be imposed upon them.
Lord Aldington: My Lords. I am glad the noble Baroness has mentioned that. I regard the position

1411
and duties of governing bodies and of headmasters and their relationship as of great importance for the success of the devolution. There are some points of commonality between the experience of the independent sector and that which will be needed in the maintained sector. I have three principles to put to noble Lords.
The first is that the headmaster must have the powers and the position to enable him to fulfil the responsibility for running the school which is his and not the governing body's. The governing body is there to direct him, but he must not be overburdened with practical and administrative responsibilities outside the teaching area. The noble Lord, Lord Annan, made that point, as did my noble friends Lord Blake and Lord Boyd-Carpenter. That is why most independent schools of reasonable size have excellent bursars usually but not always responsible directly to the governing body.
My second point is that members of the governing body must be chosen for their experience and merit. The governing body must be composed so that there can be continuity. I know that the position of parents in the maintained sector is different from that in most independent schools, but continuity is of importance.
My third point is that the relationship between the headmaster and his governing body, and particularly between him and the chairman, must be understood. That is very important and if it goes wrong great damage can be done to the school. We have found that to be the case in the Governing Bodies Association, and I think the same applies to girls' schools. We have evolved some rules and advice, and I commend them to my noble friend. She can have those and any help from us that she may like.
I have one further point about administration. It will be familiar to many of your Lordships who have run institutions which have introduced either devolution, labour-saving devices or data processing. When a new system starts one needs more money and not less. Savings are not made in the early years. One devolves administrative obligations to the schools below, but the LEAs will not reduce their staff at once and the total administrative cost may well be greater than is thought. That must be allowed for. One must not starve schools of money for good administration at the start.
I said I would end with a point relating to academic freedom and the universities. I was very glad when I heard that my right honourable friend had been able to meet the principal wishes of the vice-chancellors about the directions and conditions in the financial field. I was also pleased when he expressed his general sympathy for the wishes of the vice-chancellors that academic freedom should be safeguarded in the rules governing dismissal on redundancy or otherwise, for that is what I understood. I appreciate that there are some difficulties in drafting such a safeguard and the opinion of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor confirms that. However, I have been impressed with the advice given to me by vice-chancellors who are not Members of this House and I also appreciated the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, and other noble Lords. My present inclination is to support the search for an explicit
1412
safeguard, whether directly in the Bill or indirectly by instructions to the commissioners which may also be in the Bill. I also think that the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, about limited tenure is one that is well worth pursuing.
The old University Grants Committee system always seemed to me to be a typical British compromise which for many years appeared to work well. I have no quarrel with any attempt to make it work better, which I thought was the subject of the report by the noble Lord, Lord Croham, but I understand that the present attempts to enshrine an improvement of that system under different names in a statute has caused problems and will very likely continue to do so because the customs and conventions that restrain the Government's interventionary powers are difficult to enact in the language of a Bill. Like other of your Lordships I have to assume that the Government want more powers than they have over recalcitrant universities, whichever they are, and that they want more power because of some incidents of failure which they assume can be prevented in the future.
However that may be, I am on the side of those who give a higher priority to academic independence and freedom not only to express opinions but also to make academic decisions. I very much like the robust way in which the Chancellor of Oxford University—my university—stood up for university independence this afternoon, as I very much like all that was said by my noble friend Lord Swann yesterday about his experience of official interference. I believe that we must beware that the search for the best in the new UFC does not become the enemy of the good. I shall join with other noble Lords in examining very carefully the relevant clauses of the Bill but I support the ends of the Bill and congratulate the Government on bringing it before us.
6.43 p.m.
Lord Alport: My Lords, I should like to join my noble friend Lord Aldington in congratulating the two maiden speakers on their delightful and important speeches. If the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, goes to sleep during my speech, I shall attribute it entirely to jet lag and not to the tedium of my remarks.
When I ceased my own formal education, I swore a solemn oath that never again would I have anything to do with education. Since then I have been directly involved in the affairs of two public schools, two voluntary aided grammar schools, one voluntary aided comprehensive and two universities; I have served as a WEA lecturer and a college tutor and for a time was Director of Education for the Conservative Party. So much for the efficacy of oaths.
Forty-four years ago saw the passing of Lord Butler's Act, and since then Britain's changed status in the world, the extraordinary advances of modern technology and the emergence of a new social structure in this country have made it right and timely to review our national education system. There are many features of this Bill on which there is broad agreement but there are also some aspects of it which I think invite criticism. For instance, the Association

1413
of Secondary Heads of Schools in Essex, which is my own county, says:
"The proposals read more as a stick with which to beat the Local Education Authorities and schools than as an attempt to get the highest standards for all".
There is evidence to support that contention in the decision to include in this Bill the proposed abolition of the Inner London Education Authority, to which a great deal of reference has been made by many speakers during the debate. In the previous Parliament, the Government proposed that the ILEA should be elected by indirect election, via the borough councils, with the prospect of being abolished within the subsequent five years. That proposal met with strong opposition from all sides of your Lordships' House. As I understand it, my noble friend Lord Whitelaw and the then Secretary of State who is now the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, were persuaded that the objections were valid and the ILEA remained a central education authority for Inner London on a directly elected basis.
As has been said so often during this debate, it has been seen as essential for a century or more that there should be a central body. Then, suddenly, halfway through the passage of this Bill in another place the Government took the unprecedented decision to add a major piece of legislation, without prior consultation and apparently in response to a Back-Bench Motion that in normal times would have been noted and ignored. Anyone who has studied Part III of this Bill must realise that no proper provision has been made for the administrative, educational or social consequences of the abolition of the ILEA or for the transference of its responsibilities to boroughs which are without the necessary experience and, in many cases, the resources to tackle the duties imposed upon them.
The decision to abolish the ILEA in the manner which is proposed by this Bill will be seen in London, and indeed throughout the country, as either an ugly act of political irresponsibility and vindictiveness or at best an unprecedented example in Britain of educational and cultural vandalism. The suspicions of the head teachers in Essex, which I quoted earlier, will be strongly reinforced that this is not a move to improve the organisation and standard of education for 300,000 children of Inner London, but is a blatant political act which has already been rejected by a large majority of their parents.
One day last week Jill Brown, who is our village post lady, delivered 105 letters to me. It was no doubt an organised lobby, but each letter was handwritten and set out the writer's personal circumstances and his or her anxieties regarding the future of adult education in London, about which the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, spoke earlier. The adult education system in London has an international reputation for excellence and those letters brought home to me the potential effect that the destruction of the ILEA will have on the quality of life for many of the 250,000 elderly, unemployed, single people or mothers of families and youngsters who are seeking a skill to improve their livelihood.
The DES has said that no overall body will take over adult education. Two institutes that exist will be funded by it and the rest will be left to the tender
1414
mercies of the boroughs. I quote a recent newspaper article:
"The London service has an outstanding record of reaching deprived groups. 15 per cent. of the 250,000 adult students are unemployed … 41 per cent. have no formal educational qualifications and 28 per cent. are taking courses to improve employment and career prospects".
It continues:
"In the Department's view, the ILEA spends too much on adult education".
Therefore, it will cut the funding to 60 per cent. of current levels by 1990. If that is not vandalism, I do not know what is.
But adult education is not the only aspect of the problem. A number of special schools are run by the ILEA to cope with the varied needs of disadvantaged children. How can the boroughs individually or in concert be expected to administer these schools without some central authority? How will the present careers service, the legal service, the central computing service and the inspectorate of the ILEA be replaced in the new regime that will come into being? What will be the cumulative costs when each borough has to provide a specialist education department to replace the administrative, purchasing and financial services now provided centrally at the lowest possible cost by the ILEA?
Instead of the Government giving an ill-conceived reaction to the House of Commons Motion, which will certainly undermine the integrity and purpose of what is in some respects a timely Bill, a parliamentary inquiry should have been set up to consider again in depth the reorganisation and reform of the ILEA.
My noble friend Lord Ironside, speaking at a very late hour last night, mentioned the special problems likely to affect one of London's voluntary aided comprehensive schools, the Skinners Girls School in Hackney, an area of daunting ethnic and social problems. In his support, I should like to read an extract from a letter sent to the Secretary of State by the chairman of the governors:
"The Governors warmly welcome the Secretary of State's assurance that his purpose is to secure an improvement in the quality of the education service in inner London; but they note that he and his colleagues have supplied no evidence, nor advanced any argument, which suggests that this aim is likely to be served in boroughs such as Hackney by what is now proposed".
It continues:
"Since they perceive no prospect of an improved service, but rather apprehend great danger that the service will be impoverished, the Governors which to record their opposition to the destruction of the ILEA and to the dispersal of its assets and their probable loss to Hackney schools".
Only yesterday the chairman of two schools in Hammersmith, on the other side of London, sought me out to express exactly the same view about education in his area. These are not politically inspired views; there is nothing political about these representations. The people concerned are responsible and experienced educationists who, like others throughout London, are appalled at the consequences that will flow from the enactment of Part III of the Bill. It is perhaps not too late to prevent this wanton mistake of political judgment.
I was astonished to read recently that 300 years ago, in the time of King Charles II, Sir William Petty, one of the founder members of the Royal Society—whose ideas included the creation of a

1415
ministry of health, a general land register, the precursor of the tank, a medical research council and decimal coinage—proposed that the House of Lords should be strengthened by the creation of life peers,—I quote from a biographer,
"to hold its own against a too powerful House of Commons".
It has taken a long time for many of those things to come about, but I am glad that many of them have.
I believe that today the House, even though it has only influence and no power, should use that influence in the public interest either to delete Part III of the Bill or at least to add an amendment that Part III should not come into effect before a full parliamentary inquiry has reported on future organisation of education for inner London. By this service we may be able to safeguard the integrity of the Bill and prevent legislation that will do lasting harm to future generations of Londoners and to the historic reputation of the Conservative Party.
6.55 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I rise with a great deal of pleasure to follow what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Alport. Although there is pressure on my time as well as that of other Members, it is not so great that I can ignore the excellent maiden speech made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. It was a model of its kind. He said a great deal with which I agree. I hope that the House will hear him again.
Interests have been declared. All of us have many interests. I have two. The first is that I have the honour and privilege to be president of the Association of London Authorities, which is very much affected by the proposals in regard to ILEA. As noble Lords may have noted, I am wearing the tie of the Open University. This week the Open University has some opportunities in the Palace to demonstrate its breadth of experience. It gives me pleasure to pay tribute to the provision that the state system accorded me in that respect.
I speak 67th in a batting order of more than 80, so it is perhaps a truism to say that little has been left unsaid. The Minister, in a fair opening speech, paid tribute to the work and professionalism of the teaching profession. Even at this late stage, although there is little evidence that I can see that notice has been taken of its views hitherto, I hope that the Minister and her colleagues will listen carefully to the views of the teaching profession, and not merely of one organisation but of a number of the others. The Assistant Masters and Mistresses Association, for instance, has drawn to my attention its concerns on the curriculum. The association believes that in this respect the Government's proposals are flawed. It remains the case that the Bill would permit the national curriculum to be a rigid system of prescribed syllabi and tests unconnected with the wider purposes of school education set out in Clause 1. For those of us who follow these matters, it is a great mystery how the Government can be so clear in Clause 1 about what they intend to do yet say so little in the remainder of the Bill about how this will be achieved.
The association points also to the weak constitutional position of the curriculum councils. If
1416
it is the intention of the Secretary of State to use informal working groups of his own devising to write the national curriculum, there will be some serious difficulties in implementing fairly the provisions of Clause 13.
I should like the House to understand the views of the National Union of Teachers, which will be heard often as the Bill progresses. These can be summed up by reference to one document in which the NUT said:
"Until every child in every school has the resources he or she needs for a good quality education, then a national curriculum and testing will not work. To pretend that it would represent a massive confidence trick by the Government on Britain's parents and children".
In that kind of atmosphere the Minister has some way to go to convince the teaching profession that she is on their side.
I turn now to the concern of the Association of Polytechnic Teachers. The association has told me of its concern that the academic input into the funding councils will be insufficient to ensure sufficient understanding, communication and expertise. If these councils are to have a majority of members without experience of higher education, the councils will be unduly reliant upon the opinion and evaluation of the council officers. I shall welcome the Minister's comments about that, though not necessarily tonight.
The Minister has a major job to wind up and place all these matters in context. I shall not add to the burden, except to say that it is my responsibility to ask the Minister and her advisers, how have they sought, and why are they seeking, to rubbish the outcome of the ballot by the parents? The Government, in a whole range of legislation, have said that the acme they are seeking is a ballot, the secret views of the members, and legislation across the field has been put forward. Yet here we have a group of responsible people who, despite the Minister's refusal to be of assistance, have said that they want the views of their members to be made known. They set about that at considerable expense. The Minister knows about democracy, not least a democracy which gives the Government power not only with a majority of those who have voted but a minority of those who are entitled to vote. With that slim, flimsy veneer of democracy which sustains the Government, how can they not pay serious attention to the views of the parents of London's children? When the Government look for bench-marks and measuring rods this is the first real opportunity that the parents of London have had to express their views since the Government made known their intentions.
I want the Minister to consider seriously what she told the House yesterday. She said:
"The proposal that ILEA should cease to be the single education authority for inner London was in our manifesto last May".—[Official Report, 18/4/1988; col. 1216.]
Let me remind the House of what was in the Conservative Party manifesto last May.
"In the area covered by the Inner London Education Authority, where entire boroughs wish to become independent of the LEA, they will be able to submit proposals to the Secretary of State requesting permission to take over the provision of education within their boundaries".
It is nonsense to say that those words can be translated precisely into the proposition contained in

1417
the Bill. The Minister ought to consider seriously whether she has not deceived the House and other people outside, if those are the words in the manifesto upon which she rests her proposition.
I said that I was more concerned about the effect of the abolition of ILEA than about many other matters. Speeches from this side of the House can be taken as having a political bent. But surely the Minister remembers the words of Sir Keith Joseph when he was Secretary of State, only three or four years ago. This is what he said then:
"Inner London boroughs will not have the right to opt out. The Government have decided that there should be a continuing unitary authority for inner London".
No evidence of any substance has been submitted to validate the case for abolition of the Inner London Education Authority. If the Minister wants some other evidence, why does she not listen to what her noble friend Lord Marshall said? He conducted a major investigation into the GLC and ILEA only 10 years ago. He said:
"The physical and financial difficulties in setting up new local education authorities in the inner London boroughs would be so severe that, in my submission, only a fool would attempt it".
We know who is attempting it now and we know what his noble friend is calling him 10 years later.
One issue that has been raised is the ability of boroughs to opt out. I note that Dr. John Rae, who is an eminent educationist, said less than a year ago on the financial consequences of richer boroughs opting out:
"If ever there was a formula for privileged and underprivileged schools that is it".
I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, is not in his place as he usually is during these debates, but earlier today he drew our attention to the ability, as he said, of a very small London borough to survive. He is entitled not only to his view but to his experience, which I respect, in the London borough of Kingston. Let me tell the Minister what the London borough of Richmond told Mr. P. Cohen—a name not unfamiliar in these matters—as recently as October last year. The London borough of Richmond was asked to comment on the future of ILEA. This is what it said:
"representatives of other boroughs at present within ILEA have used Richmond as an example of how a small borough can run an education service of excellence.
"It is ironical that they may do this and use DES Statistics to back their case. The D.O.E. do not share their confidence: they claim that Richmond spends 25% too much on education as assessed in our GREA. Our experience shows that until the D.O.E. and the D.E.S. achieve some unity of purpose and view on the spending needs of small LEAs the assumption that boroughs will be able to provide education for their children of the excellence and quality of that attempted by ILEA is a chimera—either the education service will be significantly underfunded or the boroughs themselves will be as beset by insoluble expenditure problems as is Richmond".
That is the situation seen by people who are at the chalk face of education in a small London borough.
The Minister ought to tell us, for example, how boroughs such as Kensington and Chelsea—which have no special schools—will be able to cope. She ought to be able to tell us about Westminster, which has only two special schools within its boundaries for children with severe and moderate learning difficulties. How will Wandsworth, for example, be able to cope? It has no primary schools for
1418
profoundly deaf children or secondary schools for physically disabled children. Its only boarding provisions are for visually impaired children and those with emotional and behavioural difficulties.
It is no good Ministers and their advisers merely saying that they want to abolish ILEA and then inviting all the parties to be good democrats and get together to sort out the problems, to look at an advice note and tell us how they are getting on and then get on with it. Then five years later, as they are saying about the GLC, they will say, "You said there would be problems. You are surviving and getting on with it." That is exactly what they are saying now. It is a nonsense to say that that is a democratic way of dealing with such matters.
I remind the Minister and the House and plead with some passion that the problems in London and in inner London are not only some of the worst: they are worse collectively, or geographically cohesively, than in any other part of the British Isles. London not only has problems of deprivation, problems of a multi-ethnic nature, but ILEA and the London boroughs in general are deciding not to run away but to confront the challenge which these conditions impose. I think they deserve far better from London, from Londoners and from the Goverment than for the Government to provide an opportunity for the rich boroughs to opt out. It is a cop-out. Of course those which will be left will survive, but they will survive in a poorer environment with a poorer life and poorer life opportunities for the children of those who live and work there.
The effects on places such as London show that the blight has already begun to work. Will the Minister tell us upon what legal basis Ministers may urge inner London boroughs to prepare for the situation after the Bill becomes an Act and how they can spend money which they are not legally entitled to spend in preparation? Are we to be told that this will be contained in the advice notes that will be coming later? Will the Minister tell us? It is a nonsense for the Government to set themselves on a legal course in everything and yet urge London boroughs to anticipate in that way.
I am deeply grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Alport, for drawing the attention of the House to head teachers. The secondary head teachers of London are certainly almost as one in attempting to ask the Minister not to abolish ILEA. The supporters of the Bill have made much of the links between 1944 and 1984, between the Butler and the Baker and now between the Thatcher and the Hooper.
They have largely kept mute, but clearly in evidence throughout the debate have been other contrasts of far greater significance to me. There have been contrasts between opportunity and oppression; between partnership and patronage; between ambition and arrogance; between principle and politics. In the Bill we have an attack on groups who deserve our defence for no other reason than that the tactic of the bully and the philistine should have no place in the lives of our children or our children's children. The Minister has made much of the concerns of a whole range of people and groups upon whom she will rely for the Bill to work. They are parents, pupils, teachers, governors, councillors,

1419
industry, the Churches and voluntary bodies. She is right to expect much of them, and they will not let our children down. However, they all bear a mark which distinguishes them from this Government and this rotten, miserable, arrogant Bill. It is that they place education above narrow party political spite.
While the Minister will seek to promote the interests of her power-crazy Secretary of State and the destruction of an ethos of parents, teachers and pupils within our schools, they will unite in preserving their right to that most precious of gifts. It is the pursuit of an education to fit our future generations and to meet the challenges of an uncertain future. The human spirit deserves better than to be shackled by such tawdry political dogma. We on the Labour Benches intend to make the Minister fight every inch of the way.
7.11 p.m.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, in a short speech one cannot hope to cover more than a few provisions of the Bill. In general most people, both parents and teachers, think that in spite of some valid criticisms ILEA has not done too badly during the past two years. Abolishing it outright means initially a state of chaos while the boroughs take over during the two years allowed. But it will take far longer before the new system settles down and any possible advantages can accrue. This fact should be perfectly obvious from previous experiences; for example, the reorganisation of the social services.
It is also quite apparent that the Government have moved without proper consideration of the side effects of their policy. ILEA has had a very important role in providing special schools and support facilities which cannot be provided individually by single boroughs. To mention just two not so obvious examples, there are the Centre for Urban Education Studies (CUES) and the teams of specialist teachers who help children with language difficulties. Some 16 per cent. of pupils in primary schools in London are handicapped by language difficulties. For all those reasons it would surely have been more sensible to reconstitute ILEA, perhaps with a different name.
I shall mention just two of what I believe are the many likely undesirable side effects. First, although giving parents greater influence on school policy is on the face of it a good idea, very few parents now attend parents' meetings. I fear that those who will do so and dominate the meetings will be the extremists. They are used to speaking in public and know all about the techniques of getting their own way.
Secondly, I believe that the excellent ILEA policy of obtaining a balanced composition of British and ethnic students and those from poorer homes will be destroyed with greater freedom of parents choosing a school. Once the ethnic composition of students reaches perhaps more than one-third of the pupils, parents will fear that their children will be held back by the language difficulties of the ethnic minority. There is also the human desire of birds of a feather to flock together, as is the case in our foreign enclaves. We must avoid that happening as far as possible in our schools. In that context we might remember the difficulties that the Americans have experienced.
1420
I also detect the Government's dogma for competition in allowing greater freedom of choice of schools. But have they counted the administrative difficulties which it raises and the insecurity and other problems for the teachers?
The publicity that ILEA received for alleged support of homosexuality and of extreme educational views was, I think, out of all proportion to the facts; and so have been other criticisms. Surely the Government must realise that in some cases it will be, out of the frying pan into the fire. Some London boroughs will inevitably elect Left and sometimes extremist councils. They will continue to a greater extent those policies for which ILEA was criticised. It would have been far easier to control a reconstituted ILEA rather than such duly elected councils. The Government's argument that the situation can be controlled by schools affected opting out from the borough is simply unrealistic and moonshine. In any case, I wonder how the poorer boroughs can cope with their new commitment.
I am worried about the new examinations. Of course we must have some testing at different ages, and of course exams are unfair for some students. Some teacher assessment is in principle a good idea, but we have heard all that many times before with cogent arguments against it and on which I cannot now have time to elaborate. Probably an element of teacher assessment could be introduced, but it should only be in a minor key and to help those who do not do justice to themselves in exams.
Even more important is the debasement of exam standards, no doubt to encourage the poor achievers, but it does the reverse for the brighter pupils. Apparently in at least maths, chemistry and physics, those who have failed O-levels can achieve A-level grades in the GCSE. The same devaluation of standards could well happen at A-levels, which would imply the need for a fourth year at university or else a lower degree requirement.
I now turn to universities. If money could be provided without limit, then we could leave them to manage their own affairs with their ivory towers intact. Unfortunately that is not the case, and the limited funds available must be used on a cost-effective basis. For that reason complete academic freedom, as was proposed in an amendment to this debate, is not acceptable. A middle way is required. There have always been centres of excellence for specific subjects. That must be more so today because of the ever-increasing cost of equipment for the applied sciences, and the Government must have a say as to how it is allocated.
I accept that staff should not be sacked because of unusual views, but with the proviso that they should not inflict them too far on their immature students.
Pure research in whatever area the researcher wishes is all very well up to a point, but it should not dominate university thinking. Nor should the doctrine of publish or perish be the only way to gain promotion. Like it or not, I foresee that what could be called government interference is a price we may have to pay to achieve a balanced university structure.
I shall end by saying that this Government are foolishly pressing ahead without due thought or

1421
consideration; quite unsupported by the views of parents and others, as we know from the very recent poll. In some cases governments may be justified in taking necessary and unpopular measures. In matters where they need not take extreme and dogmatic views, they ought not to do so. This Government have signally failed to unite the nation; in fact, they have needlessly done a great deal in the opposite direction. That is a pity when so many of their actions have been both brave and necessary.
7.20 p.m.
Lord St. John of Fawsley: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill, is not in his place. I hope that he is not indisposed. He is one of the great figures in the education world. I care for him particularly because when I became a Minister for the first time—more years ago than I care to remember—he took me out for my first free lunch. I mean my first free lunch as a Minister; I had been taken out to lunch before that. However, despite his absence being education's loss, it is my gain as I have moved up from 70th to 69th speaker on Second Reading; and that is something.
I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Carlisle on his excellent maiden speech. We have long been associated in the education world. He succeeded me as education spokesman in 1978—my noble friend has arrived just in time—and he has been one of our most distinguished Secretaries of State for Education. His timing has always been good! If I may presume to do so I should also like to congratulate the other maiden speaker the noble Earl, Lord Russell, on a fascinating speech which had all the elegance and astringency we associate with someone bearing that famous name. At one point I wondered whether or not we were listening to a reincarnation of the never to be forgotten Bertrand.
As we were reminded by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Blackburn, in a notably irenic speech, this is a Second Reading debate for a discussion of principles. We have a Committee stage for the details and I am sure that virtually every noble Lord who has taken part in this debate will have some amendment or modification to put forward.
However, I should like to make my own position clear on the general principles which underly this Bill; namely, that I enthusiastically and wholeheartedly support them. That is perhaps not surprising because the concepts on which the Bill is based, namely, parental rights, high standards of education, choice and diversity, were worked out from 1973 to 1978 when I had the honour of being Opposition education spokesman. Those principles have been under discussion ever since. They are now embodied in a major Bill.
That disposes, I believe, of the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady David, that the Bill has been advanced with great haste. In fact it has had a period of gestation of nearly a decade—worthy, I understand, of an elephant.
The result of this long period of preparation is a Bill worthy of its place alongside R.A. Butler's epoch-making Act of 1944. I do not believe that we have to compare. Comparisions are always odious. However, one succeeds the other in a true succession.
1422
It has certainly been a remarkable achievement for the Secretary of State who has emerged as one of the brightest stars in the Cabinet firmament. Admittedly, as I look around your Lordships' House, I see that the present Cabinet is somewhat denuded of heavenly bodies, but a star remains a star nonetheless. I should like to congratulate him on his diplomatic skills. He has converted the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London and has satisfied the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury. He has brought them together in agreement. That is a really remarkable achievement.
At least in part he has disarmed the universities and their objection to the Bill—
Lord Graham of Edmonton: The noble Lord has not been listening.
Lord St. John of Fawsley: I have listened to the vast majority of speeches. They have been very good, well worth listening to and rather better than the ones to which I was accustomed in the Commons.
The basic reason is not mere political adroitness. The Secretary of State cares deeply about education and has been engaged in open dialogue with those who also care deeply about it. I find it a strange form of reproach of the Secretary of State that he should have listened to the representations made to him and, on certain points, to have changed his mind. Surely that is what the whole of parliamentary government is about. I believe it requires both tolerance and courage to say, "No, I was not right in the first place. I shall make this modification".
All sorts of criticisms have been made of the Bill in the course of our two-day debate. Many of them are exaggerated. However, I pick out two for particular comment; first, that this is a centralising measure advanced by a power-crazy—if I may use the phrase of the noble Lord, Lord Graham—Secretary of State. With all respect to the noble Lord who is a very old friend—and I mean a friend of long standing—I believe that that is rather exaggerated.
It is certainly true that there has been a shift in the partnership between local education authorities and the Secretary of State. The shift has been towards the Secretary of State, but the partnership remains. I believe that, on the whole, that shift is good. I often reflected while at the Department of Education how extraordinarily few powers the Secretary of State had. If one has a national curriculum and assessment tests then there is bound to be a shift to the centre.
However, that point of criticism has to be balanced by another point. One can have centralism in one direction and devolution in another. There is no contradiction between those two concepts. That was a point made by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor in an authoritative speech. Power can go up to the Secretary of State in certain spheres and come down to head teachers and parents in another. I think that that is an excellent development, especially the bringing in of parents into a more important role.
The second major point of criticism—I leave aside ILEA because I know nothing about it—has been the proposed opting out of the local authority system. That may be inconvenient for the local authority; it

1423
may also be inconvenient for the Roman Catholic diocesan bishops. However, I am tempted to say, "So what", because schools exist for children and not children for schools.
I should like to add a footnote to the position of the Catholic bishops. It is a central part of Catholic social doctrine that the right to educate children inheres in parents. That golden thread runs through the whole Catholic approach to education policy and it has done so for centuries. Of course bishops have a part to play, just as teachers and the state have a part to play; but parents must have the priority. John Henry Newman said—and I paraphrase him—"If I had to propose the health of the bishops in an after-dinner speech, I would certainly do so but I would drink to the parents first".
When I recall what the noble Earl, Lord Longford, said yesterday when he championed the view of the Roman Catholic bishops I cannot but remember that at the supreme moment—the great test when Henry VIII broke with Rome over his divorce—there was only one bishop who took a lead in resisting it and that was John Fisher, the predecessor of the present Bishop of Rochester. Therefore I say—thank Heavens that there is only one Prelate of the established Church here— "Put not your trust in Prelates".
In fact it was Thomas More, a layman, who expressed the conscience of the faithful and who was the only predecessor of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor to have been both beheaded and canonized. I hope in one of those precedents he will follow him, although I must say I do not know which of the two he would find the more disagreeable.
However, it has been notable in the debate that though the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, has been present for much of the time, he has not spoken. I think it is a reasonable inference that he is not too dissatisfied with the provisions on opting out. Many of us would like to see further safeguards moved in Committee, to preserve the particular character of a school. However, I do not think it would be right to deny to Catholic parents the right which is being conferred on every other parent in the country.
I should like to make a special plea in respect of three matters which are close to my heart. First, I ask for a greater concentration on the classics. It is bad enough to be cut off from Greek, but if we are to cut out Latin as well—through which we have access to Greek civilisation—we shall be cut off from our cultural roots. Naturally I should like to see Latin taught more imaginatively; literarily and not mechanically. Secondly, may we please have more emphasis on visual education right across the curriculum, because without that we shall never achieve a worthy architecture in contemporary Britain?
Finally, I should like to say a word about the universities. I concur strongly in what my noble friend Lord Blake said yesterday. If I may I shall utter a gentle word of warning to the Government Front Bench. The Conservative Party is not at its strongest in the universities these days. The Government should be seriously concerned about that standing. If one loses the universities, one loses the future.
1424
I turn now to the subject of religious and moral education, which I am delighted to see has been upgraded. However, that will mean little unless two aspects are dealt with. First, we must ensure that there is an adequate supply of teachers of the subject; and, secondly, that it is tested and examined. It is only in that way that the subject will keep its academic status.
Let me address an even more fundamental issue: what is religious education for? The answer is both simple and complex. It is to transmit the fundamental, moral and spiritual values on which our society is based, the preservation of which constitutes the life of our society and the loss of which constitutes its death. Those values include self-control, loving kindness, care of neighbours and moral responsibility, among many others. Where do they come from? On what do they ultimately rest? In this country the answer must surely be on religion in general and on the Christian religion in particular. When I use that phrase I incorporate in it the whole of the Judaeo-Christian tradition, because one part of that tradition is incomprehensible without the other.
Christianity is the soil in which the roots of our morality is planted: cut them off and that morality will die. Therefore the case for teaching religion is not primarily theological; it is cultural, social and historical. The moral values in this country must be principally, although not exclusively, Christian because that is the foundation on which our house is built and you cannot take it out of the foundations without the house falling down.
I conclude with a personal plea for the use of more civilised terminology in our education discussions. Economics may or may not be part of education; but education is not a part of economics. The phrase "producers of education" makes me shiver and "consumers of education" makes me shudder. It is a new form of barbarism. The use of those phrases comes from people who wear no bearskin, who carry no club and who perhaps wield nothing more lethal than a ballpoint pen. But it is barbarous nonetheless to speak within the city in such terms, thereby undermining our tradition of civilised discourse on this crucial subject.
Education is one of the greatest and most noble of human endeavours, leading men and women at many different ages out of the darkness of ignorance into the light of knowledge and that process needs to be clothed in words worthy of the greatness of the age.
7.40 p.m.
Lord Basnett: My Lords, my concerns with the Bill inevitably reflect those of the trade union movement; with equal inevitability most of them have already been expressed. However, two of them were not frequently mentioned and I should therefore like to speak about them.
First, since the morale, standards and commitment of the staff are essential for an effective education service, I look—or briefly glance—at those changes which could undermine that morale, those standards and those commitments. We all welcome the words of praise from the Minister for those who work in education. However, those people do not welcome

1425
the uncertainty that the Bill introduces into their employment conditions.
Secondly, and a little less briefly, I refer to the internationally-praised part of our education system which the Bill has virtually overlooked but upon which its provisions are damaging. The importance of it was underlined by my noble friend Lord Callaghan of Cardiff and mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel. I refer to adult education. Over 1 million people work in local authority education services in this country and there are over half a million teaching staff in schools, colleges and other institutions. There are nearly 700,000 non-teaching staff who do jobs such as librarians, cleaners, caretakers and administrators. All these staff will be affected in some way by the Government's Education Reform Bill.
The aspects of the Bill which have not been widely publicised are those concerning the employment of staff. While all staff will be affected by changes in the Bill, some will be directly affected by the clauses which specifically relate to their employment conditions and rights and who is to be their future employer. Under the present proposals some education staff have no guarantees concerning their future employment or conditions. Many others are guaranteed protection of existing conditions at the time of transfer but they have no reassurance for their future with their new employer. There is still greater uncertainty about the future of some national bargaining agreements.
In the ILEA the situation is worse. Only certain of the staff will be designated for transfer and others will lose their jobs. Of those who lose their jobs, some will be paid compensation, some redundancy, and some will have no payment. The proposed staff commission has advisory powers only for transferring staff, so ILEA staff cannot be guaranteed jobs. My noble friend Lord Graham stated that he hopes the Secretary of State will listen to the representations that the unions will be making. I join in that hope.
However, my major concern is about the trade union movement's historic interest. From its birth the union movement has sought the introduction and extension of adult education and its role in its development is widely recognised. For members of the trade union movement adult education has always been a route through which to repair the deficiencies of a system too frequently insensitive to the needs of underprivileged groups. It is an avenue into liberal education besides being a way in which to acquire new and additional skills for personal and community development.
An adult and continuing education has proved to be one of the most vital and most community-oriented of local services for which this country has a deserved reputation. Yet it has been virtually overlooked by the drafters of the consultation papers and the Bill. It has been overlooked but not left unharmed. The White Paper which preceded the Bill had significant implications for adult continuing education, particularly in relation to access. It asserted that the Government's proposals will make 50,000 extra student places available. It also talked of the need to accommodate students with a wider range
1426
of academic and practical experience, many of whom will not have traditional qualifications for entry.
For that to happen, entry procedures will have to change and institutions of higher education will have to adapt their teaching methods and the design of the courses to accommodate new types of students. Not only will that development be stifled by the Bill, but the developments we have so far achieved could be endangered. At the moment, joint further and higher education involvement in course design, selection, promotion, maintenance and assessment (and sometimes teaching) has encouraged a responsible and responsive approach to curricula, teaching methods and quality control. These are particularly important to link access courses.
If implemented, the Bill will irrevocably split further education from higher education and thereby undermine the collaborative structures which underpin the most successful access initiatives. There is a fundamental contradiction between developing access courses and access links between further and higher education and in removing most of the higher education institutions from local authority control. There is a danger in doing this without ensuring some focus for development. There is no guarantee that the new corporate, highly competitive higher education institutions will become, or will continue to be, responsive to local education authorities' pioneering of access courses or be involved in their strategic planning.
Indeed, LEAs themselves will be overwhelmed with the massive changes that they will need to make. With this pressure and without the statutory requirement to ensure the provision of adult education, this could weaken the community orientation of much of such education. No focal point will exist for the development of adult education. That is a situation that we must rectify. Other changes not directly concerned with further and higher education will affect adult education as well.
The opting-out proposals for schools will directly affect adult education because many local education authorities depend heavily upon the use of school premises. The proposed break-up of ILEA will make London-wide adult provision impossible and it will bring to an end the wide access available in London. This was dramatically illustrated by the noble Lord, Lord Alport. There will be barriers, particularly to the disadvantaged, to entry to adult education. This will apply to the unemployed, for instance, because of the abolition of the 21-hour rule which allows study in further education colleges for up to 21 hours a week without loss of benefit. To this restriction has to be added the loss of concessionary fees at a time when course fees, because of the Bill, are likely to rise.
All these problems arise against a background of some millions of adults needing, as for decades they have needed, help with basic reading, writing and numeracy skills. These measures also have to be set against a background of the need to develop, as the Minister said, the abilities of our workforce and the desire to preserve the excellence of our most valued community-oriented service. An immeasurable social and economic contribution can be made to our communities and our economy by continuing adult

1427
education, assisting those who seek it to develop it through liberal education or by acquiring a wider range of skills. We must ensure that we maintain that contribution.
7.50 p.m.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, as I am the first speaker from these Benches to follow the maiden speakers, I should like very much to congratulate them on their notable contributions to today's debate. My old friend the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow, spoke great words of wisdom and I hope that the Government pay heed to what he said. My noble friend Lord Russell made a scintillating contribution which augers very well for future debates in your Lordships' House.
I am old fashioned enough to suspect that the greatest contribution politicians can make to education is to provide the resources for the people who know what they are doing. I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, was right when he suggested that if, instead of lowering income tax for higher rate taxpayers by 20p, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had lowered it by 18p and the rest had gone to education it would have made a greater contribution to education than this Bill, however well intentioned it may be. Though it is a massive Bill, I have yet to be persuaded that it is a great Bill.
It so happens that I agree broadly with the concept of a national curriculum though I very much agreed with the point made yesterday by the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, that the present provisions in the Bill are too prescriptive. Unless there is a change in this matter—and it is right to say that the task-force on the curriculum has shown sensitivity on this point—there is a danger that, rather than becoming a framework, the whole thing will become a straitjacket. That is one of the worst things that could happen to our education system.
It so happens that I am the 71st speaker in this debate. I want to concentrate on one point. My noble friend Lord Cledwyn knows perfectly well that we in Wales have been troubled over the centuries, educationally and otherwise, by the presence of a large ethnic minority known as the English. This Bill deals fundamentally with what will happen to Welsh education in the future. Four hundred years ago the translation of the Welsh Bible ordered by Parliament was published. It was the work of Bishop William Morgan. It transformed the prospects for the Welsh language. It established a standard Welsh and made an enormous contribution to the language. By Act of Parliament it was required to be available in every church in Wales, as was the King James version. It had a profound influence on the way we speak Welsh.
Four hundred years later this Bill will provide the framework for education in Wales. I make no apology for saying to your Lordships that it is important for Members to understand the significance of this Bill to Wales. I refer in particular to those who do not have a knowledge of the Welsh background. As this is the Second Reading it is right to discuss the principles that will be applied in deciding what should be a core subject and what should be a foundation subject in the curriculum in
1428
Wales. In Wales, we love our language. It is part of our roots. Yesterday, in a speech that was largely devoted to the importance of religious education, a speech with which I entirely agreed on that point, the noble Lord, Lord Elton, mentioned the fact that in this country—he was speaking of the United Kingdom, of course—we have a fine tradition of treating minority cultures sympathetically and sensibly. It is in relation to that matter that I want to refer to the provisions of the Bill as they affect Wales.
Because of the problems that are inevitably bound up with economic development and so on, parts of Wales are dominated by the English language and parts are still the redoubt of the Welsh language. Broadly speaking, two kinds of school deal with the Welsh language. In the Bill the definition of a Welsh-speaking school is given in Clause 3(6). A school in Wales is a Welsh-speaking school,
"if more than one half of the foundation subjects other than Welsh are taught (wholly or partly) in Welsh".
If it is a Welsh-speaking school, Welsh becomes a core subject. If it is not a Welsh-speaking school, it can be considered a foundation subject. The importance is not in the categorisation as such but the consequence of the categorisation.
Among lovers of the Welsh language this Government have a good reputation for their concern for the future of the language. We would be lacking in political generosity if we were not to pay tribute to the respective Secretaries of State who have on behalf of the Conservative Government been in charge of Welsh affairs. They have shown sensitivity and sympathy with regard to the continuation, with strength, of the Welsh language. However, a powerful movement in the largely English speaking areas has resulted in the setting up of bilingual schools. The environment is largely English in those surrounding areas but in the bilingual schools many subjects are taught in Welsh with the aim of making sure that the children who emerge from the schools are entirely bilingual. Because the home and other dominant influences are very often English there is a greater emphasis on teaching different subjects in Welsh.
As I understand it, all those schools would qualify as Welsh-speaking schools under the definition in the Bill. However, areas such as Gwynedd—the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, comes from what he would regard as the most important part of Gwynedd—are largely Welsh speaking. Dyfed, small parts of Powys and certain parts of Clywd are also largely Welsh-speaking areas. Many of the schools in those areas do not teach up to six subjects in Welsh because many of the children are naturally Welsh-speaking. There is pressure from the parents to give them more instruction in English because they already speak Welsh far better than the intake into the bilingual schools in the English-speaking areas. There, though the school is much more naturally Welsh-speaking than the bilingual school, under the definition in the Bill it would not be categorised as a Welsh-speaking school. However, under the provisions embodied in the Bill an opting out procedure would be available.
In Wales there is constant pressure from certain parents—very often a new influx into the district—to change the curriculum. They ask: why should my

1429
child be taught Welsh? There is a definite threat to the future of the Welsh language. It is unintended, I think, but nevertheless real. I believe that I am expressing the view of the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, as well as the views of other Peers from Wales. There is a real fear in Wales that, inadvertently, we might be providing through the Bill the machinery for the eventual killing off of the Welsh language. I should have thought that that is the last thing the Secretary of State for Education and Science would want to achieve.
Therefore I am laying the ground for matters that will be discussed in Committee. It is important that your Lordships should be apprised of the genuine fears within Wales and able to consider the principles that should be brought to bear in deciding what the curriculum should be. We are very anxious to achieve the kind of progress that has been made in preserving the Welsh language. We are not an introspective people. It is right that the Welsh-speaking schools, whether bilingual or otherwise, provide the very broadest education. Probably there is in Welsh schools at the moment a greater interest in Europe and European affairs than in many schools in England. But it is very important that we preserve our roots, particularly our cultural roots. I think it was important that I should spend what little time was at my disposal on bringing this problem to the attention of the House.
8 p.m.
Lord Trafford: My Lords, I hope to break the record for brevity in this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, in his interesting and enjoyable speech earlier this afternoon asked why universities were included in the Bill at all. If he had been with me at the Association of Commonwealth Universities meeting in Australia last month —and I happen to know that he was not—he would have been most interested to hear the debate on the relationship between the universities and the state and their role in national life in the last quarter of this century and on into the next. I do not think he could then have suggested, as he rather did today, that the best of all possible things was happening in the best of all possible worlds and we could leave the universities alone to get on with it themselves.
The second reason why the universities are in this Bill is that there is a strong public interest in them, if only manifest by the fact that £2½ billion is spent on higher education, £1½ billion of it on universities.
The third reason is probably that it is inevitable that all parts of the public sector must come under scrutiny. Periodically there is a certain dissatisfaction with the performance of one particular part of it or another which then leads to further investigation. Much of this is a structural change which follows on things like the Croham Report, which made recommendations with regard to the UGC and changes to it. The Bill is not involved directly in any form of assault on the universities as has been suggested in some ways.
The real problem of the relationship between universities and the state is very simply that universities are state-funded. If universities in this country had ever been able to follow to a great extent the pattern in the United States, where there is far
1430
greater private funding of universities, and if there was not great dependence on the state, the universities would not have to take note of the length of the spoon—just as those who sup with the devil need a long spoon. In part this is what we are discussing in that section which I suspect will be in the Bill.
Great changes have taken place in the last three or four years in universities already and will continue to take place, regardless of the provisions relating to them in the Bill. To a very large extent all that this Bill does in this respect is tidy up the process, one might say. It certainly does not undermine the universities in any way, especially after the amendments brought forward in the other place.
I turn briefly to two other points which have exercised a large number of speakers in this debate: first, the question of tenure in the universities; secondly, the question of academic freedom. These two have been connected by many people, although I do not see a direct connection. It is understandable that from the way in which academic freedom has been referred to in this debate one might think that this was a special freedom. I do not think it is. There are many freedoms which any civilised society, any civilised democracy, must safeguard.
Freedom in all fields is a very precious commodity. I do not regard this one as being particularly special. But like all other natural liberties, it has its natural and legal limits, where the freedom of one impinges on the freedom of another—that is a classic example—or where it is limited by law with regard to race relations, which is another example. But it is a commodity which needs to be earned and maintained by respect.
I should have thought it was not unreasonable that some speakers could have acknowledged that freedom of thought and expression, freedom to question received wisdom or orthodox thinking, should extend to a whole university, to a whole higher centre of learning, not one part of it; and that those who defend it and demand a legal safeguard of some sort in this Bill have failed to see that that has happened. It has not been protected throughout the institutions of higher learning. We have seen some sad examples, which my noble friend Lord Joseph quoted yesterday, including Ruskin College, Bristol University and the place which has been publicised so much in The Times recently at Wolverhampton. So I do not think we do anybody a service by trying to defend or protect a selective freedom. It is absolute or it is not.
This Bill in my opinion is not challenging it in any way. The noble Lord, Lord Swann, spoke eloquently yesterday, mostly about the extension of those dreadful ministerial contracts for research which he waved in one hand in the House and with which I have some familiarity. I have exactly the same feeling as he described whenever I look at them. It is as though one were signing the Official Secrets Act. I agree with him that it is this bureaucratic, legalistic approach to the contracting of work and of research which is somewhat more dangerous. These contracts are not confined to universities, centres of higher learning or polytechnics. They also apply to vast numbers of other undertakings where the ministry requires work or information to be received.

1431
I turn finally to the question of tenure. This worries me a little because my view of it is slightly different from the view previously expressed. As at present constituted, it seems to me that this Bill is discriminatory mostly at the expense of newcomers. The new blood scheme was one of those which was welcomed in most universities in recent times. If one imagines a reproduction of that after this Bill is passed, it can be seen that these people would be disadvantaged. It is also true that it would disadvantage those who wished to make changes in the progression of their careers. Up to a point it discriminates against the 50 per cent. who have no tenure anyway, because it affects only those who have tenure. I believe it discriminates againt 100 per cent. in the polytechnics because the entire 100 per cent. do not have tenure.
My concern is practical rather than one of principle; namely that many people are disadvantaged. Careers are disadvantaged and change, or restructuring in universities is made more difficult even if it were to be totally agreed by all concerned. I wonder whether it would be better either to substitute some specific five-year programme of contractual obligations to the institution, reviewable, or to abolish tenure altogether. This would have another singular advantage. Not only would it be discriminatory; it would also tend to get rid of many of the problems concerning the duties of the commissioners who are proposed in the Bill.
I promised that the length of this speech would be a record, and I believe that if I sit down now I have managed to achieve that.
8.8 p.m.
Lord Blease: My Lords, tributes have already been paid in the House to the quality of the speeches in this two-day Second Reading debate. The speeches have been of an exceedingly high standard and for me some of them have been like an extramural education session. By comparison I am afraid that my remarks will be somewhat pedestrian.
The Explanatory and Financial Memorandum to the Bill states:
"In general the Bill extends to England and Wales only. But the provisions relating to universities extend also to Scotland. The provisions relating to academic tenure may be extended to Northern Ireland by Order in Council subject to the negative resolution procedure".
Clauses 115, 179 and 198 and Schedule 9 specifically deal with Northern Ireland educational matters. In addressing the Northern Ireland aspect of the Bill, I am not ignoring the widespread public concern expressed about major and indeed disturbing changes proposed in educational organisation and legislation. Those changes will set the climate for the future of educational development throughout the United Kingdom.
Notwithstanding the words in the Explanatory Memorandum, there can be no doubt that the Bill will have widespread and serious implications for all levels and all aspects of education in England and Wales, in Scotland and in Northern Ireland. Noble Lords will be aware that education in Northern Ireland has its separate legal standing and its distinct administrative arrangements. Some two weeks ago,
1432
on 30th March, the Northern Ireland Office issued a consultative paper entitled Education Reform in Northern Ireland. The introduction to the paper states:
"The proposals are broadly parallel to those in England and Wales".
Hence the keen interest of Northern Ireland people in this Bill.
In Northern Ireland we have a very forward looking and reasonably fair system of education. That does not mean by any means that there is no need for radical reform and improvement. Indeed some of the proposals in the consultative paper are welcomed. But, at the same time, there is much public disquiet about why, what and how the proposed legislation is being imposed on the existing Northern Ireland education system.
While the Minister responsible for education in Northern Ireland, Dr. Brian Mawhinney has provided for full consultation over a period until 10th June, it is regrettable that Northern Ireland is to be denied the democratic legislative process of parliamentary debate with the hope of suitably amending the impending legislation. The Order in Council procedure does not meet the need for open representative consultations to obtain consensus and public commitment to any agreed changes. It is for those reasons that many educationists and parents in Northern Ireland are anxious to see fundamental changes in the proposals put forward in the Bill.
It is claimed that the Bill is as radical as the Butler Act of 1944. There is, however, at least one major difference. The Butler Act was introduced in an atmosphere of general objective harmony and consensus of educational, public and political opinion. That is in sharp contrast to the clouded atmosphere of confusion, disagreement and discontent surrounding the present Bill. I am unable to confirm or refute reports of doubts and disagreement within the Cabinet concerning some aspects of the proposed educational changes in the Bill. However, the general discord does not bode well for the future as it seems to indicate a lack of sensitivity to the reasoned advice of the majority within the education profession including teachers, lecturers and administrators.
Let us not forget: it is these teachers and other educationists who in professional terms and in practical application must implement the reforms. Fundamental to the lack of consensus is the apparent blind, doctrinaire political philosophy underlying the Bill's inception. To believe that standards in educational excellence will rise simply by introducing a competitive spirit into the provision of education is naive in the extreme.
Such a crude basic approach, by its very nature, will have the effect of reducing standards for many of our children. To introduce a doctrine of free market forces into the organisation of the education system reveals a sad lack of understanding of educational thought and planning for pupil needs. Ultimately, through its enforced implementation at administrative and teacher levels, it will be divisive.
Part II of the Bill deals with further and higher education. Clauses 115 to 117 set out the proposals for funding higher education and the establishment

1433
of the Universities Funding Council. Clause 115 proposes that the new council shall have power,
"to provide the Department of Education for Northern Ireland, on such terms as may be agreed, with such advisory services as the Department may require in connection with the discharge of the Department's functions relating to universities in Northern Ireland".
This is not the time to go into detail on the wording. But it is causing considerable concern in Northern Ireland. What is meant by
"on such terms as may be agreed"?
Who is to come together to form the agreement?
In Clauses 173 and 179 it is proposed to establish a body to be known as the university commissioners. Clause 179 states that the duty and functions of these university commissioners should apply to Northern Ireland in terms corresponding to the provisions for universities in England, Wales and Scotland.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in his very reasoned and excellent explanation of the part of the Bill dealing with the university commissioners mentioned that one of the five commissioners will have some understanding of Scottish university procedures and traditions. It may be too much to ask that there should be one commissioner for Scotland, one for Wales, and one for Northern Ireland, thus leaving two for England. I suggest that that would be a fair United Kingdom share-out, but I shall not put the Minister into a dilemma by asking for a reply.
In Northern Ireland the present provisions and administrative arrangements are under the University Grants Committee together with the Department of Education for Northern Ireland, and with the two Northern Ireland universities—Queen's University, Belfast, and the Ulster University—these have operated very effectively and efficiently in the best interests of the higher education needs of the Province.
However, concern has been expressed by officials and others associated with Queen's University, Belfast, and the Ulster University about some of the proposed changes related to the Universities Funding Council and the role and functions of the university commissioners in respect of Northern Ireland. Recently, I had informal consultations with officials of both the Northern Ireland universities. They were informative consultations as well as being informal. Among the proposals we discussed was that for accounting and auditing in higher education. A paper that I have received from one of the universities states:
"The University readily accepted that there was a need for formally-defined lines of financial responsibility and accountability under the proposed new arrangements. However the University was concerned, particularly in the Northern Ireland context, that the proposals introduced too many layers of audit".
A note from Queen's University further outlines this concern about the proposed new arrangements. It states:
"We consider that the proposal to establish a Higher Education Internal Audit Unit will impose a further layer of control and audit on Universities which is likely to place an unnecessary additional burden on universities' administrations. In Northern Ireland, the two universities are subject to annual audit by the Northern Ireland Audit Office and we believe that this will obviate the need for further scrutiny by a Higher Education Internal Audit Unit.
Also of concern to us were the references in the consultative document to value for money exercises. We believe that within
1434
universities there are certain types of provision which may be highly desirable on academic criteria, given the academic background of Queen's community, but which would not necessarily satisfy strict and unqualified value for money criteria. Subject to that reservation, the University is totally committed to achieving the most economic, efficient and effective use of resources".
I have dealt with only a few of the issues which are of deep concern to the people of Northern Ireland. I did not have the opportunity to inform the Minister that I would be raising those matters or dealing with Northern Ireland affairs. However, I wish to give due notice that further reassurances may be required to be written into the Bill during Committee stage to meet the needs of the population of Northern Ireland.
The Bill cannot be considered in isolation. There are the divisive and restrictive implications of the Government's wider legislative programme in social welfare, health care and services, unemployment and taxation. They impinge forcefully on the social fabric of our society in which education must function creatively and fairly.
All of those elements have a cumulative effect on values and standards in our society and on the opportunities for pupils to realise their full potential. The Education Reform Bill must be seen to function within a framework of social justice enabling equality of opportunity. My view is that the Bill presents us with further unnecessary social divisions. I feel compelled to conclude that I shall be joining all those in the House who seek radically to change the Bill and bring about reasoned educational reform.
8.25 p.m.
Lord Kirkwood: My Lords, I hope that I shall beat the record of the noble Lord, Lord Trafford, for brevity. However, the speech I wish to make will go in a different direction. I wish to defend, if possible, the concept of academic tenure.
Despite the many excellent speeches which have been made on both sides of the House, I wish to speak on the subject of tenure and my excuse for doing so is that although I am an academic, I am not a vice-chancellor; I am not a former vice-chancellor and I do not expect ever to be a vice-chancellor or a chancellor. I am a bit closer to the chalkface than that.
I wish to speak in support of retaining tenure, although perhaps not in its present form. In that regard, the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, was important and interesting. There is no doubt that the right to tenure of employment by academics is hard for the general public to understand and to sympathise with when so many people have lost, and are losing, their jobs as a result of the general economic recession. Tenure is seen by many as a shelter behind which the idle and the incompetent seek refuge. Nevertheless, it is a vital privilege which underpins academic freedom—the freedom to criticise, to do research and to publish without interference from political or commercial interests. No one, it seems, questions the imperative need for academic freedom within the limits imposed by the laws of libel and national security, although the Government seem to be nervous about including any reference to it within the Bill, despite their earlier promises.

1435
Without academic freedom, universities and polytechnics simply cannot perform their duty of questioning received opinion with impunity. Although lip service may be paid to academic freedom and it may even be enshrined in statutes, the greatest impediment to the exercise of academic freedom is the threat, if not the actuality, of dismissal. I am not speaking of the area of dismissal for good cause, which may be hard to prove and in which one hopes the proper and formal grievance procedures will be established to protect those who feel that they have been discriminated against in such cases.
The more insidious threat is from redundancy engineered on the grounds that the contraction of a particular discipline is required or on grounds of financial exigency. In both cases it will be difficult for the dismissed academic to prove victimisation for his opinions because those are not the overt grounds for dismissal.
Tenure is the only effective defence available to prevent such injustices. It is needed by academics in this country just as it is perceived to be needed by academics in the United States, in Japan, in the old Commonwealth countries and in France and Germany, and just as it is perceived to be needed by civil servants and judges to prevent political interference in the execution of their duties.
The style of hierarchical management is hardly suited to, as the White Paper on higher education put it:
"the promotion of the powers of the mind, the advancement of learning, and the transmission of a common culture and common standards of citizenship".
It is even less appropriate to the relationship between a graduate and his supervisor in research which depends on the equality of respect for one another's ideas. In that sense, it is not the managers—the heads of departments, the deans, and the vice-chancellors or directors of polytechnics—who carry out the proper tasks of higher education; rather it is the body of academics as a whole. They are represented in universities by senates who determine courses, standards and the academic structure of the particular university.
The Government may feel that it is necessary to interfere with the limited autonomy that universities have in trying to run their own affairs. They may feel that it is a piece of slow and clumsy machinery to effect economies and changes. It must be, and is, accepted by the majority of academics that changes in higher education are required, partly because of limited funding available, partly because of different student demands and a changing student population, and partly because of the changing needs of society and in particular the needs of employers.
To the end of shaping institutions of higher education which are better able to produce graduates fitted for the modern world, the abolition of tenure would no doubt enable university authorities to bring in required changes more rapidly by disposing of staff. It would almost certainly inflict great damage on the institutions themselves. They must be allowed to change without destroying the academic freedom which is essential to their health.
1436
Along with the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, I believe that some form of tenure is required to secure that. However, it should probably not be in the present form, which involves not only job security but an automatic escalation in salary and the formality of passing an efficiency bar to get to the top of the promotion ladder. If that system were to be replaced by the tenure system as practised in the United States, for instance, where academics of proven record are guaranteed salaries for only nine months of the year and make up the salary in the other three months by consultancy, by bringing in research funds or by administrative duties, that could bring a flexibility to management and reward and provide incentives to the active and conscientious members of the academic community without losing the important safeguards provided by tenure.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I must apologise to the House for arriving rather late last night and missing the early part of the debate. I can assure those who spoke before I arrived that I have read all their contributions with great interest. I may raise one or two points later. I should also like to thank the usual channels for arranging this two-day debate, which has allowed everyone who wanted to take part to do so. It is significant that the list of speakers is so long. It is an indication of how important the nation feels the Bill to be.
I shall speak about a few of the detailed aspects of the Bill and also about what I might describe as the broad issues. First, I should like to mention the national curriculum that is projected. I have already put on record in the House my total opposition to a national curriculum. I believe that it is worth reporting why I am opposed to it. At a time when the extent of knowledge is increasing rapidly and technology and research continue, it is dangerous effectively to freeze the curriculum of study for our school children. If the body of knowledge were held to be static and not increasing there might be an argument for a set curriculum, but while we have an expansion of knowledge and while the way education is conducted is developing it will be counter-productive to have a national curriculum.
However, if we are to have a national curriculum it should be applied to every school. We should treat every school student equally in that respect. It should also apply to every part of the land. A legitimate reason for having a national curriculum would be to break down and deal with some of the problems that exist in this United Kingdom of ours. I shall touch on two of the problems. One is the perceived divide between Scotland and England.
Over the past 15 years there has been a resurgence of Scottish nationalism. I was educated in Scotland and have some appreciation of why that feeling of nationalism still exists. The Scottish system of education is separate from that of England. I shall explain that. When school students in Scotland are taught history, their understanding of it virtually stops at 1707 with the union of the Crowns (apart from one or two Jacobite incidents after that and of course the great Scottish 19th century characters such as Mungo Park and David Livingstone). An explanation of the works of Ken Livingstone might

1437
be a salutary experience for the school students of Scotland; but be that as it may.
One of the matters that could be addressed is that of having a national curriculum which applied to Scotland and England. I was interested in the contributions about religious education. I received what I would describe as a good Christian education. It may surprise some of your Lordships to hear that our school chaplain held the view that Christianity was an early form of communism. I am not sure how that would sit with a large number of members of the Conservative Party.
I am not a practising Christian because I perceive that Christianity is honoured in the breach rather than in the observance of the teachings of Christ. If we could have a curriculum of Christian studies that put forward Christ's philosophy, and that curriculum applied right across the United Kingdom (through England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland) we might break down some of the religious conflicts that exist. If we look at the Bill, religious education is seen to be the province of the LEAs in consultation with the local churches. I think that it would be hard to find a greater recipe for conflict. While on the one hand the Bill's aims may be laudable, the mechanisms by which those aims are expressed are doomed to failure.
Another aspect of the Bill's proposals is that of the delegation of financial powers to school governors. In practice, that will mean the day-to-day management of financial affairs by the headmaster. It is dangerous for the teaching profession to have its senior members transformed into managers. I shall come to that aspect a little later. One of the points that I shall bring out is the way the Government seem to want to turn all our education institutions and institutions of academic learning into businesses—in the word of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, firms.
Another little clause tucked inside the Bill gives chief constables the right to influence the curriculum put forward by the local education authority. I come from Manchester. I am horrified by the idea that our chief constable, even with a direct line to God, should have any influence over the curriculum of our Manchester school students.
I must progress quickly to the subject of polytechnics. To those people who work and teach in polytechnics I make the point: "You think that you have had it hard over the past few years under LEA control; you do not know what is coming to you, because it is going to get that much worse under central government control". That is what we are talking about. Polytechnics will effectively jump out of the frying pan into the fire. I shall say no more than that. It is just a warning to academics and people who work in polytechnics.
I turn now to universities. The proposals contained in the Bill will destroy academic freedom. I suggest that academic freedom is incapable of definition within a Bill. If we reach the stage where we have to define it we are effectively turning to the judges and saying, "This is your province to supervise and adjudicate on". That means that cases will have to come before the courts. Bringing such cases before
1438
the courts will pose a threat to the academics involved.
It is interesting to note that all the clauses to do with the university commissioners and the way that the PCFC and the UFC will operate are geared towards making people redundant. These is no provision which says, "This is the way that extra funds will be spent". It is all in terms of, "How do we get rid of people?" So, to everyone working in universities and polytechnics, the message comes through loud and clear: "You jobs are on the line".
I should like to say a quick word about ILEA. It is total nonsense to try to abolish ILEA. There have been some very good speeches on that subject. I would just refer your Lordships to the speeches by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, and the noble Lords, Lord Stewart of Fulham and Lord Pitt, which I think make the case for the retention of ILEA very clearly.
The main problems with this Bill are the centralisation of control which it introduces and the erosion of democracy. There are many clauses in the Bill which effectively deny any aspect of local democracy in the running of our education system. I have lost count of the number. It is frightening. A large number of people are frightened by the whole tenor of the Bill. Mention has already been made of the significance of the similarities of the type of actions proposed in this Bill to actions of the parliamentary governments under the Fascist regimes of Mussolini and Hitler. Just a few days ago an incident occurred which again drew a parallel with the actions of those governments: three unarmed people were shot on the streets of Gibraltar. That is the kind of activity in which the governments of Hitler and Mussolini engaged.
As I have already mentioned, virtually every institute of education or academic learning will be turned into a business by this Bill. They will be shaped on businesslike lines. As I have already reminded the House, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor described them as firms.
We are faced with the twin problems of a newly emerging Fascism and capitalism. I suspect that while a large number of members of the Tory Party may welcome the advance of capitalism in education and academic learning, in practice it is not the capitalism which will win; it is the Fascism. That is what is frightening about this Bill.
8.43 p.m.
The Earl of Stockton: My Lords, let me begin where I mean to end, with the children in our education system. I have four reasons for wishing to concentrate on the children. First, in common with all of us, I was a child once—a fact which some of your Lordships seem to have forgotten. I was given a privileged education. But I do not apologise for it as many would in the education establishment. To have attended one of the finest schools in this country, if not the finest, is something for which I shall always be grateful, not ashamed. Having experienced the best, it is therefore my ambition that as good should be available for all.
My career at Eton was far from distinguished. I am sorry to have missed the contribution yesterday of the

1439
noble Lord, Lord Charteris of Amisfield, the provost of that great institution. The reports from my long-suffering masters charted my erratic progress between the shoals of academic inadequacy and the rocks of disciplinary disaster. At the end of the first year the comment was, "Alexander is lethargic". At the end of the second year there was a graver note:
"He sets himself a consistently low standard which he then fails to achieve".
At the end of the third year, almost in desperation, the comment was:
"Macmillan presents a smooth exterior to the world, an impermeable finish which the gentle dew of education finds hard to penetrate".
Happily, after that I got down to some work. I never became the successful pot-hunter that my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone confessed to being, nor a great sportsman like my noble friend Lord Home of the Hirsel. However, I was taught how to work and how to think; that nobody and nothing in life owed me anything; and above all the standards of Christian morality so lucidly alluded to by my noble friend Lord Home.
I was very pleased to hear from my noble friend Lord Aldington that the independent schools are willing to embrace the core curriculum in its objectives. I urge my noble friend Lady Hooper to amend the Bill to ensure that the independent sector is always brought within the statutory framework of the core curriculum.
My second reason for concentrating on children is that I am a parent. I am determined that I shall have as great an amount to say as possible not only in what my children are taught but also by whom and how. Is that unreasonable? I do not want them to be taught only facts; I want them to be taught how to think, how to work and how to operate in the first community outside the family that they will be meeting. I also want them to know the joys of discovery but also to learn the realities that only with hard work comes success. I hope that they will have inspiration. I shall ensure that they have perspiration.
Thirdly, I am an education publisher, the fifth generation of my family so to be. Since 1846 my family business has managed to produce instruction books for pupils and teachers alike and testing and assessment material for use by teachers to help the profession and the parents to monitor both progress and the strengths and weaknesses of the children. Even the most militant of the teachers would accept that the publishing industry has always had a role in shaping the education system of this country as well as those of many overseas countries. Many of those same teachers and lecturers who are railing against the introduction of the cold winds of economic reality in their cosy education world show no signs of refusing the pieces of silver from the publishing industry. It is no good the noble Lord, Lord Peston, shaking his head. He would be better wringing his hands.
I have a yardstick against which I can judge the state of education in this country. It is the eagerness, enthusiasm and the very lust to learn that I find in the countries of the third world where it is our privilege to have been able to play a part in the creation of an
1440
education system. When I compare that enthusiasm and success, achieved on the most meagre of resources with the parade of excuses and self-justification which your Lordships have heard from those who claim—wrongly in my view—to be the guardians of the Butler Act when they are in fact no more than the supporters of Shirley Williams, I find myself saddened and disturbed. I am saddened by the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins. I am glad that my predecessor did not hear his words, for my noble friend Lord Joseph showed in his intervention that there has been an enormous increase in the numbers of students during the period of office of this Government. I know that it would have gladdened my grandfather, as I think it ought to gladden the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, to hear that.
As an academic publisher who has a number of authors among your Lordships, including the noble Lord, Lord Peston, I feel that I have enough of an interest in the universities to leave further education to the galaxies of chancellorial and professorial stars who have addressed your Lordships, including the noble Earl, Lord Russell, in his striking maiden speech.
I am disturbed because of the fourth interest that I have in the children in this country—as an employer. Successive governments of both hues have failed to grasp the nettle of reform. As a result they have condemned all but the more gifted to the economic scrapheap. For nearly 10 years I have been a governor of a Church of England boys' school in the people's republic of Lambeth, including during its years of transition from a grammar school to a comprehensive. Notwithstanding the unstinting efforts of the staff, governors, the diocesan board and parents, the dubious sociological experiments of ILEA referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Annan, produced a higher and higher proportion of boys who were unfitted either by knowledge or by outlook to fill anything but the lower ranks of the economic ladder. They were and are some of the best boys it has ever been my privilege to know. I am sure that as a well-to-do old Etonian Conservative I represented all that is worst in the minds of the Inner London Education Authority. But at least I was trying to offer the boys a career as well as a job. Sadly, however much they wanted to, too many of them were not equipped to fulfil their potential.
Potential is a very wide concept, but I feel most strongly that without assessment potential can never be realised. If a teacher in a primary school discovered that one of the pupils was unable to see the blackboard she would insist that the child should wear glasses. If he were unable to hear the teacher she would insist that he be fitted with a hearing aid. If a secondary school teacher discovered that a child was unable to do long division when all the others in the class could, the appropriate corrective action would have to be taken. I find opposition to assessment and testing as logical as opposition to eye and ear tests. I am convinced that the better teachers share that view.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, made the point yesterday that without the support of the teachers the reforms put forward in this Bill will not be worth the paper of the 221 pages on which it is printed. In a notable maiden speech my noble friend Lord Carlisle of Bucklow endorsed that support for the teachers from these Benches.

1441
We have been told by noble Lords opposite that the teachers are unanimously opposed to the reforms. I received a letter from the Secondary Heads Association of Cleveland, Durham, Northumberland, Tyne and Wear. Naturally they expressed concern over details of various aspects and offered a number of extremely constructive suggestions for improving the Bill which I hope to be able to put forward for your Lordships' consideration at a later stage. However, they say:
"Generally our members welcome and support the undoubted aim of Her Majesty's Government to improve the state education service and extend its accountability and control to those who have a direct interest in the outcomes of the educative process".
So do I, four times over.
8.52 p.m.
Lord Perry of Walton: My Lords, we are dealing with a great reform Bill which is going to have profound effects on the mechanism of education. I find it disturbing that it has so little to say about education itself. As the noble Baroness, Lady David, said, it starts off with Clause 1, which is wholly unexceptionable. There must be:
"a balanced and broadly based curriculum which—

(a) promotes the spiritual, moral, cultural, mental and physical development of pupils at the school and of society; and

(b) prepares such pupils for the opportunities, responsibilities and experiences of adult life".

That is splendid stuff, but unfortunatley that is all. Nowhere else throughout 197 clauses is there any mention of the aims and objectives of the philosophy or a policy for education itself. Not even at the start of Part II is there a clause saying anything comparable to that which is said in Clause 1 about the whole of further education and higher education.
I find that disquieting, for despite the arguments of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, there is a great deal of centralisation of powers in the Bill, both directly to the Secretary of State and indirectly to him by conferring powers on bodies such as the funding councils which he nominates and which he may even direct.
I am not against centralisation as such. Had the Secretary of State had such powers in the past few years we might have avoided the present mess where training is artificially separated from education by having been handed over to the Manpower Services Commission which, unlike the Department of Education and Science, had the necessary powers. It is less the centralisation of powers that worries me than the fact that there is no explicit statement about the aims and objectives for the fulfilment of which these powers will be used.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, I do not doubt that the present Secretary of State is well meaning, but Secretaries of State come and go and even this Government will not last forever. But great reform Bills are very rare. Who knows what the successors of the Secretary of State may do? The fact that they are not constrained by any statements of policy engenders the suspicion, no doubt wholly unjustified, that the Government have no clear vision of their own.
Perhaps I may deal in slightly more detail with one of the lacunae in the Bill, namely its absolute silence on adult education, which was mentioned by the
1442
noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, or more specifically of continuing education, which in many ways is the same thing under a different name. I have been acting as chairman of the standing committee on continuing education since it was set up by the joint decision of the University Grants Committee and the National Advisory Body, with the backing of the Open University and the education departments of Scotland and Northern Ireland. Our remit is to keep under review the national provision of continuing education at the higher education level. In other words, we try to promote through our parent bodies some sort of coherent provision of the continuing education that is so desperately needed if we are to be able to compete internationally in a world where science, technology, engineering and business studies are all advancing so fast that initial education cannot fit any skilled technologist or manager for a lifetime career. Updating, refreshment and retraining are all vital.
Almost everyone recognises that fact. The Government pay lip-service to it. The tragedy is that they pay very little more. Almost the only exception is the pick-up scheme of the Department of Education and Science. The policy there, as with previous governments, has been that continuing education is the responsibility of the private sector, of employees and employers. They certainly benefit, but so does the nation. The policy is not one followed by our competitors in other countries. I submit that it is a foolish policy in this day and age.
My committee has published several reports which argue for change, so far without success. The Government support the Open University with very large grants for first degrees, but they deny their support for increasing provision of a continuing education in technology. They started the open college to provide continuing education at pre-university level but expect it to become self-supporting within three years. The efforts that we have made to promote a national network of provision of advice about the availability of continuing education courses has not been successful, and there is no national policy to ensure that the opportunity for continuing education exists where it is needed. There is only a growing number of institutions doing their best and sometimes co-operating very effectively with a few others to provide what is so badly needed.
There is also the problem of what to do about part-time students, who are discriminated against in a number of ways. They do not qualify for mandatory grants even to cover their fees; yet they are a relatively untapped source of mature students who are very much needed and who so need encouragement. They are seldom offered evening classes for credit towards qualifications in the universities, although things are changing, and academics are mostly untrained in how to teach adults as opposed to school leavers.
I should have thought that in an Education Reform Bill in 1988 a whole section should be devoted to that new, exploding and critically important facet of a sensible overall coherent education policy. I hope that even at this late stage the Government will help to fill the lacuna. I should

1443
very much like to have a reaction from the Minister on this matter.
9 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, it is now some five hours since the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, rose to say that he felt that most things had been said. Since then a great deal more has been said. I understand that at lunchtime a certain noble Lord was offering prizes to anyone who would say something new. I feel that a great deal that is new has been said since last night. I am not sure how much I can add to that but I wanted to speak because I felt that I should like to nail my colours to the mast.
I am an elected member of an LEA. I do not claim to have any great educational expertise, which obviously a great many of those who have already spoken possess. I was elected to the county council and I am a member of the education committee. I support this Bill and think that the Government are headed in the right direction.
I should like very briefly to mention three aspects of the Bill: open enrolment, financial delegation to schools and what is called opting out. As regards open enrolment, I have listened to a great deal of this debate and I have read in Hansard the speeches yesterday that were made before 9.30 p.m. I left the Chamber at about 11 o'clock because I felt it was getting late. I have also read the NUT's views on the subject in one of the documents that it has issued, and quite frankly I do not understand why there is so much fuss.
In the local education authority on which I serve children are allowed to attend the schools of their parents' choice so long as there is room. Admittedly, if the school lies outside the catchment area the pupils may have to pay for their transport, but essentially the school is one of the parents' choice. It never occurred to me when I first went on to the education committee—and I suppose I was rather naive in that respect—that there were some education authorities who refused to allow children to attend schools other than those of the catchment area in which they lived. It seemed quite extraordinary that some authorities should be quite so dictatorial.
We have been told that open enrolment will create problems for LEAs. I am sure that it will. They will no longer be able to plan; it will be harder to take out surplus places and future planning will be more difficult. I quite accept that point. Of course it will make the job of the LEA harder, but that is what it is there to do. The LEA is there to provide the education that parents and society want. It is not there in order to have an easy time and send pupils to what it happens to believe are the most convenient schools.
One could also argue that it makes the job of the LEA very much easier in regard to the problem of school closures. If it is found that school A is rapidly losing its pupils to schools B and C, one must ask why. I expect that the most likely reason is that the school is not satisfactory; it is not up to the job. One has to admit that there are bad schools. However, in the area of falling rolls does it not make it easier to accept that school A is probably the school to close
1444
and that schools B and C should take the remaining children from school A?
I should like to touch on one other aspect of open enrolment. We have been told that most parents are already satisfied and that they are obtaining the school of their choice. I think it was the noble Baroness, Lady David, who said that about 95 per cent. overall, and in some cases 99 per cent., had already achieved the school of their choice. If those figures are correct, why are people so worried by open enrolment? As the noble Baroness said, it might be impossible to attain 100 per cent., but surely we can try and surely a few more of the 5 per cent. or so who do not get to the school of their choice should be given their chance. If that makes future planning for the LEAs more difficult, so be it.
I turn briefly to financial delegation and opting out. I gather that already some LEAs have been experimenting with financial delegation to schools and that those experiments have met with some success. Again the noble Baroness, Lady David, stated that in principle the Labour Party was not against that proposal, although I think she implied that she would prefer the Government to proceed with more caution. However, there has been opposition to the idea and it seems to me to reside in the fact that neither the schools nor the schools' governors have the expertise or the desire to take on those tasks.
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, went further when he said that he was very worried about the "pushy parent". He stated as a professional that he had suffered very much from the so-called pushy parent and that this was a sore burden—I think that those were his words. I should have thought that his job, as a professional, was to deal with the pushy parent. These things are sent to try us. Policemen have to deal with criminals and teachers presumably have to deal with the occasional pushy parent. I am afraid that my heart does not exactly bleed for him. As I said earlier, it is possible that the job of the LEA might become harder with open enrolment. So might the job of the teacher, but it is the job of the teacher and of the parent to overcome such problems.
It seems to me that the argument against local financial management—and it is an argument which also applies to opting out—is that there may not be sufficient people who are prepared to act as governors. I do not accept that view. I know that it can be difficult to persuade people to take on those jobs. Anyone who has served on an LEA will know that it is often very difficult finding likely people who are prepared to have their names put forward as governors. I can think of a school in my county council division in which there was a vacancy for a parent-elected governor. Two parents were quite keen on the idea of serving but they were not prepared to put themselves forward for the vacancy because they did not like the idea of a parental election. Such difficulties must be overcome. There will always be problems persuading people to participate, but merely because people at first seem unprepared to act as governors is no reason to throw out what is in general a good idea.
Perhaps I may give another illustration. I gather that school governors now have to produce a report every year for the parents. I am told at one school

1445
which is fairly near me in Carlisle in the first year only two parents bothered to turn up for it. That is very sad. Many of my opponents on the county council said, "Look, the whole thing isn't working; it's pointless". However, the next year many more parents turned up and I hope that that trend will continue and that parents will participate.
It is always clear how much they will participate when a school comes under threat. In our county at the moment we are conducting a review of all secondary education. Therefore some schools perceive themselves to be under threat. As noble Lords will know, everyone in the community will turn out when their school is under threat. If people are prepared then to put in so much interest and commitment, I do not see why that same commitment cannot be translated into running a school and looking after its management. There would have to be a bursar to take charge of matters. There is no reason why local people cannot act as the governors for schools.
I did not intend to take too long. I have not touched on opting out, but a great many of my noble friends have dealt with it far better than I can. I feel that it gives parents a choice. I do not see why it is wrong for parents to make the decision that others say the local education authority should be making.
Although I am aware that I have dealt with only some aspects of the Bill, I commend it to the House.
9.8 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Stockton, called in aid what he said was the view of the North Eastern teacher associations. I am very surprised at what he said. I come from the North-East. I have been in education all my life there; I keep in close touch with them and I am glad to say that they keep in close touch with me. In the North-East the feelings of all the organisations with which I keep in touch are very much against the Bill. I very much hope that the House will not accept the view that there is strong support for the Bill, as the noble Earl said.
The Earl of Stockton: My Lords, I was merely quoting the introductory paragraph of a letter from area 17 head teachers' association that I received this morning.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I took due note of that. The noble Earl read the aims and objectives. I do not think that there is any difference between the two sides of the House on the aims and objectives. What we are concerned about in the Bill is how to set about achieving them. That is why we on the Opposition Benches are so opposed to it.
Much of the debate has been concerned with the iniquitous proposals in the Bill about the universities. That is understandable. I support virtually everything that has been said about the implications for higher education. However, I have no doubt that all noble Lords who have expressed their fears on higher education will readily acknowledge that the success of the universities depends on a sound foundation being laid in our schools. It is largely
1446
about the implications for our children that I wish to speak.
The fundamental criticism that could be made and that I certainly make of the Bill is of its sheer lack of realism. In another place a former Tory Prime Minister, Edward Heath, called parts of it a "confidence trick". I am sure that that criticism is justified because the term implies a lack of realism.
I give some immediate examples that I shall develop later: the extent to which parental control and involvement can be made effective; the management role of governors and more particularly of the head teacher; the free choice or virtual free choice of schools; the assumption that the testing proposed will not develop into something akin to the old 11-plus examination; the assertion of the Government that the Bill is a decentralising measure, while at the same time it gives the Secretary of State 170 new powers. I think that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor referred to 185 new powers today, but we shall not quibble about the odd 15. I could give more examples of the lack of realism. Because of the lack of relationship to the real world of education, when I first saw the provisions of the Bill I asked who the Secretary of State had consulted.
Her Majesty's Inspectors, with whom I have worked for a number of years and for whom I have the highest regard, cannot possibly have suggested or agreed to many of the proposals. The teachers' and head teachers' organisations are opposed to much of it. The National Confederation of Parent-Teacher Associations has voiced strong opposition to a range of proposals, not least to opting out and testing, two of the most important parts of the Bill. There is a noticeable lack of enthusiasm among the local education authorities, to put it mildly.
With all these important voices against the measure, one begins to wonder who is supporting it. In those circumstances it is as well to remember that the Secretary of State allowed only 10 weeks for consultation on proposals that he knew would not be acceptable to a large section of education. Your Lordships will remember the furious row that broke out last summer about the short time allocated for consultation, as noble Lords have properly mentioned in their speeches.
One of the great reforming education Ministers, R. A. Butler, took two years to consult before producing the 1944 Education Bill. My noble friend Lord Callaghan of Cardiff suggested that there should have been another year, and I certainly accept that. R. A. Butler has been quoted so often in the debate that it is worth reminding the House that that was the period of consultation that he allowed for the 1944 Education Bill. The contrast between the two timescales is a measure of the doctrinaire approach shown in this matter by the Government.
The emphasis I place on the lack of realism in the Bill arises from my experiences as a local authority chief education officer. I refer again to the noble Earl: I see teachers, head teachers and governors virtually every weekend. One of my main aims in my work in the post that I held at that time was to try to involve parents in the life of the schools. I tried in a number of ways to stimulate interest and concern but, I am afraid, without success. It will come as no surprise to

1447
your Lordships that that is regrettably the normal situation. I hasten to add that efforts should continually be made to involve parents in all aspects of the work of the schools. But it is ludicrous to think that parents wish to run schools in the manner suggested in the Bill.
Equally lacking in realism is the proposal to delegate the financial management to head teachers and governors. There can be no better example of lack of thought and consultation than this provision. The resource and training implications constitute a major change in the functions and workload of head teachers and governors. Many comprehensive schools work on a budget of over £1,000,000. A number of primary schools work on budgets ranging from £250,000 to £500,000. In the United States of America it is quite common for schools of that size or less, as it is for some schools in Europe, to employ as part of their staff trained financial officers to deal with exactly this kind of work.
Perhaps even more important is the fact, which should be recognised, that head teachers do not want to be spending time on such work. For years head teachers complained to me about the administrative workload that they carried. "We are teachers, educationists", they would say. "We were not trained for this, nor should we be expected to do it". This silly Bill will exacerbate that position beyond belief. I believe it is fundamentally important for a head teacher to spend at least three or four lessons a week in front of a class. Any hope of that happening in these circumstances will be futile.
I turn now to the issue of opting out: the most doctrinaire part of the Bill. I say "doctrinaire" because it is difficult to discover any evidence for such a fundamental change in our education system. We must take notice to some extent of the opinion polls. Certainly they show that there is no demand for it. It may be—this has been said on a number of occasions in the debate—that the Government have in mind a few local education authorities with which they disagree. If that is the case, is there any justification for a change when some 100 local education authorities are apparently conducting their affairs to the satisfaction of the Government? If it arises from the assumption that standards in schools are deteriorating, I challenge the Minister to produce the evidence.
Every year I enjoy reading from cover to cover the full annual report of the Department of Education and Science. That shows that every year there is a steady improvement in educational standards. It is not spectacular, but it is steady. The opinion polls show a very high degree of parental satisfaction with their children's education. Of course there is much more to opting out that that. It means that when a school opts out, the school itself will decide which pupils to take and that in turn means having brighter children in it. That is inevitable and I hope it is not a matter of disagreement between us. In such a process we shall see the destruction of the present system, which not only is working well but on the whole is fair and provides equal opportunities for the full range of pupils' abilities.
1448
Nor does it require too much imagination to realise that it is only a step from that to the charging of fees. The National Confederation of Parent-Teacher Associations has described the proposals for opting out as "evil". That is the confederation's word. It may sound a little strong, but there can surely be no doubt that it will lead to the creation of a divided school system, and that, in my view, is the most damning indictment of the Bill. The concept that the parents of children attending a school at a given time can bind future parents, whether by a simple majority vot—which is what the Government intend—or by any other kind of vote, must surely be without precedent, certainly in the world of education. It is objectionable on any basis and potentially destructive to the work carried out in any school. If the Government really feel that there is merit in the scheme, we have to say that they should be honest and make provision for opting in. I believe that to be the logical answer to that complaint.
The Bill is not only a fraud and unworkable, it is hypocritical. If the many proposals which it contains are so much of an improvement, as we are told day in and day out, why do they not also apply to the private sector? I share the view contained in a letter which I received from a school signed by all members of its staff. They state:
"It is being presented by people whose own children are outside of the system it will affect".
I congratulate the noble Earl on the view that he expressed as regards the private sector being included in the proposals and I am glad to have his consent again on that matter. I believe it to be entirely logical and if the Government believe it to be right it should apply to the whole of the education system. I find the hypocrisy shown in keeping private schools away from the measure to be breathtaking and perhaps it is the biggest justification for calling the Bill a fraud.
The Secretary of State is missing the most glorious opportunity presented for 40 years in the field of education. He could have built on the solid foundations laid during that period. Where is the much-needed provision for nursery education; for mandatory grants for 16 to 18 year-olds; and not least for an expansion in adult education?
The tragedy is that, because of its nature, the objectives of improved standards and increasing educational opportunity will not only not be achieved but perhaps the system will be irretrievably damaged. There will be two nations in education and, most important of all, thousands of our children will never achieve their potential. After all, that is not only what education is about but it is what life is about.
We live in a pluralist democracy. To ensure the continuing health of such a system, in my view there is no more important contributory factor than an education system controlled and managed according to pluralist democratic principles. Every clause in the Bill negates that objective and the means by which a fair and decent society can achieve it.
I conclude by saying that this House has seven days in which to correct the Bill's most damaging proposals. I am confident that noble Lords on all sides will bring that about.
9.23 p.m.
Lord Birkett: My Lords, I sense a growing excitement among your Lordships that the debate may come to an end. Therefore I shall try not to disappoint the House and delay that moment for too long. However, I have two worries which concern areas not mentioned in the Bill. I believe that they should be mentioned and dealt with. They concern what may happen in London if the ILEA is swept away. The first matter relates to the two notable museums, the Geffrye and the Horniman, both of which are of national importance and standing. It is by chance that up till now they have not been adminstered on a national basis because the GLC and now the ILEA have administered them. However, that is not to say that they are not of the importance with which I credit them; they are both most distinguished museums.
As regards the Horniman, most noble Lords will know that from the ethnographical and anthropological point of view it is admired the world over not merely by museum people but as an educational institution. It is admired not merely for its collections but for its lectures, exhibitions and its entire educational programme, which is highly imaginative. It is probably wrong that by a pure accident of geography it should be devolved upon a borough which, however willing and admirable, should not be taxed with the job of looking after an institution of that importance.
That argument applies to both the Geffrye and Horniman Museums. I believe that some kind of central funding or arrangement should be made for the two museums. After all, dozens of important national museums are funded centrally. Therefore, it is not inventing a new principle, nor indeed is it causing any great administrative trouble to figure out how those two museums could be funded centrally. I have no idea what are the Government's intentions in that direction, but I urge them to consider the matter. I wonder whether or not those museums should be administered centrally and taken out of the provisions whereby the local boroughs absorb all the functions of the ILEA were it to be defunct.
My second point concerns music. I must not weary your Lordships with this point because the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson—and I am ashamed to say that I could not come to yesterday's debate but I read his speech at some length—went into great detail concerning the problems of music in the ILEA. However, I should like to reinforce that factor today. Anybody who has heard the London Schools Symphony Orchestra will know the excitement and the sheer thrill that is created from seeing the best youngsters from the schools of one particular capital playing in such a way that, if one were blind-folded and did not know to whom one was listening, one might well think it was one of our premier London symphony orchestras.
One should remember that it is not merely one famous symphony orchestra that has been put together. There are also two or three wind bands, consorts of recorders, a steel band, a guitar group and, indeed, there are countless London-wide ensembles picked from the schools of London. There is a central musical facility, a central musical school;
1450
there are visits, lectures, teaching courses—it is a complete London-wide musical scene.
One might suppose that were the ILEA to be abolished all the London boroughs could get together to ensure that that facility was maintained, thereby maintaining the sheer excitement that comes to those children and indeed, and let us not forget this, to those who hear them. In view of the sheer thrill that that musical education provides, one would think that the boroughs might well get their act together. However, sadly and cynically, I doubt it. I really doubt whether they can or will do that. At present the assorted London boroughs do not at any point talk with one voice at all. In fact they do not really meet. They meet in various organisations, but they do not have a central and powerful voice.
I mistrust the thought that after the abolition of the ILEA that musical scene will continue; however, it must. It is too thrilling for the children and too exciting for us to let it pass away. I urge the Government to look very closely at those two matters before the Bill goes further.
9.27 p.m.
Lord Croft: My Lords, in view of the lateness of the hour I hope not to detain your Lordships for more than perhaps five minutes. This Bill—here, I may be touching on ground we have already surveyed but I do so without apology—is our response to a situation that has become increasingly apparent over the years; namely, that the level of basic skills taught in our schools has not been high enough to satisfy parents and employers and that our educational standards lag behind those of our Continental competitors.
I am an optimist. I believe that the Bill will eventually bring about a change. However, it will take time. The provision of a national curriculum and the testing and monitoring of each child's progress at the ages of seven, 11, 14 and 16 should ensure a proper grounding in English, mathematics and science, which are the core subjects, and the other seven foundation subjects which are wide enough to cover the humanities and the arts.
I shall not dwell on that aspect of the Bill—it is one of the principal aims contained in Clauses 1 to 18—because the subject was so fully explained and discussed yesterday. I support the Bill in its main aims as outlined by my noble friends Lady Hooper, Lady Young and Lord Beloff in their powerful speeches. I entirely support the Government in that respect. I am also glad that the matter of religious education has been resolved in a satisfactory manner.
However, there are other aspects of this large Bill on which representations have been made to me and with which I should like to deal briefly. I am aware of the anxiety and disquiet among members of the Association of University Teachers whose national literature I have been sent together with separate submissions from the Southampton branch. The association admits that helpful amendments have been made by the Government but argues that they do not go far enough. It feels that the balance between the Government and the UFC is still weighted far too heavily in favour of the former. Perhaps, in Committee, some of these points can be discussed and possibly resolved.

1451
I would have suggested inserting the words "academic freedom" in an appropriate part of the Bill, as suggested by my noble friend Lord Blake. But having heard the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, I prefer to wait to hear the arguments in Committee. The words "academic freedom" are emotive and inspiring; it would be a pity if no place could be found for them.
I should like to suggest that the Government take account of the views of the University Museums Group of which the chairman, Christopher J. White, is director of the Ashmolean Museum. I am very interested in art galleries and museums. He refers to Clause 115, which makes new arrangements for funding higher education. Subsection (4) provides that:
"The Council"—
that is, the UFC—
"shall be responsible … for administering funds made available to the Council by the Secretary of State for the purpose of providing financial support for activities eligible … under this section".
Subsection (5) further provides:
"Those activities are—

(a) the provision of education and the undertaking of research by universities; and

(b) the provision of facilities and the carrying on of other activities by universities in connection with education and research".

The group suggests that the clause should be amended to include authorisation for the Universities Funding Council to make adequate funds available for museum and art gallery collections—of course, there is no mention of museums in the clause—and that a responsibility be placed on the governing bodies of universities for the proper curation of their museums and art galleries. Surely the Government should approve of that.
In recent years many of the major museums in universities have suffered from lack of funds for various reasons. I have seen that especially at Cambridge in the Fitzwilliam Museum, which I know well. The University Grants Committee has currently so far identified 16 museums and galleries in 11 universities as qualifying for special factor funding in the calculation of the block grant to those universities. But the chairman says that the UGC does not indicate how much has been included in the block grant for the purpose. And it cannot oblige a university to spend any amount included for that purpose on its museum. There seems an opportunity to be grasped here of solving the ever-present problem of the inadequate funding of university museums and of ensuring that the money allotted is actually spent on those museums.
Finally, I should like to endorse what noble Lords from all sides of the House have said about the common services that ILEA performs so well. The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, referred to the Horniman and the Geffrye museums. The Horniman Museum is truly national in standing and well-known internationally. It would be rather absurd if this museum, as a result of the abolition of ILEA on 1st April 1990, came under the sole control of the local borough. A better solution might be the creation of a board of trustees. But adequate resources would need to be found to replace those of ILEA and so
1452
avoid any deterioration in standards or services provided.
I agree very much with the words of the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, when he indicated that it might be useful to have a new central authority for these special purposes in order to look after these really important museums.
9.37 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, it might seem that, as the 83rd speaker in this debate, there would be nothing new to say. That is not so. We are talking about the nature of our culture and if noble Lords talked for another two weeks there would still be something new to say. Speaking as one who has served in every branch of the education service, from the infant school to the doctoral thesis, I believe that the Bill touches every aspect of every individual in this country and that it is the most important Bill ever introduced into this country during this century—and probably the most dangerous.
The narrowness of the Government's attitude towards education is seen right from the start when they list the core curriculum. There is much to be said for and against a core curriculum. I draw attention to only one aspect of it. In the Government's own 1985 White Paper on education the following was stated:
"To help pupils to develop personal moral values, respect for religious values and tolerance of other races, religions and ways of life.
"(5) To help pupils to understand the world in which we live and the interdependence of individuals, groups and nations.
"(6) To help pupils to appreciate human achievements and aspirations."
I suggest that that concept is as valuable and as crucial to the present and future generations of this country as any of the subjects which are included in the Bill as part of the core curriculum.
In the few minutes more that I intend to speak I want to concentrate upon what I have been specifically asked to do by a number of vice-chancellors and by the master of my own Cambridge college; that is, to deal with the issue of the universities. My noble friend Lord Morton, in opening the debate this afternoon, spoke of the change in the philosophy of education. I would go further. This Bill represents a change in the philosophy of the character of our country. That character has depended essentially on the freedom of expression, of thought, of writing and of dissent. My noble friend Lady Lockwood and the noble Lord, Lord Swann, said a great deal of what I would have said had I spoken earlier. They spoke about the threat to the universities. After all, it is the universities that set the tone for the moral and cultural character of any country.
I shall add only this. The master of my college wrote to me the following words:
"The Bill does not provide adequate protection for freedom of inquiry and expression in universities which is quite fundamental to their effective functioning".
It is not only fundamental to their effective functioning. It is fundamental to their leadership in the freedom of expression and speech on which our culture depends. The Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals of the Universities of the United Kingdom wrote in this vein:

1453
"We hope that amendments will be tabled at Committee stage to protect the duty of academic staff to question and to test received wisdom and to put forward new and controversial and unpopular opinions".
I make no apology for repeating what I believe the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester first said in this debate, and it has been repeated since. He quoted Sir Mark Richmond, the chairman of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, who said in a speech at a seminar on 19th January of this year:
"We are not seeking to protect privilege or to secure special status for the universities or their staffs. We are arguing vehemently for three fundamental freedoms which we believe to be of lasting value to this country. They are the freedom to research in subjects of as yet unrecognised importance, the freedom to question received wisdom and the freedom to be protected from direct and narrow political interference by the government of the day. That is what we mean by academic freedom, not a licence to brood comfortably in ivory towers".
I would ask the noble Baroness who is to reply to address herself to that quotation and to let the House know in what way this Bill is promoting or safeguarding those freedoms. To my mind in reading this Bill, the whole section on the universities could have been entirely omitted. I have not heard of any valid criticism of the way in which our university system is organised or run. It has a long and honourable tradition. This Bill attacks its independence. It attacks the independence of every member of that university system and, above all, it attacks the independence of thought which has been the pride of British universities and made them the envy of the world.
I was also glad to know that my noble friend Lord Callaghan added on to the conventional university world the world of adult education, which has depended very much upon the extramural classes run in conjunction with the WEA. That is genuine, true education. It is the education which must always above all start from the individual and individual initiatives. It is the right of every citizen of Britain of all ages.
The inquiry that goes on in adult education classes may be unpopular with some. It may even be unpopular with some noble Lords here, but we shall
1454
fight for the right of citizens to continue to discuss and to argue, whatever their age may be. It is an invaluable part of the university tradition of this country.
The Bill should be seen in the context of the policies which this Government have been putting into practice over the past nine years, and those practices are frightening. It is not simply a Bill on its own. It is part of a total attack on our traditional culture. It reminds one more closely of Hobbes's Leviathan: as social authoritarianism spreads from one sector of the community to another, as the local authorities are downgraded, as the trade unions are attacked and as now independence of thought through the education system from school to university is under threat. From what is it under threat? It is under threat from Big Brother. It is under threat from centralised control; from the control of those who would lay down what is to be taught, how it is to be taught and what is to be researched. It is being put in the market place: if you can find the money, you can do the research. Would we ever have had the distinction of discovering DNA by such methods, or had any other of our great national victories in the freedom of thought? It is only through freedom of thought, above all unpopular thought, that we get the results that are for the benefit of mankind.
Again I make no apologies for quoting, this time from the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Swann, yesterday (at col. 1249). I hope that the noble Baroness will answer this point:
"Even the most enthusiastic supporter of this Bill can scarcely deny that it involves throughout a very marked increase in the centralised control of the whole education system by the Secretary of State".
Is that not a threat to the traditional culture of this country? I hope that when we get to the Committee stage there will be Members of this House on all sides who will recognise that this Bill, in conjunction with the rest of the social legislation of the past nine years, is a threat to the cultural heritage of Britain which we have a duty to pass on to our children and grandchildren. I hope that when we get to that stage there will be a sufficient number of noble Lords on the other side of the House with the imagination to join with us in safeguarding what has been the most precious asset of this country.
9.49 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, before I commence my speech I should like to apologise to your Lordships' House that, owing to circumstances totally beyond my control, I was not able to be present to hear the very distinguished speeches this afternoon as I ought to have done since I am winding up from these Benches.
Noble Lords on the government Benches have said that there is a great deal of complacency on this side of the House. Let me assure them that we on these Benches are not in the least complacent about the present state of education in this country. We are well aware that what is needed is a very great deal of progress in education. Indeed in my view nothing less than a quantum leap in education is what is required, and at all levels.
I agree strongly with what the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, said. Progress is required particularly but of course not exclusively in relation to that large section of the public who have not benefited from our system of education in the past. It is common ground that we have turned far too many people out of our schools who have been ill-equipped to face the modern world be it in terms of earning their living or in leading a satisfactory, human and social life. I do not say that in criticism of the schools but it is a fact.
I remember hearing in a Lords' committee on unemployment evidence from the GLC about what was happening in its schools. We were told of the 40 per cent. who were leaving school at that time with very little indeed to show for their schooling. In a world and a future in which there will be very little opportunity for the unskilled and for people who are unable to learn and relearn, that kind of education is inadequate and we require reform in this area.
There are aspects of this Bill which we can all welcome. We can all agree with the importance of those three core subjects of English, maths and science. It must be wrong to turn people out into the modern world inadequately equipped in those subjects in particular. It is my guess that a great many schools do a great deal of work in this area. But the results so far have not been as satisfactory as they should be and the emphasis on those three subjects is of very great importance.
We also welcome local financial control and the greater involvement of parents and of professional teachers in the running of their schools provided—I am only echoing what other people have said—that they are given adequate administrative and financial support. Teachers are not necessarily the people best qualified or fitted by personality to run the office and control the expenditure. If anyone thinks that this will be a cheap option he had better think again because schools will need proper finance officers and proper clerical and secretarial assistants.
It has been a bad joke in both schools and universities that the most expensive filing clerks in the City of London have been found among the professors who have been losing their papers in their own files, when somebody could have done the job so much more efficiently at a tenth of the price. But all that follows from what will be needed if one is to
1456
make a reality of effective local financial control. But assuming (and I recognise that it is a big assumption) that the Government are prepared to put the money into this—I would welcome detailed comments from the Minister on this point—this provision can do nothing but good.
We welcome also the fact that there appears to be near agreement at least between the Government and the Bishops on the subject of religious education. I welcome that very much. But speaking as an Anglican I hope that it will not concentrate on what has been described as Christian education.
I think it has not been said—unless it was said during the time when I was not in the Chamber—that one of the reasons why it is extremely important to have religious education is that, if one looks across the globe today, one sees that there is no subject more explosive and more important than religion. There are the moral majority, the extreme Right in America and the fundamentalist Islamic religions. Surely no one could say that religion is always a force for good. However, equally no one can deny that it is a force.
I suppose that all of us were caught by failing to anticipate the rise of fundamentalist Islam and its importance politically, morally and economically in the world today. Religious education is therefore something which is much wider than is so often described when it is being discussed. It needs to be done in an extremely rigorous way. I hope that it will not be sidelined and marginalised as it has been only too often in the past.
On all those matters we welcome the programme which the Government have put before us. We welcome the purposes of that programme. What we have to doubt is whether, in the detailed plans laid down in the Bill, the purposes declared by the Government are going to be achieved. Perhaps we may look first at the national curriculum.
I have referred to the core subjects about which there can be no disagreement. Now we are told by the Government that they believe in flexibility. I should like the comments of the Minister on the fact that, with religious education, there are now 10 subjects—the core subjects, the foundation subjects and religious education. There are only so many hours in a week and so many weeks in a year. How much time is going to be available for any subjects other than those 10 if they are to be done in anything other than the most superficial way?
We have been told that the number of hours to be devoted to the core subjects will be reduced. There is nothing about that on the face of the Bill, as I understand it. Nor would I necessarily wish there to be. It seems to me, in the logic of the number of subjects there, that we cannot expect that anything much outside those subjects will be taught with any thoroughness.
Who thought up—or perhaps remembered would be a better word—those particular foundation subjects? If we substitute Latin for geography, they are precisely the subjects which I was taught 60 years ago. I suspect that they were thought up by somebody who was taught 60 years ago. If the object of the exercise is to prepare people for the future, it

1457
seems a bit odd to provide them with the diet with which I was provided all those years back.
Then again we are told about flexibility and that we wish to develop the individual child. I have never had any children. However, I have observed that individual children differ markedly. They develop at different rates and they have different interests and capacities. We should be the last people to say that all men are equal or the same. All children most certainly are not.
Why then should it be appropriate for all children to do the same subjects and to do them in the straitjacket of a particular timing? We say, "You may take one foreign language and you may only start it when you are 11, unless you get permission from the Secretary of State to start it earlier". Tommy wants to start German at nine years of age. His mother was German and he took the language in originally with his mother's milk. But he has to go to the Secretary of State to obtain permission to start the language at nine years of age. What on earth are we talking about?
Since we want variety and since youngsters are different and develop at different rates, surely there ought to be more choice in foundation subjects. What is wrong with the idea of saying "Yes, maths, science and English" and then grouping the other subjects? Not only the foundation subjects but all subjects could be grouped broadly into the humanities, the sciences and, as the noble Lord, Lord Joseph—who is probably the most intelligent Secretary of State for Education that we have had since Edward Boyle (with apologies to Shirley Williams)—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Baroness Seear: I do not retract what I said.
The noble Lord made the point—and it is a serious point—which I have tried to echo. We have failed the non-academic child educationally. Where are the expanding educational opportunities for the nonacademic child in the foundation subjects? Why cannot we have, as I say, a group of humanity subjects, a group of science subjects and then a group of these non-academic subjects, including life skills, and including that subject, to me so strangely called home economics, which apparently covers practically everything which is not included under the other subjects, and allow people to choose from those groups?
Some children are capable of learning three languages and should start them early. Whoever told the Government that one should not start a language until one is 11? I cannot imagine who it was. Some people should be doing three sciences and only struggle through with one foreign language. For a great many of them, it is as much as they can do to struggle through with their own language. Why cannot we have that variety and choice? Surely that is what the Government say they want. But we are stuck with the list, which as I say was the list on which I was brought up, for better or worse. So, let us look again at the foundation subjects.
There is one other point about the list of subjects and the syllabuses which are being drawn up so assiduously by all the committees that have been
1458
selected. I can assure your Lordships that if we had a different committee we would get a completely different syllabus. However, that is as may be. Any professional educators who are worth their salt are changing things all the time. They are developing their subjects and what they want to teach on their subjects. They are developing methods of doing that. If we set this extraordinary idea in concrete—the noble Baroness shakes her head, but it is on the face of the Bill that we do these things. Are the Government going to take it off? If we set the curriculum in concrete, schools will teach things that are always behind the times in a world which is changing extremely fast. We must allow room for that development and flexibility, that getting ahead which the good professional is always trying to do.
Your Lordships will know, I am sure, what some academics think about other academics who regurgitate their notes year after year. They exist. I admit that they exist. I did it myself sometimes, and so did Professor Peston. That is what we are asking teachers to do by having this fixed syllabus. It is all against the best pansophic methods and what good professional teachers want to do.
I cannot leave the vexed subject of the ILEA. The Government are extremely anxious to raise the education standards of the least successful. The noble Lord, Lord Joseph, was so right about that: it has been our biggest failure. Will the noble Baroness tell us that when the ILEA has gone, if the Government insist on getting rid of it, the schools in the poor boroughs—the boroughs which are up to their eyes in debt now; the Lambeths and the Southwarks—will have money from some source, if not from the ILEA, which will have disappeared, so that those standards will rise and not fall? If the money for those schools depends upon funding from those boroughs, as night follows day they will become even more sink schools than they are at present. What happens then to what the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, wanted to do? What happens then to the Government's assertion that they want to raise standards for everyone?
How about the specialised services which the ILEA has provided in the past? What will the Government do to provide that kind of guidance and advice, and, above all, what will happen to further education and adult education? Perhaps I may say something particularly about adult education and declare an interest. For some years, until very recently, I was chairman of Morley College. I know what adult education in London means. The people who come to adult education are looking for a second chance; indeed, some did not even have a first chance. They are the drop-outs from school.
Of course they are not only drop-outs. Some make a very distinguished contribution to the music and the arts which are taught in the colleges. At the same time, there are women who want to re-enter the labour market and to acquire skills and confidence in order to do so. There are many members of ethnic minorities who come to acquire skills and knowledge and in so doing become part of the community from which they would otherwise be alienated. If ever there was a sector of education which could contribute most to solving the economic and social problems that we face at the present time it is adult education.

1459
Will the noble Baroness say whether the statement in the press the other day that there was to be a cut of 40 per cent. in adult education is true? Will she deny it and will she say instead what is to happen to adult education if ILEA goes? At least will the Government think again about the date for getting rid of ILEA? April Fool's Day 1890 is very close—1990. So backward looking are the Government, it is no wonder that I got confused.
The schools have been trying to cope with GCSE and TVEI. The schools are now having to deal with the problems arising from all the proposals in the Bill. How on earth, in that short period of time, are they going to make the adjustments that will be necessary if the Government go ahead with the abolition of ILEA? At the very least the Government can give it a longer period of life to make those adjustments possible.
Then there are the universities. I have gone on far too long, but let me just say that I absolutely echo what the noble Lord, Lord Swann, said. He put it so well that it would not become me to try in any way to paraphrase what he said. The universities are one of the great countervailing powers in a pluralist society, a great centre of freedom against interference by government. I am not talking about tenure; I am not talking about individual university staff, although I could. I am talking about the position of the universities as a whole.
I know that the noble Baroness will say that that will not go, but nevertheless at point after point in the Bill there are curtailments of the freedom of the universities. University work is best done by awkward people who pursue absurd ideas. Out of those absurd ideas come the new and brilliant discoveries. Of course, out of some of them come nothing at all, but that is the price one pays. Leave them alone to get on with the job. Leave them alone.
All the way through, this is a centralising Bill. At point after point the Secretary of State will decide, the Secretary of State will arbitrate. Let me put this quite bluntly. "The Secretary of State" means the officials of the Department of Education and Science. What do they know? Who the hell are they? Whether it be in the universities or in the schools, the Government are submitting us to the control of people who have never taught, who have never researched, who have never published. They are to be our judges. Some of us have suffered under this. Some of us who had the research contracts about which we heard the other day have had to argue the case for them with people who have not understood the subject matter and do not follow the process.
One thing they are expert in is administration. That is why we get 18 pages to fill up, because that is the one thing they know about. I know it is not the convention to make criticisms of this sort, but the Government should ask their tellers why it is thought the Civil Service is a better judge of what ought to go on in the universities and the schools than the professionals who are doing it all the time.
That is the key. The people who really matter in education are the dons and the teachers. If the Government really could raise the level, the
1460
enthusiasm and the confidence of dons and teachers they could tear up their Bill.
10.11 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, my first pleasure is to congratulate the two maiden speakers. As a fellow academic, I was most sympathetic to what the noble Earl, Lord Russell, had to say. He reminded me of a matter that we must raise in due course, which is the financial time bomb ticking under our universities. Several of us are very close to disaster.
The noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, made an excellent, sensible speech. I was particularly taken with what he said about opting out. I think he said that he was the seventh Education Secretary to join your Lordships' House. As I was listening to him I was reflecting that there is another rather distinguished Education Secretary who has not yet reached here, but with any luck she will be here fairly soon.
Our strategy on this Bill is three-fold. We aim to amend it and improve it, but there are places where we would really like to see it changed outright, and we shall certainly ask the Government to think again. Reference has been made to the errors of omission, of which I suppose the most obvious is adult education, to which my noble friends Lords Callaghan, Basnett and Perry referred. That is a matter to which we shall certainly return. Also, my noble friend Lord Carter, the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), and others referred to the problems of children with special education needs. That too is a matter to which I shall return.
Education is a controversial matter upon which it is reasonable to hold differing views. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, used an excellent expression "the honest divergence of views". As my noble friend Lord Glenamara pointed out, in dealing with that what is required is persuasion, consultation and consensus. That is certainly what we seek. Political intervention of a doctrinaire and narrow kind is unwelcome to us. That is what the abolition of ILEA is about, as my noble friends Lord Stewart and Callaghan pointed out.
A matter which I must deal with immediately concerns the powers of the Secretary of State. We are absolutely convinced that these powers must be limited. He must be denied the right to act covertly or in an ad hoc way. Everything he does must be based on reasoned and explicit criteria and be subject to criticism. We shall be putting down amendments to deal with that. We are rather worried about how many powers he has. He has N powers, N being a number between 150 and 400; but whatever the number of his powers we shall put down exactly that number of amendments so to limit his use of them.
We are told that this Bill is about freedom of choice, but I must say I find this suggestion quite incomprehensible. If the Bill were about freedom of choice there would be no national curriculum; there would be no argument between the Prime Minister and the Education Secretary because both views of the curriculum could easily be available to whoever chose to have them. If there were freedom of choice there would be no imposed religious education; there would be whatever people chose. There would be no limitation on subject choice in universities. Indeed,

1461
for those interested in the doctrines of classical economics I might say that if there were no freedom of choice there would be no minimum school leaving age. This Bill is not about freedom of choice at all.
In my view it is also not pro-parent. I ask myself why rights which are to do in particular with educational performance are actually given to parents. What rights with respect to assessment are they in fact given? In that connection I was rather struck with a remark made by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, who referred to living with failure and recognising one's limitations. Some noble Lords must make up their minds on who is being judged and who has failed. If it is the pupil who has failed, why are the teachers blamed? If the teachers are at fault, why blame the pupil and call him or her a failure? The point I seek to make is that failure is too crude a notion to apply to education. Performance is multi-dimensional. Doing as well as one can is much more impressive than coming top of the class—and I speak as someone who always did.
I have already said that, desirable though it may be, I feel that the national curriculum is certainly incompatible with freedom of choice. What about flexibility? What of the suggestion that the national curriculum might impose too tight a straitjacket? The problem is that too much flexibility destroys the national curriculum. In the context of this Bill perhaps it ought to be destroyed. I should also add that there is the genuine problem of relating the national curriculum to diagnostic testing. Surely it is right—and this point was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear—that given the diversity of people, which is shown up much more clearly by diagnostic testing, the curriculum would have to be so flexible in order to deal with individual cases that it would no longer be at all sensible to call it a national curriculum. Let me add that I again agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. In my view the national curriculum as outlined in this Bill inhibits experimentation.
May I say a few words about opting out, and perhaps I can best make my point by asking some questions. I still ask the question, why? I have heard no argument from noble Lords as to that. In particular I should like to know what opting out offers over and above local financial management. What is it that the opting out schools can do that other schools cannot do? I should be very interested to know the answer to that question.
The point has been made about opting in and I do not need to labour it. It seems to me perfectly obvious and logical that if schools can opt out, in due course they ought to be able to opt back in. I reiterate that opting out makes planning impossible, especially for post-16 education, and makes life extremely difficult for those who have special educational needs and are disadvantaged in some way. I ask the noble Baroness, who is responsible for education in the opted out schools? Who takes the responsibility? What redress will parents in those schools have? Perhaps I may be forgiven for finding the Bill extremely opaque; the answers may be there and I cannot find them. But I ask the noble Baroness, what will be the role of the inspectorate with respect to the opting out schools?
1462
People ask why we should be afraid of those schools. The answer is that we regard them as the basis for covert selection. My noble friend Lady Blackstone made the point most succinctly and correctly. Of course the opting out schools will be those which select the parents. It will not be the case that the parents select the schools.
I should like to return to the question of the alleged deficiencies in our schools. Of course there are some deficiencies but in my judgment they are swamped by the achievements of our schools. While certainly we must rectify the deficiencies, let me add that they are of long-standing. I do not remember which noble Lord suggested that they were connected with comprehensive education. That is preposterous. The whole history of education suggests that these deficiencies go a long way back, to before comprehensive schools were thought of. Those deficiencies are in fact to do with the anti-education, anti-intellectual traditions of this country, of which we have heard too much in this debate.
The noble Baroness was right to emphasise in her remarks the needs of the individual and of society, but in our view the needs of the individual are particularly complex, indeed extremely so, and cannot be met by a restrictive philosophy based on a narrow conception of knowledge. In a democracy young people need an environment in which they can mature, learn to think logically and criticise, use and scrutinise evidence.
In that connection I have been sitting in this Chamber wondering who it is that wishes to brainwash our children. It is certainly not noble Lords on this side of the House. All the remarks about controlling attitudes and opinions have come from noble Lords opposite and their friends. I was especially amused to hear one noble Lord say that our businessmen are no longer content to pay themselves absurdly large salaries and to wield power. They now also want to be appreciated and even loved. I suggest that the noble Lord who takes this view should explain to the vast numbers of poor people who have had their benefits cut or to the millions who are experiencing unemployment because of the incompetence of businessmen and their friends in government why love and appreciation are the appropriate response.
Perhaps I may say a word on international comparisons. We on this side have argued continuously that our future as a nation depends upon investment in people, in science and technology and, of course, in physical capital development. Our country is backward in all these dimensions.
On the first, of course we must improve our education performance. But we should hesitate a little before emulating, say, the Germans and the Japanese. I am not sure that noble Lords would wish to live in the corporate society of Japan, although it has the merit of offering full employment. Do we really want our children to experience the stresses of its educational system? Do we want the unhappiness and anxieties of the Germans? I, for one, should like to see Ministers speak up for our country for a change.
Of course, we must improve. The noble Lord, Lord Joseph, is probably correct in saying that our

1463
expectations are too low, at least for the below average child. This seems slightly incompatible with the suggestion that our children have to learn to live with failure—but never mind! I fail to see what the Bill has to offer for the bottom quintile. I am certainly fearful, as are other noble Lords, of the damage that may be done to all the things at which we are good.
I wish to make a few comments on tests and testing. I have been rather bewildered by some speeches. Those of us on this side of the House have argued consistently that diagnostic tests are a good thing. It is an important question to ask: how well am I doing? It is an important question to ask: how much progress am I making? If there are to be such diagnostic tests, in our view that must lead to action. There is no point in doing a test, then saying, "You are a failure", and that is it. The essence of testing is to do something about it. As several noble Lords have pointed out, that can be very expensive. If the tests are intended to throw light on a school as a whole, that, too, will require a great deal of care. Every school will be a mini-experiment. I suppose that those of us in the social sciences are looking forward to the employment creation of examining with the appropriate statistical methods pretty well every school in the country.
The noble Lord, Lord Blake, said that not enough thought has been given to the ILEA. I agree. I was rather taken aback to discover from the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Fawsley, that there is any thought in the Bill at all. I was amazed to discover that 15 years of intellectual exercise lie behind the Bill. I do not believe that that is reflected in any way in the document before us. The noble Lord, Lord Blake, is correct. Not enough, if any, thought has been given to the abolition of the ILEA. Certainly, I have not thought about it sufficiently. One advantage of the Government's policy has been to make us think: we are indebted to them for that.
Instead of a concentration on ILEA's failings, what we have seen as a result of debate are the great achievements of the ILEA. We have seen why an education authority for London is needed. One thing has not emerged. I look forward, in the reply of the noble Baroness this evening and in Committee, to a demonstration of any kind of how devolution to the boroughs can be of any use whatever. Something must be done about ILEA; but precisely not what the Government propose.
On resources, I should welcome some guidance from the Minister. The noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, said that the trouble with ILEA is that it is too expensive. That means that the boroughs will be able to spend a good deal less. Other noble Lords have told us that all existing resources will be available to the boroughs. Which is it to be?
The Government must think again on ILEA. Will they not withdraw their proposals and agree to an independent view? The educational advantages are obvious. Following the parents' ballot, it seems to me that the political advantages, too, are overwhelming. As I have said on other occasions, I take a dim view of your Lordships ever casting doubt on expressions of public opinion in ballots.
And so to higher education. Here I must first echo the remarkable speech of the noble Lord, Lord
1464
Jenkins of Hillhead. By "remarkable" I mean that I agreed with it! In echoing it, I have to ask the question, why? Have the universities let us down? Have the polytechnics let us down? In the latter case surely not: the emergence of the polytechnics has been an educational triumph. It shows that in this country we can raise standards; we can improve our institutions beyond all recognition. I use the word "we" advisedly. The "we" refers to the education authorities. It refers to the CNAA and those of us who have been members of it and it refers to the academic staff themselves.
The Bill is right to give the polytechnics their independence, but let me add that that is no criticism of the LEAs, because the ability of the polytechnics to operate on their own now is a tribute to the LEAs. I do not suppose the noble Baroness will go as far as I will, but I for one would go further and now make the polytechnics independent of the CNAA as well so that that body can concentrate on other institutions. The polytechnics deserve a better share of resources to improve facilities, to improve libraries and to repair and rationalise their premises. But I hope that the noble Baroness does not assume that I am also saying that that money should be taken from the universities. I am not that keen on equality.
I believe that the universities are a great national success as well. Of course they need to rationalise and they need to be more flexible. I was one of the first many years ago to argue to the vice-chancellors that we must take ministerial criticism seriously, but unfortunately we were slow to respond. However, that response has happened, and it has come from the vice-chancellors and the academic community in general.
What we are talking about is teaching, scholarship and research, especially the freedom to pursue ideas without limit. As the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said, it is a wasteful process. Most of the lines of research that we pursue end up nowhere, but that is the nature of the activity. It is expensive but it is justified by the successes, few though they are for some of us and for most of us hardly at all. The academic in the pursuit of truth and, dare I say, goodness, is a nuisance. He or she is difficult and hard to control, quirky and disrespectful. The critical approach that Sir Karl Popper has emphasised is threatening to the status quo, and the Government are part of the status quo and may not like it. But it would be a tragedy if the Government were then to go on to limit the critical approach.
The universities must be accountable to the taxpayer. The Secretary of State has an interest and in the end will get his way, but his powers must be limited. I make the same point about the Universities Funding Council. It must be more independent of the Secretary of State than it appears to be. We shall put down amendments on that. The universities must be more independent of the UFC and we shall put down amendments on that. What is required is something much nearer to an equal partnership.
In connection with all this the constraints and controls already exist and they are so powerful that we must find a way of writing academic freedom into the Bill. My worry about the changes that are occurring is that they will provide precisely the wrong

1465
incentives to academics. In particular it seems to me that it would be much more sensible as an academic in order to retain one's job to provide a regular series of rather mediocre efforts than one great piece of work. On this basis it would especially be a mistake to do a great piece of work while one is young. I remind noble Lords of the old Einstein joke. At Princeton we used to ask the question, "Would you give Einstein tenure?" The answer was, "Well, not really. He has done nothing much since general relativity. He has no conception of administration and he does precious little teaching".
Academic scholarship and freedom are inextricably connected with tenure. The Bill abolishes tenure. It does not limit it to some, as the noble Lord, Lord Annan, mistakenly said yesterday. The effect of that is to increase the risks of an academic career—
Lord Annan: My Lords, if the noble Lord will give way, I should like to say that I agree that the Bill abolishes tenure. I said that it did not inhibit a university giving tenure to anyone it wished.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I beg to differ with the noble Lord. It does inhibit the university giving tenure to anyone it chooses. Our amendment would do precisely what the noble Lord, Lord Annan, wishes, which is to provide that the university should be free to offer tenure to anyone it wishes. This Bill and the commissioners prevent that happening. However, we shall deal with the matter in Committee.
The abolition of tenure will increase the risks of an academic career. Either salaries must be raised to compensate for that or inferior people will become academics. Recruiting people from the United States and Australia will become more difficult, if not impossible, as will retaining our best young people in this country. We are already losing academics to the American new brain gain and I for one do not wish that to happen endlessly and uncontrollably, placing the future of our academic life in danger.
Again referring to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Annan, I believe that there is no need to abolish tenure. There would be a range of contracts in which tenure would be the limit case. Tenure could be made harder to obtain but it should not simply be abolished.
Time is pressing. A number of other matters need to be raised but I believe that it would be better if I delayed most until the Committee stage. I also am most anxious to hear the noble Baroness, apart from being anxious to be released from this place for a while. However, I must make one or two further remarks. When discussing academic freedom, the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, raised the question more generally. I agree that freedom is indivisible. There is only one thing called "freedom"; it is freedom. My belief in it is total and I certainly agree that in the university freedom applies to all. It certainly applies to visitors such as the noble Lord. I also have practical reasons for saying that. How else are we to expose his mistakes if he is not free to express them?
I should like to make a comment about bias and I hope that I shall be forgiven a personal note. I was taught economics by the best free-market economists of their time. They did me nothing but good, but they
1466
did not make me a free-marketeer—certainly not the kind of naive free-marketeers who appear to occupy the Benches opposite. I teach what is called "mainstream macro-economics". I doubt whether I have ever converted anyone to my way of thinking but I have educated a large number of first-class economists. That is the academic tradition of this country. It is to acquaint young people with the highest standards of intellectual endeavour. We do that rather well, so why place it all at risk?
In conclusion, it is with great regret that I say that this will be our only chance to legislate on education for some time. We must get it right. Unfortunately I must remind noble Lords opposite that we are not the government, although several speak as though they think we are or ought to be. The Opposition will devote itself to improving the Bill in Committee and we shall do so in the right spirit. We can hope only that the Government will respond in the same spirit. We have a duty to the young people of our country and we must not fail them.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Education and Science (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, the London Marathon was run last Sunday with a greater number of participants than ever before. This Second Reading debate has constituted another kind of marathon and I am glad that so many of us have stayed the course. Of the many notable contributions and participants in our debate, among whom figure two former Prime Ministers and five former Secretaries of State for Education, not to mention the vice-chancellors, I must mention my noble friend Lord Carlisle and the noble Earl, Lord Russell. They have given the House a foretaste of the valuable contributions that they will be making to our proceedings in the future. I add my congratulations to those already expressed.
At the outset I said that I expected the debate to be instructive. It has proved to be so, since so many of your Lordships speak from considerable and varied experience in the field of education. But I cannot hope to respond either to each point raised or to each speaker, and I trust that I have your Lordships' understanding on this.
Before dealing with those provisions of the Bill which are clearly of most concern and interest, I should like to dwell briefly on an issue which has been raised by many speakers. That is the question of whether the Bill is or is not a centralising measure and its implications for the role of local education authorities. It was the noble Baroness, Lady David, who first quoted the figure of 366 new powers for the Secretary of State. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor pointed out earlier that this astronomical figure is produced only by the most absurd literal-mindedness and that if one is talking about substantive powers the number is very much smaller.
In any case, many of those powers, such as those in relation to financial delegation or grant-maintained schools, are designed to enable the Secretary of State to devolve responsibility to schools and colleges. The balance is no more than is required for proper exercise of functions by government. It would plainly be futile, for example, to devise a national curriculum and then have no means of ensuring that it was

1467
implemented. I was glad to have the approbation of the noble Lord, Lord Annan, my noble friend Lord Blake and others on the need for powers on this measure.
Another aspect of this concern has been expressed by those who fear that the Bill's provisions may undermine the role of the local education authority. In my opening speech I endeavoured to illustrate a new strategic role for LEAs. Of course it is true that financial delegation, for example, will mean that there are fewer detailed decisions to be taken by the LEA centrally. However, I repeat that many authorities are moving in this direction in any case. They recognise that many kinds of decisions are best taken at the level of the individual school or college, and that the LEA's role is properly to control the overall availability of resources and to provide the necessary support and guidance to ensure that schools and colleges are able to function as efficiently as possible.
Many noble Lords on all sides of the House have expressed their agreement with the principle and aims of a national curriculum but perhaps none more succinctly than my noble friend Lady Young. We shall have an opportunity to consider the concerns expressed about the detailed implementation of the national curriculum during Committee stage. For the moment perhaps I may concentrate on two points in particular. The noble Baroness, Lady David, the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie of Dundee, and many others questioned whether the national curriculum allowed sufficient scope for flexibility. Even my noble friend Lord Joseph hoisted a question mark on this.
The fact is that our proposals have built upon the wide agreement given to the aims of my noble friend's White Paper Better Schools; namely, that we need a broad, balanced and relevant curriculum for all pupils up to the age of 16. Any option such as alternative subjects within the core would put at risk the delivery of such a broad and balanced curriculum. What we have done is to set out the objectives for knowledge, skills and understanding. These are defined in terms of subjects. But we are not defining and never have defined a timetable, and Clause 4 of the Bill actually prevents the Secretary of State from doing so.
The delivery and organisation of the national curriculum in schools will be a professional matter for heads, other teachers and governing bodies to decide. There will be nothing to prevent primary schools from following their traditionally flexible approach, while secondary schools will continue to be able to develop innovative programmes like the TVEI, to which several noble Lords have referred. Indeed, the Bill recognises the need to ensure that the school curriculum is dynamic, alive and capable of reflecting new ideas, new approaches and new areas of knowledge. I remind your Lordships that the Bill has never sought to define the whole school curriculum.
The core and foundation subjects are not the whole of the curriculum. There will be real and effective scope for flexibility beyond the requirements of the national curriculum. Beyond that, within the national curriculum core and foundation subjects, we intend that there should be wide scope for initiative.
1468
The Government believe that the flair and professionalism of teachers will help, that they will play an essential part and that the Bill will secure that. In any event, the content of the national curriculum will be subject to review; it is not set in concrete. I say further to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, that the national curriculum provides a minimum. Anyone who wishes to start early, or do more, may certainly do so.
I can quite understand the concern expressed in relation to individual subjects or areas of the curriculum; for example, the importance of environmental studies or business studies. But two subjects in particular were mentioned by several of your Lordships—classics and home economics—and perhaps by saying a little in more detail about those I can illustrate the way in which other subjects and themes can be approached.
The noble Lord, Lord McNair, in a delightful speech at a late hour gave a powerful plea for the classics. He and my noble friend Lord St. John of Fawsley are, if I may say so, eloquent examples of the value of a classical education. However, I want to emphasise that the national curriculum does not threaten the place of Latin or Greek. There is sufficient flexibility in our proposals to allow schools who wish to do so to continue to offer classics to some or all of their pupils. In particular, the more able pupils are likely to have around 30 per cent. of their time available for non-foundation subjects such as Latin or extra science. Noble Lords may be interested to know that the Joint Association of Classical Teachers—whose stake in this issue can hardly be denied—is not pressing for classics to be a foundation subject, though it is of course keen that classics should be available as an option in non-foundation time. That must be the right approach.
The Government also recognise the range of valuable opportunities offered by home economics in schools. Although it is not a separate foundation subject, certain aspects of home economics such as food science and technology, textiles and technology in the home do provide an opportunity for technological and scientific knowledge and skills to be practised in a context which appeals to many children. We have already asked the science working group to consider links between home economics and science. We shall also be asking the technology working group to consider how technological work might be developed in other subjects, including home economics.
In this context, several noble Lords referred to the proposals for assessment and testing. The report of the Task Group on Assessment and Testing and its excellent summary answers many of the concerns expressed. That report was published three months ago, has been widely distributed and has been given a very wide welcome in the education service and beyond. We certainly do not expect teachers merely to confine themselves to what is testable; for assessment arrangements to lead to a narrowing of focus would undermine our whole policy for the curriculum and I can assure your Lordships that the attainment targets, programmes of study and assessment arrangements, taken together, will be carefully constructed to ensure that that does not happen.

1469
On religious education, I very much welcome the statement of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London in the House yesterday in which he recognised that the arrangements we have agreed with the Churches are "an acceptable and significant step forward". A number of noble Lords referred to the content of RE, and in particular to the special place of Christianity. The Government note those views and will await with interest the amendments which have been foreshadowed.
I believe all of us in this House share the concern so well expressed by my noble friend Lord Home of the Hirsel that the curriculum should pay proper attention to the moral development of the individual. As the working groups on various subjects are set up, they are being asked to consider the need to develop personal qualities and competences in pupils, including self-reliance and self-discipline, a spirit of enterprise, a sense of social responsibility and the ability to work harmoniously with others.
Noble Lords on all sides of the House have voiced their concerns about the impact of the Bill on children with special educational needs. I am glad that it is recognised that a number of significant improvements in respect of these children have been made to the Bill in another place. At the same time, the Bill must ensure that the demands of the national curriculum on this group of children are realistic. I wish to emphasise that since it was this Government who placed the Education Act of 1981 on the statute book. I can confirm that we stand by the principles in that Act and in particular the principle of integration. However, these children must be given attainable targets, so we must ensure that the Bill allows for flexibility.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State noted the concerns which were being expressed by representative groups. We think it important that disapplication should apply to as small a number of children as possible. He has therefore explained that it will be possible for children to show their factual knowledge and understanding of the principles which lie behind the requirements of the national curriculum in different ways. The subject working groups, the TGAT and the National Curriculum Council will be looking for ways to resolve problems of this kind.
We have also made allowances to modify or suspend the requirements of the national curriculum for children with a whole range of short-term problems whose performance might be temporarily affected by medical, family or perhaps psychological problems. It is right too to recognise the needs of children whose needs are being assessed under the 1981 Act, and that provision is now in the Bill.
Some have queried the use in the Bill of the word "categories". The word is used to denote any group or description of pupils for whom provision may be made under Clause 4(4) to modify, or under Clause 10 to disapply, all or part of the requirements of the national curriculum. The category will be specific to the problem being addressed in the regulations which will be made under these clauses.
To take some examples, children whose safety might be jeopardised by taking part in a range of scientific experiments for medical reasons—asthma,
1470
allergy, motor disorders—might need to have the requirement to take part lifted or modified. Children with severe problems in English, whether as a second language or for reasons of special educational needs as described under the Education Act 1981, might, for example, have the requirement to study a second language at secondary level lifted from them. Very able children might reach age-related targets early and need the flexibility that this provision affords to drop a subject before the age of 16, so as to take up another perhaps related subject. The national curriculum requirements must be capable of allowing for all these circumstances.
Turning to the question of more open enrolment, I should like to clear up a number of misunderstandings which still seem to remain on our proposals in this area. Schools will not become overcrowded. They will simply have to admit up to the number that they can accommodate, if the demand is there. Some noble Lords have tried to put it both ways by arguing that, on the one hand, virtually all parents now secure the school of their first choice in any case, and, on the other, that the consequences of our proposals will be disastrous for all less popular schools. Of course we cannot guarantee 100 per cent. satisfaction. But our aim is to remove any artificial barriers to parental choice.
As my noble friend Lady Blatch pointed out, at present many parents accept the status quo simply because they see no alternative. If, under these provisions, unpopular schools begin to lose pupils, the governors and the local education authorities should ask themselves what reforms are required. Or it may indeed be that the authority has too much provision, and that open enrolment will help them to decide where to rationalise.
I think that none of your Lordships has queried the advantages of financial delegation. However, one or two raised the question of the appointment of bursars. The noble Lord, Lord Charteris, raised a similar point in relation to grant-maintained schools. The Coopers and Lybrand report, published four months ago, refers to this question, as to many others relating to financial delegation. Briefly, those authorities which already have a system of appointing bursars or similar staff to large schools are likely to build on this. But not every local education authority will feel that it is necessary, given that the authority will still be able to provide essential services and support. Plainly, however, an enhanced secretarial capacity will be required.
Other noble Lords—the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, and the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, for example—pointed to the need for the training of governors and heads. The Government accept that such training will be crucial, and we have recognised it in the proposals for education support grants which my right honourable friend is putting to the local authority associations today.
I turn now to grant-maintained schools. These will do something for all children which the present system has failed to do in the 40 years or so of its existence. By the very fact that they break the local authority monopoly of free education, grant-maintained schools will force LEAs to become more responsive to consumer choice and be more willing to

1471
listen to the views of parents and governors. If LEAs respond to that challenge, there is no reason at all why they should be left with a rump of less popular schools. It is not as though grant-maintained schools will be offered an unfair advantage in the competition. They will receive from the Secretary of State a grant corresponding to the level of funding they would have received had they remained under LEA control.
Moreover, the Secretary of State will take account of the views of the maintaining LEA as well as of other interested parties when deciding an application for grant-maintained status, and will give full consideration to the implications for other education provision in the area. Of course LEAs will be operating in a more uncertain climate once schools have the chance to opt out. The spur that that will give them has been mentioned by a number of your Lordships. But if they are really doing their best to provide the kind of service parents want, they should have little to worry about.
On the question of opting back in, it must be made clear to governors from the outset that they will not be able to change their minds if the commitment to run a grant-maintained school proves to be heavier than they had expected and simply hand back responsibility to the local education authority. If exceptionally, and after a period of some years, the Secretary of State approved a proposal from the governors to cease to maintain a school, the local education authority would retain its responsibility to secure enough places for the pupils in its area and could then consider whether to establish a school in the premises.
Perhaps at this point it may be convenient to refer to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, and also by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, in relation to resources for local authorities to implement the reforms set out in the Bill. I am pleased to be able to say that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is writing to local authorities proposing a £125·5 million programme of education support grants for 1989–90. Seventy-seven million pounds of new expenditure would be available and more than £65 million of this would support activities relating to financial delegation and the introduction of the national curriculum.
A proposed £35 million of new expenditure to assist the implementation of financial delegation would include more than £5 million for training governors in schools and colleges as well as provision for management information systems, and for the establishment of central implementation teams to plan and oversee the introduction of financial delegation. This should meet some of the concerns that have been expressed.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, and many other noble Lords mentioned adult education and seemed to think that the Bill does not give sufficient attention to this area. Let me say at once that as this aspect of education falls within my own departmental responsibilities I am fully aware of the value and importance of education for adults in all its forms, from literacy teaching to part-time degree courses. The definition of further education in Clause 104
1472
relates to adults as well as to younger students and recognises the diversity of the education needs and demands by referring to both academic and vocational education, including continuing education, and also social, physical and recreational education.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, and others asked why it was necessary to legislate on the arrangements for university funding. The same question seems to have underlain a number of other contributions to the debate. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor dealt with these matters in his speech, but I should emphasise the main points. Before doing so, however, I must caution the House, not least the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, himself, who took a very exclusive view of higher education, not to take too narrow a view of this field. It is not the exclusive preserve of universities. Polytechnics and colleges have an important part to play. Indeed, they have borne the brunt of taking the total number of student in higher education to today's record levels.
The present arrangements for funding universities hardly bear examination. Grants are paid to the universities by the Secretary of State under the non-specific statutory authority of the annual appropriation Acts. In making such payments he is advised by the non-statutory University Grants Committee. By convention he always accepts such advice but he is obviously free to act otherwise if he thinks fit.
It is hardly surprising therefore that the committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Croham, found that an unsatisfactory basis for the annual distribution of about £1·5 billion to the universities. The central recommendation of that committee's report was that to set proper lines of responsibility and accountability a clear statutory basis for university funding should be put in place. This we are attempting to do in the proposals.
My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor spoke earlier about other aspects of higher education and academic freedom in particular. In view of the pressure of time, with your Lordships' permission I shall leave further detailed discussion of this to Committee and will pass instead to the Inner London Education Authority.
Many noble Lords have spoken with emotion on this subject. I would remind the House that there is no dispute, even among ILEA's friends, that its secondary schools have achieved poor results. Yet it is to the secondary schools above all that parents and employers look as the heart of the education system. If we are failing our young people at that point, we are failing them severely indeed, and the best quality education in other phases cannot make up for that deficiency. Moreover that performance is being achieved at costs which simply cannot be explained by a special case for London. To take just one example, the outer London boroughs are spending £1,700 per secondary pupil. Liverpool, Newcastle and Manchester are spending between £1,750 and 1,950 per pupil. ILEA is spending £2,600 per pupil. No other authority has unit costs which remotely approach those of ILEA.
We believe that the individual boroughs are just as likely to respond to the pressing needs in their locality

1473
as a remote authority in County Hall. But there is naturally concern over any change of this magnitude, and the arrangements being put in place for the transfer of responsibility are designed to ensure that it takes place with the minimum of disruption.
It may be helpful if I briefly remind your Lordships of those arrangements. The inner London boroughs have a full two years to prepare themselves for their new responsibilities. That is as long as was allowed for the establishment from scratch of many outer London boroughs as LEAs in 1965. The boroughs will have to produce development plans by the end of February next year setting out the way in which they propose to take on their new responsibilities. We shall be publishing shortly a draft of the guidance which is designed to help them draw up their development plans. The department has set up a special inner London unit which will actively seek to discuss with the boroughs, individually and collectively, the steps they need to take in the light of the draft guidance and help them to resolve particular problems.
Some of your Lordships have argued that the inner London boroughs will be too small to function effectively. But I thought that my noble friend Lady Faithful and others argued convincingly that that was not so. Setting aside the special cases of the Isles of Scilly and the City of London, while it is true that some of the inner London boroughs will be small by the standards of county councils, they are not particularly small by the standards of the outer London boroughs. Richmond, Kingston and outside London the Isle of Wight are each smaller than all but a couple of the inner London boroughs. Yet no one would suggest that they struggle to make their way as LEAs providing a full range of services.
I think I am running out of time, so I shall not dwell on the details of the consultation process, except to refer to the statement made by the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, whose position in education history is, after all, secure. But I should like to take issue with him on one point, which is that he contrasted this Bill with the 1944 Education Act in terms of the degree of consultation which preceded its introduction. But my noble friend Lord Eccles has told us from his personal experience that even the 1944 Act was not fully implemented, or at least not implemented fully in line with all the hopes and aspirations of the architects of that Act.
But the fact is that many aspects of the Bill have been under discussion for a long period of time and the results of those debates which emerged in our party manifesto were followed by the consultation process that I referred to earlier. The point is that we cannot rush the detailed implementation of our proposals. We seek to develop them in full consultation with professionals in each field and as we do so the exciting and innovative nature of our proposals becomes increasingly clear. I believe for that reason that our proposals will continue to win greater acceptance as they take fuller shape.
I have noticed the specialist views expressed on Northern Ireland and on Scotland as well as on Wales, and I hope that we can deal satisfactorily with the points that have been raised in the next stages of the Bill.
1474
We have had an immensely valuable and stimulating debate. I have listened carefully to the points made by noble Lords on all sides of the House, and the Government will continue to do so as we move on to a more detailed scrutiny of the individual clauses of the Bill.
This debate has shown beyond doubt that we are all agreed on the aim of improving standards in our schools, and providing the best possible service across all phases of education. But I have to say that, while that agreement is most welcome, I regret that we have had no positive contribution from the Opposition on ways in which the improvements which we seek might be achieved. It is the Government's firm conviction that, applied with goodwill and common sense, the reforms set out in this Bill will be immensely beneficial to our children, to all involved in the process of education, and to the nation as a whole. It is on that basis that I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

The Reserve Forces
11.1 p.m.
Viscount Ridley Viscount Ridley rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what is the present strength of the reserve forces, what plans they have for their future enhancement and whether they are satisfied that these forces are able to fulfil the role allotted to them in the defence of this country.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In so doing I hope to turn your Lordships from the turbulent seas of education to the calmer waters of defence policy, even though in the process I seem to be rapidly emptying the Chamber.
I do not ask this Question only to get an Answer, but for three brief and simple reasons. In defence debates in this House attention has concentrated in the main on the major strategic and nuclear issues which face the country and the contribution of our reserve forces has taken a back seat. I therefore hope to give your Lordships an opportunity which has not been available for some time even at this late hour to discuss these forces. I am grateful in advance to those who will speak in this debate tonight.
I should also like to congratulate Her Majesty's Government on all that they have done to strengthen our reserve forces over the past few years. I am not making a party political broadcast, as I believe that any Government would have had to do just as much in their place. I should like to praise publicly the many thousands of young men and women who give up their spare time to be volunteers in these forces.
My first point is this. Perhaps the very success of a nuclear defence policy is the enemy of voluntary part-time service. If, as is argued now, global war is impossible, why do we need reserves at all? And the INF Treaty, which might be perceived to reduce tension yet further, may further accentuate this trend of thought. However, reserve forces are still needed in ever increasing numbers in my belief if we are to fulfil our NATO commitment and if we are to remain the only European country in NATO without any form

1475
of conscription whatsoever. I am sure that we all reject any form of conscription in this country in peacetime.
The territorial army, by far the largest element of our reserves, will provide more than 40 per cent. of the army by 1990. As that is at a cost of less than 5 per cent. of the army budget, the advantages of having such reserves must be only too obvious. I suspect that they are especially obvious to the Treasury. The temptation to increase that percentage beyond 40 per cent. must become even more obvious in the future.
Few part-time soldiers, sailors or airmen can possibly be as efficient as a regular soldier, sailor or airman in all respects. Furthermore, we have to realise that no more than 70 per cent. of our reserves are classed as trained soldiers at any given moment. One reason for that high figure is that there is much too high a percentage of wastage. "Wastage" is a horrible word to use in referring to human beings but it means volunteers who leave after too short a time. The figure for those leaving in their first year has been about 30 per cent. for many years.
Although we may have a large and enthusiastic force of volunteers, too high a percentage is gone within three or four years. We should therefore have, in a period of rising tension such as happened in 1950 with Korea, in 1956 with Suez and indeed to some extent in 1982 with the Falklands War, a large number of partly trained ex-volunteers flocking back to join the colours who could not possibly be absorbed in the time available. I do not know whether or not that is a good way to fulfil our NATO commitment. I rather doubt it. Moreover, I fear that when my noble friend replies to the Question he will tell us that recruiting is not reaching its target at the moment.
We must discover why the turnover is so high. At the moment, no single reason can be discovered. In previous debates I have spoken about the loss of income which can be suffered by an unemployed man or woman who volunteers to join the reserve forces. I shall say no more about that matter tonight. However, it remains a considerable injustice. It is only one of many factors. Others may include either too much or too little military activity and pay, which is always at the front of a soldier's thoughts. I was delighted to see that the same problem exists in the United States. However, with their charming use of the English language, instead of referring to "wastage" the Americans call it "front-end turbulence".
Unfortunately, the sort of savings—I do not use the word "cuts"—which have been threatened in the past can have a disproportionate effect on wastage. People readily vote with their feet and there is no way of restraining them. As an example, there was a threat to remove No. 2 ceremonial dress for the territorial army. That was particularly felt in Scotland, where they thought that they would lose their kilts. Although that did not happen, the damage was done. Then there was the threat to ration the number of days which a man could spend on training. Those threats were not realised but they did damage to the relatively fragile confidence of the volunteer. He felt unloved. I do not deny that we must scrutinise all
1476
aspects of public expenditure most carefully all the time. However, in this field the savings will not be worth the potential cost.
I repeat that the Government have done a great deal. That is especially true of the Secretary of State, my noble friend Lord Trefgarne when he was Under-Secretary, and his successor, Mr. Roger Freeman. They have supported the reserve forces consistently and helpfully throughout. I am delighted to say so. Believing that as I do, it may seem churlish to go on to suggest improvements. However, this is an opportunity to put forward new ideas in what I hope is a constructive way.
Modern equipment is now very good indeed. It is a long time since I made my maiden speech on this matter, 20 years after the end of the Second World War. I looked that up last night and found that I had referred to the fact that soldiers were training with wireless sets which had the Russian language on their controls. Those days are over. Many new training centres have been built and old ones modernised. However, some units are not well housed. Although pay is equal to that of the regular forces, the annual bounty, which is a considerable incentive, could be more varied to act as an incentive to stay longer in the service and must keep up with inflation at all costs.
Recently the Government set up a national employers' liaison committee under the chairmanship of Mr. Thomas Macpherson, who was the brother of our dearly loved comrade, the late Lord Drumalbyn. The Secretary of State's acceptance of the cost incurred in carrying out the committee's recommendations is much to be welcomed. I am delighted to say how pleased everyone connected with the reserve forces was when this news was announced recently. The thrust of the report means that a considerable effort has to be made to enhance the status of the reserve forces in public life and to persuade employers that releasing men for such a purpose is very much in their own interests.
This campaign will be an expensive and continuous one over several years. It will make a most valuable contribution towards tackling the problems. What is needed is a commitment from the Government at the highest possible level in support of the reserve forces and a major effort to persuade people that those who join are supported and encouraged to continue their training and are in no way penalised through loss of job opportunities or promotion when they are absent.
I was struck on a visit to America, where I went with Mr. Macpherson, by how much importance industry and indeed the President of the United States himself attach to voluntary service in the reserves and the National Guard, and how much propaganda is directed towards that end with considerable success. It is a country where the banging of the patriotic drum is much easier than here. But I hope that government Ministers whose own commitment is not in doubt will persuade the Prime Minister to lend her weight publicly to this campaign. It may take her mind off her considerable worries in another place.
I suggest that we consider making much more use of the reserve naval, Royal Marine and air force

1477
components. The target strength for 1990 is 7,800 for the Royal Naval Reserve, 1,580 for the Royal Marines and 2,201 for the Royal Auxiliary Air Force. I cannot tell your Lordships what the "one" is to do in the air force. I hope that he will be flying an aeroplane. At the moment, the RAAF has no aeroplanes. Perhaps he will learn to fly the first one that it has. These numbers are not great, spread over the country. They would not be a major component in any mobilisation.
There must be many people who spend a great deal of time in boats or small aeroplanes who could, in some form or another, be enrolled in volunteer units for hostilities. All evidence suggests that in any period of tension reconnaissance is vital. I doubt whether our home defence reserve forces, with the exception of the three regiments equipped with Land Rovers, have any mobile reconnaissance capabilities at all. To involve those people would be cost effective. I very much hope we can consider that point in the future.
We should make much more use of our reserve forces in national emergencies. I am obviously not talking about strike breaking. But they could help with events such as last year's hurricane. That would go some way towards giving the territorial army a greater status in the country as a whole and provide useful emergency manpower. Of course it costs more if pay is involved, and I believe it would require legislation. But it would be a cost-effective way to save lives and property. It would also give our volunteers yet more worthwhile tasks to perform within the community. They are equipped for such work.
If one appeals to industrialists on this matter, it is, as I have said, an appeal to their patriotism. To the small business, that may not be enough. If one employs three people, one of whom goes to camp, one is short of one-third of the workforce. More and more, small businesses are the thing of the future. I believe that some reward or recognition for the owner of a small business which helped in that way would be worth considering. Again, it might be cost effective. I have not time to go into whether it could be a taxation concession or a prestigious award.
All these things cost money; there is no denying that. On the other hand, to get down the wastage to which I have already referred at some length by even 1 per cent. would mean a great saving on training costs and make the whole force much more efficient. The NELC report to which I have referred suggested that even a 1 per cent. reduction in wastage from the territorial army alone, on a strength of 80,000, would create an annual saving of £4 million, I know that that figure is disputed. It may not be accurate. I do not believe, however, that it is that far out. We should find out what it is. Time is not on our side because what The Times referred to recently as the "demographic time bomb"—the number of young people of the relevant age group will drop rapidly after 1990—is nearly on us.
Finally, I pay tribute to those who have volunteered their services to the reserves over the years. I have been involved with the TA one way or another myself for over 40 years and have the honour at present to be president of the Council of TA Associations. I have always found that those who
1478
serve in the reserve forces have an added dimension to their lives which has made them, in the words of my noble friend Lord Chelwood, in a pamphlet written some time ago, "twice a citizen". That is a very apt phrase which I think is still true today. I can think of no praise which is too high for those who are ready to serve their country in this way and who devote their time to their training with such enthusiasm. I hope that we can let them know how grateful we are.
To conclude, Hilaire Belloc wrote with his usual double-edged pen:
"Let us give thanks for the glorious volunteer
Who fills the armies of the world with fear".
11.15 p.m.
Viscount Allenby of Megiddo: My Lords, I believe that we are all most grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, for raising this most important Question about our reserves and for so ably explaining his three reasons for doing so. I believe that it comes at a most appropriate time. The regular forces are facing critical problems over manning and financial cutbacks for new equipment which may require radical change in the future unless more finance is made available by the Government.
I have to declare an involvement as I have a responsibility for recruiting for the army and I am a member of a number of TAVR reserve associations.
The territorial army now represents about a third of the army's order of battle on mobilisation. That figure is set to rise to two-fifths or 40 per cent. in 1990, as we have heard. For that to happen, 86,000 army reservists are required. While the inflow has been most encouraging the strength of the reserve army is 10,000 below the target set for the year 1990. Indeed, the recruited strength is lower than it was two years ago. Because of the much talked about demographic trend and the very much improved employment situation throughout the country, the regular army also over the past six months has faced a downward trend in recruiting against the manpower target. Based on the rate of applications to join the army, that downward trend will continue for some time and, I suggest, could mean a battalion fewer of infantry and a squadron fewer of Chieftain battle tanks because of the lack of manpower; all this for a regular army which is already overcommitted for the numbers of men it may recruit.
Over half of our reserves are recruited from the age group of 18 to 26 year-olds. By the 1990s, we are told, there will be 28 per cent. fewer 16 to 19 year-olds than there were in 1985. That is nothing new, but one wonders whether when the Minister said on 3rd July 1985 (at col. 1265 of Hansard):
"I am confident that the target of 86,000 is achievable with sustained efforts on recruiting and retention",
he took note of the demographic trend, and whether he is still so confident. I very much hope that he is.
I should like to pay tribute to him and to the Minister resonsible for the TA for the understanding and help they have offered to the council. They are keen to listen and to do their best on behalf of the TA, and that is very much appreciated.
I mention the figures because I believe that it is important to balance most carefully the force levels

1479
between the reserves and the regular forces. I believe that there may be a temptation in the future to increase the dependency on the reserves because of their relative cheapness in comparison with the regular forces. Therefore, I very much hope that the Government will not view the 40 per cent. figure as an interim figure.
The most significant event, and indeed the good news as far as concerns the territorial army, is the establishment of the National Employer Liaison Committee for Volunteers and Reserve Forces under the chairmanship of Mr. Macpherson, as has already been mentioned by the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley. The aim of the committee is to provide independent advice to Ministers on the need to win and maintain the support of employers of the volunteer and reserve forces and to recommend how those measures may be achieved.
The recommendations of the committee's first report were accepted by the Under-Secretary of State in another place on 29th February of this year, and work is now proceeding on its implementation. It is important to see those recommendations in the correct perspective and not to rely on the work of that very able committee as a way of solving the problems of the territorial army.
The committee has considerable resources of £8 million spread over four years to bolster recruiting in the reserve forces and to create a greater public awareness of the reserve forces and what they do. In my opinion, there may be danger in that through the advice of the committee Ministers may be taking on a role which the TAVR associations and their respective committees were originally charged to handle; alternatively, the associations at regional level will have an even greater task without either the expertise or resources to handle it. I hope that the Minister will clarify that point and possibly give some indication tonight as to how the recommendations of the committee are to be implemented.
There are a number of interrelated but unquantifiable reasons why a young man joins the reserves today. They range from his desire to learn a trade, to drive a lorry or operate a sophisticated radio, to improving himself, his status or his social standing in relation to his colleagues at work, or possibly the desire for a change away from the boring routine, for adventure and excitement. I even go so far as to suggest it may be for the simple expediency of acquiring free of charge a combat jacket and boots. The boots are none too popular these days, as we heard on 10th March in an Answer to a Question put by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy. One hopes that they will be more popular in the future.
Once the reservist has achieved what he set out to do and believes that he is not going to make further progress his interest declines and his attendance drops away. The resulting wastage has been running at the same average for many years and it remains a major problem for the TA. The proposal that there should be a 5 per cent. reduction in wastage was made by General Sir Frank Kitson in 1984 when he was Commander-in-Chief of United Kingdom land forces. Sadly, this wastage has not been reduced, and I think a more realistic look should be taken at the figures.
1480
Of the 30 per cent. wastage, surely 7 per cent. is inevitable because of age, change of civilian employment and for other reasons. It is the remaining 23 per cent. wastage which needs to be tackled effectively. Mr. Macpherson says in his report that if wastage can be reduced from 30 per cent. to 25 per cent. in four years there will be an estimated saving of £4 million for each percentage point of reduction, which is a very worthwhile saving.
I want to avoid going down the path of finance as I know that other noble Lords will be talking on this subject, but I believe that a case exists and that a way should be found for reimbursing employers for their share of the national insurance contribution when they release volunteers for a continuous training period such as camp. I also believe that the bounty has a sound retention value at the two and three year point in a reservist's service. It could be enhanced by possibly splitting it, though I understand that a trial on this has had an unfavourable response, or possibly by graduating the bounty in relation to the length of service. Today a major with 15 years service receives the same bounty as a colleague who has recently been promoted. Certainly, pay and conditions need to be enhanced in the future and the very real warts must be removed. I go so far as to say that a pension may be necessary to encourage the long-service volunteer. We live in a very monetarist age.
Mr. Macpherson noted in his report that requirements coming down the chain of command have caused some commanding officers and company commanders in their enthusiasm to overload their timetables. Overstretch is another cause of wastage, particularly among the experienced young captains with expanding business commitments and possibly a family commitment as well. They find that they cannot meet the TA commitment and they leave. For those units with roles in BAOR long training hours are often required in preparation for their visits abroad, recces and conferences, leaving little time for in-house management, recruiting and sport. Overseas exercises and training are attractive to the individual young soldier but not so attractive to the older man with family and business commitments. Overstretch is having its impact on the wastage rate.
While a great deal of effort has gone into winning the support of senior employment management, and that often filters through to the personnel departments, two problems remain. There is still a certain amount of opposition from middle and lower management who have quotas and targets to meet. Small firms face difficulties in having to replace one or two men. Self-employed men also face problems when having to take time off, often at an inconvenient time of year. I recently heard of a customs officer who had to forgo his annual camp at short notice because an important course at his civilian place of employment was suddenly offered and absence from the course would have resulted in a year's wait for another opportunity as well as a barrage of unhelpful and discouraging comments made, if not openly then certainly behind the scenes. A longer lead-in time and a more formal form of notification for annual camp might well alleviate the problem.
I believe that there are lessons to be learnt from our other reserves, some of which are having success in recruitment and retention; for example, in the Royal

1481
Marine Reserve, which has a target figure of 1,850 by 1993, retention of trained men is good. One of the major factors is the variety of training and the challenging specialisations that can be offered to the reservist. For instance, the Royal Marine Reserve is the only reserve from outside the Eastern bloc not domiciled within the Arctic Circle, who are trained in both mountain and arctic warfare. Despite the small size of the Royal Marine Reserve in comparison with other United Kingdom reserves, it has come to be regarded by many reserve forces as a fourth reserve force in its own right. That is something of which this small band of dedicated reservists is justifiably proud.
Recruitment is also going well for the RAF Volunteer Reserve and the Royal Auxiliary Air Force. They, too, are expanding to 2,200 later this year. Their roles have been widened to include ground and air defence of installations, movements and aeromedical evacuation, often serving alongside their regular counterparts in modern, well equipped buildings and using up-to-date equipment. Those are all factors that encourage the volunteer to continue to serve.
Over recent years the territorial army has made great strides in improving the training of the individual soldier. Recruit courses are now run in regular army depots rather than in drill halls. Potential officers go to Sandhurst and potential staff officers go to Camberley—to name a few of the changes that have taken place. The territorial army has come to rely on the regular army support in return for an enhanced role by the TA. Any cut in the individual training support may be seen as a lack of support by the Ministry of Defence and government and may well be counter-productive so far as concerns efficiency.
There have also been a number of initiatives by the territorial army itself. I should like to draw the attention of noble Lords to a recent initiative called Exercise Fast Track, and to quote from the leaflet that has been published:
"Exercise Fast Track is a trial, the purpose of which is to see whether it is possible, in four weeks continuous training, to prepare Potential Officers for the TA Commissioning Course at Royal Military Academy Sandhurst".
It is a very worthwhile initiative. Another initiative is Executive Stress which attracts young executives to take part in training to see whether they would like to join the TA. It all widens the general knowledge of the territorial army.
I believe that the time has come for a more imaginative collective training package in order to retain the interest of the volunteer once he has completed his initial training. The creation of TA brigades is a most welcome move, but they are so understaffed that they are not fully effective. Some time ago I had an idea put forward to me by a volunteer that in areas where recruitment to the TA is good, TA companies could have a permanent affiliation to their regular counterparts.
I should possibly illustrate my remarks by giving an example. If there were a company, say, of the Duke of Edinburgh's Royal Regiment in Wiltshire or Berkshire, that company could fly to Hong Kong, where the regular battalion was currently serving in order to relieve the equivalent number of men to return to the United Kingdom on courses and on
1482
leave. In return, the volunteer company would get its fortnight's training. I appreciate that there are a number of problems to overcome, not least that of who pays. However, I put it to your Lordships that it would relieve overstretch, forge a more positive link between the regular and the reservist, and might even persuade the regular to join the reserves on completion of his regular service.
Viscount Long: My Lords, was the noble Viscount referring to the Royal Wiltshire Yeomanry a moment ago, or to the Royal Berkshires? I was in the Wiltshire Regiment.
Viscount Allenby of Megiddo: My Lords, no; I was referring to the mythical company that would be formed in support of that noble regiment, the Duke of Edinburgh's Royal Regiment. I very much hope that in future we shall see the return of the Berkshire Yeomanry, which, as the noble Viscount well knows, was dropped from the Berkshire and Westminster Dragoons some years ago.
We have heard fitting tributes to the reserve forces of this country and the important role that they play. I should like to say something about the importance of the Council of Territorial Auxiliary and Volunteer Reserve Associations and the TAVR associations country-wide. In recent years we have heard a great deal about the one-army concept, a term that is often taken too literally and has led to a number of misguided ideas and wrong assumptions. We need to remind ourselves that we live in unique times, having all-volunteer regular forces as well as volunteer reserve forces, of whom we are justly proud.
The fundamental is that the regular is full time and the reservist is part time. This is where the TA associations have such a vital role to play. Established in 1907 by an Act of Parliament, there are now just 14 of these associations with small full-time staffs of Crown servants supported by hard-working committees of volunteer members, many of whom have previously been TA soldiers themselves. Together they promote the reserve forces, maintaining the pride and tradition of the territorial army. The associations understand the territorial soldier, something that I have to admit the regular soldier does not always do. I regret to say that a certain antipathy remains among the regulars to this day against the territorial army.
The TA council and associations do an excellent job. It is most important that their role and functions as embodied in the 1907 Act are enhanced and that they are not further reduced in future to satisfy some tidy military mind and to achieve a small saving. They are fundamental to the very existence and proper functioning of the TA.
Today the reserve forces are highly proficient for the limited number of war roles for which they train and prepare. They are generally well equipped and extremely enthusiastic. Both on training and on parade it is at times difficult to differentiate between the regular and the reserve. Morale is as high as it has ever been; indeed, higher. This could easily be eroded away if the Government were to blow hot and cold in the future. They need government support now more than ever before if all reserves are to meet their increased target figures by 1990. I for one hope that

1483
they get that much-needed support and that they achieve the figures set for them.
11.34 p.m.
Lord Holderness: My Lords, the importance of the debate is that it concerns our commitment to NATO. While many of the reserve forces will be committed to NATO, a number of them that are not so committed will play an indispensable role in the defence of Britain.
One of the hazards of such a debate is that many of us tend to say rather similar things one after another. I shall do my best to avoid vain repetition. I should like to repeat the essential argument that the reserve forces even now represent such a high proportion of the army's strength that they are not only extremely good value for the taxpayer but a reminder of the potential dangers of failure for any reason to recruit the necessary soldiers for our defence.
Recruiting, which has already been mentioned by others, must give all of us many causes for anxiety. The most recent phase of expansion began promisingly and strengths were increasing, continuing to increase until June last year. But since then there seems to have been a dangerous decline which has now brought us below the point where this phase started. I am sure that my noble friend the Minister shares this concern, and we shall all be interested to hear his analysis of the causes of this lack of success.
From my experience as honorary colonel of a London volunteer battalion for more years than I dare admit, I rashly put forward one or two possible explanations. The first is the obvious truism that society is changing very rapidly and possibly the slightly less obvious truism that the pace of change is continually accelerating. It may often be difficult to resist the temptation to look at the recruiting problems of the 1980s through the eyes of the 1960s and 1970s and in that way to miss a significant change in public attitude both to public service in general and to Her Majesty's forces in particular.
My noble friend and others have mentioned the very real need for active employer support for the reserves. Tacit acquiescence is not enough. I think we all understand, as he pointed out very graphically, the problems of employers, particularly small employers. I very much hope, with my noble friend, that such public-spirited employers could somehow be rewarded for what they do.
I hope meanwhile that they will not lose sight of what seem to me two very relevant considerations. The first is that, apart from Luxembourg, Great Britain is the only other European NATO member without conscription; and, secondly, that the financial burden of a non-volunteer reserve would fall very heavily on all employers as well as on everyone else. Meanwhile employers can observe—and I think a great many have done so—the profound effect of a year or two in the volunteer services or even at a single annual camp on young men. I have seen a great deal of evidence of it, and the broader, more experienced outlook of past and serving volunteers must be an asset for many employers.
1484
A third factor which I think makes the going harder now is the naturally diminished perception among employers when getting on for two generations divide us from the Second World War and certainly a full generation from the end of National Service.
The committee of my old friend Mr. Macpherson has received a very warm welcome. He is, as so many of us know, a man of great energy and of great experience both of industry and of the territorial army. I cannot think of anyone who is better fitted to give the new impetus which is so much needed in the cause we are discussing tonight.
The most important question is whether the territorial army as a whole can be given enough strength to carry out all the responsibilities assigned to it. With regard to equipment, as noble Lords have already said, I hope other commanding officers have had as little cause for complaint as the volunteer commanding officer of my battalion, but I have little doubt that they share his great anxieties about recruitment. I wonder whether my noble friend when he replies can tell us whether he thinks it might be time for the Government to look again at some of the recruiting handicaps which the territorial army faces. Unlike the regular army, as noble Lords know well, the commanding officers of territorial units are responsible for recruiting their own men.
Certainly the territorial associations provide welcome funds for local recruiting. National advertising is run for the territorial army, and from that individual units pick up recruits. I hope that my noble friend will enlighten me as to the cost-effectiveness of that expenditure. Do the Government consider it to be an effective use of resources?
While the regular army is practically fully recruited with nine-tenths of the available advertising budget, the territorial army's percentage of recruitment is a great deal lower as a result of the remaining one-tenth. Therefore, I wonder whether there is not a strong case for a redistribution of the funds available for marketing the army in order to attack the key areas of greatest need.
I hope that I have not taken too long, and I also hope that I need hardly ask this question. Will the Minister repeat loud and clear the Government's complete confidence in the future of the territorial army? I do not believe that anything can do more for its future than the renewed knowledge that the Government still see it as essential and are willing to take all further steps necessary to secure its success.
11.42 p.m.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, I have listened carefully to the speech of the noble Viscount who introduced the Question. I can happily associate my noble friend and myself with every point that he made. We are grateful to him for raising this important issue at the present time.
We can also associate ourselves with the tribute he paid to those who give up their time as volunteers in this important and national service. As other noble Lords have said, this is a particularly important subject for a country which has no conscription. With a smaller, highly-professional and highly-trained army, the need for effective reserves is much greater

1485
than it otherwise would be. We have the striking figure of 40 per cent. of our mobilised men being reserves in 1990. That is a remarkable figure for the territorial army.
I can compete in intimate knowledge of the territorial army with the three previous speakers. They all have intimate and recent experience of its achievements and problems. I must confess that my experience of the territorial army is 49 years old. I served in the first territorial unit to land in France in September 1939. I was drawn into that position not because I had military training; I had none at all. I was drawn in because, unlike my fellow rankers, I had a driving licence.
I became what was known as a GPO (Ack). That is to say, I assisted the gun position officer in siting and firing a troop of field guns. If the officer was a casualty I sited and directed the fire of the guns by myself. However, it was only after six months on the Belgian frontier when we were taken to a firing range that for the first time in my life I was present when a field gun was fired. Happily, that degree of military training is gone for ever. If I feel a little more sanguine about the territorial army and the army reserves of today than the admirable speakers who have made their views plain, it is because, with all the difficulties of recruitment and wastage, we in this country, have remarkably well-trained and well-qualified reserves at the present time.
We very much look forward to the statement of the Minister. We want to know why there is this wastage. A number of possible explanations have been given by various speakers. It is very important that we should know and it is a matter which can be established. There seems to be more wastage than recruitment; that is the problem. What are the Government doing to prevent that wastage?
On these Benches, whether as the SLD, the Alliance or the Liberal Party, we have always supported strong reserve forces for this country. As the previous speaker mentioned, we know the importance for Britain's contribution to NATO of having strong conventional forces. We can only have those forces in this country, where we have no conscription, if we have really good reserve forces in support.
11.46 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, as the only naval officer taking part in this debate—I was uncertain about the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, until he told us about his role—it is a privilege to join your Lordships. Having relatively recently acquired the honour of being made a Lord Lieutenant, that has drawn me into close contact with the territorial army. Therefore, I feel that I can join with your Lordships with a slightly outside view. It has also given me the honour of wearing an army-type uniform and I confess that I greatly enjoy the difficulties of getting into it and of coping with the spurs when I am wearing it!
I have been very impressed by the quality of the territorial officers and men and of course by the RNR, with which I have been associated for many years. I do not know the Royal Marines or the RAF reserves so well, but I have no doubt that their quality is as high as that of the other services mentioned.
1486
One point that struck me forcefully when I was new to the business of dealing with the territorials was the very genuine sadness that they felt, particularly among the senior officers, at the sideways shift to weaponry in the Ministry of Defence which happened about a year ago. I told him of that at the time. The Minister of Defence understood them and they understood him much better than many of his predecessors. They knew that he appreciated them and appreciated what they sought to achieve. Although I am sure that he is doing his present job very well, I believe that it is a great pity that he had to be moved.
The problem of recruitment, which has been touched on by many noble Lords, is very real. To be brought up to date one only has to read a serious and informed account of the Falklands war. The expertise of the modern private soldier or able seaman needs to be of a much higher order than 50 years ago. To put hastily trained men into ships as a back-up to the regular complement or into army units as described by the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, is out of the question. Therefore, we have to have well-trained people with the right attitude to their tasks, with reasonable intelligence, much common sense and a sense of humour. Without those qualities, how could a part-time soldier, sailor or airman put up with the periodic contact with regular servicemen and their officers—particularly the officers—let alone do a modern job?
These people do not grow on trees and are difficult to keep, especially when they get married or are promoted in their civilian jobs. As others have mentioned, however, they have the very qualities for which a sensible employer is always looking. Thus, I, too, welcome the new TA approach, to which many noble Lords have referred, of selling to employers the personal qualities which the army seeks and the training in self reliance and extra competence which the army gives them. It is early days for this new method of persuading employers to release their men for training, but initial reports that I have heard are encouraging. I believe that the other services might do well to follow the same approach, because Mr. Macpherson is dealing only with soldiers.
The subject of deterrence has been mentioned. I must, however, make a point because there is more I wish to say later. Why do we need those reserve forces? With relatively small regular forces we must be able to show any potential enemies that we have the means to augment those forces rapidly with fully trained men and women. They are an essential part of the deterrent. However, I believe that they are more than that; they are extra ambassadors for the high quality of the British armed services in the civilian population. Personal knowledge of that high quality can make the general public more confident that if ever an emergency should occur their defence is more safely assured.
Finally, the benefit to the nation of many modern trained reservists adds to the general steadiness of the population in general. Paradoxically, the high turnover in reservists which so much worries those who are trying to meet the numbers required for battle has the side benefit of creating yet more high calibre people to form part of the community at large.

1487
Therefore, although one would like to keep them— and everyone will try—all is not lost if one does not achieve that aim.
I trust and believe that the Government will continue to encourage in every way possible the continuation and, if practicable, the increase of the reserves of all three services. The hidden benefit to the country is out of all proportion to the cost of so doing. I very much hope that my noble friend, when replying, will be able to confirm the hopes that I have just expressed.
11.52 p.m.
Viscount Slim: My Lords, my experience does not perhaps go back as far as that of the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, but I also had the honour of serving with the territorial army many years ago. Despite the drastic carve-up of the old territorial army, especially to the detriment of the "teeth arms", I commend the Government for what they are doing and what they are attempting to achieve. They have set themselves fairly tough targets and it will be interesting to see if those can be met.
The noble Lord, Lord Holderness, mentioned that we are the only nation with no conscription. Most people do not want military conscription. However, that means that there is a further onus on the government of the day, a much greater responsibility, to ensure that the reservist, the volunteer, is trained to an operational level so that he can be deployed, and deployed to effect, in his task. We already know from the figures that we have that some 30 per cent. do not meet that criterion, though I believe that the percentage is probably a little more than that.
As the noble Viscount, Lord Allenby, said, there is still some misunderstanding in the regular side of the army in respect of its responsibilities for the territorial army. Recruits for the regular army and recruits for the territorial army are motivated in slightly different ways; they join for different reasons. There are those in the corridors of Whitehall, both officers and civil servants, who do not understand those reasons, even today. As the noble Viscount said, the army still places slightly more points for an officer commanding a regular regiment than it does for one who commands a TA regiment. If he does not make his regular regiment it is rather a second-class job to go to command a TA regiment.
I believe that the qualities required to command a TA regiment today are in many ways more varied and greater than for a regular regiment. It requires more of a great many skills from the commanding officer. I hope that the army itself and the other reserve forces do something in their training of the regulars occasionally to take their eye off the main threat and to think about the reserves. They better had, because if they are to be in a defence force which is 40 per cent. territorial they must know from where their backing comes.
I believe that the commitment to the territorial army must be seen to come from the highest level in the land, politically speaking. I suggest—and perhaps we on these Benches can suggest—that this is very much an all-party matter if such a situation is possible today. We have the Conservative Party
1488
intent on this subject and we often wonder what other political parties aspiring to government think. I hope that we hear today. It requires a national effort to raise the image of the volunteer.
Perhaps I may become tactical for a moment. Already some of the enemy that we are likely to face have had a good look around this country. Much of our strategic thinking is outside and away from the shores of the United Kingdom. We have units in the territorial army which have great detailed knowledge of their village, their city, their town, the countryside and the coastline. Against the special forces, Speznatz, that the Russians might deploy—and we know that they have had a good look here and there—surely the use of a unit of the territorial or of any of the volunteer reserves inside an area that they know well should be looked upon as a positive contribution and a main task in the defence of the homeland.
I shall not go into the matter further except to say that the training of such a unit, if it is to forgo an overseas trip or something like that, must become really imaginative and to the point. Again I suspect that at the moment certain units are taken out of places that they know and sent on very good jobs overseas. Strange units come into the place they have left in the United Kingdom and they do not know the area or the people.
I would hate any government to be accused of having defence on the cheap, but 40 per cent. of an army for 5 per cent. of the financial vote seems to me to be not bad business. I like good business. Business has to show that it measures up to the task and one is getting the profit that one wants. I have a feeling that if this recruiting figure is not met and if the training is not of an operational standard that can be accepted, the government of the day will be criticised.
When we try to get a man out of a factory, a bank or whatever for his training or to join the territorial army, it is not just the managing director one has to convince. It is down the line, as the noble Lord, Lord Holderness, pointed out. It is down the line with the foreman and the junior manager. All kinds of things may happen. Suddenly output has to be increased. There is a rush job. A chap wants to go on training and join his unit but is told that he cannot go. I commend the Government on the choice of Mr. Tommy Macpherson, a highly decorated and gallant officer in his own right and a man with great knowledge of industry and commerce. It is a good choice but it needs the help of all parties—from trade unions to political parties, management and commerce.
As I see it, the government task is, first, to improve the image of the volunteer and give him the tools to do the job. The army's task is to weld together a regular and a volunteer force; and that is not easy. I put it this way. We have reached the stage of perhaps not yet one army but certainly one family. There is a lot to do yet, and by 1990, to make it one army. I too commend the army because I believe the army will achieve this. Above all, I believe we owe a great debt to the volunteer of today.
12.1 a.m.
Lord Chelwood: My Lords, this has been a useful debate started in robust and constructive fashion by

1489
the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley. He was kind enough to refer to a pamphlet about the future of the territorials which I wrote with Philip Goodhart in 1969. It was entitled Twice a Citizen, a phrase suggested to me by the father of the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, on whose staff I was proud to serve. He was good enough to read through the draft of the pamphlet.
I intended to suggest answers to a number of questions. However, I shall put them into headline form and deal only with one matter because that will be tidier. The four quick points that I should like to make are these. It is true to say that the territorial army is short of a number of weapons, one of them a very important one, and of some vehicles. I hope that funds are earmarked to provide those as soon as possible.
Next, the territorial army, particularly the sappers and the signals, could have made a very valuable contribution to dealing with the destruction wrought by the hurricane in October of last year. It was a real emergency. Tens of thousands of people were without telephones, water and electricity for two to three weeks. They certainly could have helped and I am sorry that they were not called out.
Thirdly, is there not a need for a fast track to commissioned rank? Two to three years is the normal time for territorials to serve in the ranks before they are commissioned. A period of six to eight months would be more suitable, particulary in the North of England where there is a serious shortage of officers.
Finally under these headline points, what about the possibility of raising the ceiling for women in the home command battalions of the territorial army? I know that commanding officers can go up to a ceiling of 15 per cent. if they wish to do so but a good many battalions have not taken advantage of this. I do not see why this should be an overall figure in view of the contribution that could be made to the territorial army in policing, catering, medical work, clerking and so on.
My main point concerns wastage. This is linked with recruiting, which has been somewhat disappointing in the past two or three years. Wastage is clearly far too high. In an average year one in three territorials will resign. That is serious. I have four thoughts about it which may be worth considering. It is not a question of overall pay. The territorials are well paid for the jobs they do so well. That would be generally agreed.
My four points are these. First, the Government's refusal to disregard the payment of unemployment for attending camp for 15 days, and, even more niggardly, for failing to disregard the six Saturdays that are included in the minimum number of 27 days' annual training which are regarded as absolutely essential. Two years ago I was told by the Government that disregarding the six Saturdays would cost about £2½ million. That figure came from the DHSS. If camps were to be disregarded as well—and why not?—it would cost them about £5½ million for the territorial army only and, I would guess, about £7 million for all the volunteer forces. That figure, of course, would be 6 or 8 per cent. higher today. At the very least, surely, there should be a complete disregard of the six Saturdays.
But why not disregard camps as well? Lifeboatmen, part-time firemen, those attending
1490
charity or local authority residential 14-day camps are not subject to this earnings rule. It seems, therefore, that we are discriminating quite wrongly against the territorial army. That seems to be unfair and short-sighted. I believe I am right in saying that payments made to firemen, lifeboat crews and auxiliary coastguards are fully disregarded in calculating their entitlement to what was called supplementary benefit. I think that is still the case, and if that is so, frankly I see no justification for it.
Secondly, travelling and training allowance is now included as income; it was previously excluded. I am sure that this is being carefully watched and if anyone is worse off as a result of it, that will be put right.
Thirdly, meals. Can we not abandon the rather ridiculous five-mile rule? When a company is scattered around in three platoons in different places, perhaps 10, 15 or 20 miles apart, as is the case in many parts of the country, they have to get together for company training. One could find that one platoon or maybe two are given a free meal and the third platoon has to pay for it because the men live or are stationed within five miles. That seems to me rather niggardly and unnecessary.
Lastly, reference has already been made by my noble friend Lord Ridley to the very poor condition of some training centres. Earlier promises were made to spruce them up, but this has not been fulfilled. I understand now that it is thought that it may take up to ten years to do this. Surely that is too long a period. I hope that we can be told that funding is available and that this work can be done quicker.
I left out one point which has now been put right, but it is an example of the sort of thing I am talking about. I am talking of pinpricks which all too often draw blood. However, the blunder was surely made a year or two ago when the Government refused to pay the cost of maintaining No. 2 dress. They backed down under very heavy pressure, but that sort of thing is not very easily forgotten.
I keep a keen watch on these things, as we all do, because these attitudes are rather short-sighted and self-defeating. They lead to needless wastage and they must affect recruiting. As this is an evening when a number of noble Lords have reminisced, perhaps I may say that I learnt the lesson about keeping a keen watch in 1945 when I was a regular soldier who had just been through the staff college. My father decided at very short notice not to stand for Lewes and after I was elected there was only one other regular soldier who was elected, Harry Legge-Bourke. He and I both applied for our trousers, only to find that the Army Council had decided that there should be no trousers for Beamish or Legge-Bourke. So if I have a chip on my shoulder, that could be the reason for it. It seemed a little unnecessary after ten years' service.
I have three quick thoughts to conclude, again in headline shape. Why not pay bounty half-yearly instead of yearly? I think this would be popular and much appreciated. Secondly, instead of a three-year engagement, why not have an open one so that as the three years come up one does not force someone in the territorials to decide whether or not to stay on, he is simply engaged for an open period.
Finally, as regards regimental and county pride, which is very strong, could we not move a little

1491
further towards allowing regiments to use their own names? For instance, in the county of Sussex where I live, instead of being the 5th Queens (Royal Sussex), which is I think the regiment's correct name, why not let it be called the 5th Royal Sussex (Queens)? That would make a difference to people although it may sound like quite a small point.
In my noble friend's county of Northumberland I was a fusilier myself although my noble friend was only a hussar. Perhaps I should omit the word "only" which I am sure is out of order. Why not call that regiment the 6th Royal Northumberland Fusiliers (Royal Regiment of Fusiliers)? That would just be a matter of putting the name the other way round, and I think it would be appreciated.
I did not intend to make a general criticism of the Government. With other noble Lords, I think that as regards the territorial army the Government should be congratulated on a good job well done. But there is always room for improvement, to take the maximum advantage of the enthusiasm of one of the cheapest, finest and better trained voluntary forces in the world.
12.11 a.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, it is a tribute to my noble friend Lord Ridley that we have had such an excellent, well informed and constructive debate after he laid the foundations of it so well.
My credentials for speaking in this debate are that I was commissioned in the TA 50 years ago and I served throughout the war. But I have to confess that since I was elected to another place in 1945 I have not myself done any further military service, although of course I kept in touch with TA units here and there.
One must resist the temptation of drawing too much on the experience of past war or wars in order to indicate what should happen in future. But we must remember, and it follows from what has been said by my noble friends and others, about our being a country whose military strength and defence is founded so much on the volunteer principle that, but for the territorials in 1914 and in 1939, we could not even have mounted a holding operation on the Continent.
I go so far as to speculate—it is idle historical speculation, I know—that if we had had even greater strength of the kind that we have all been talking about this evening we might possibly have deterred the Kaiser and Hitler. So it is very important that this small country of ours playing its vital part in NATO should have the armed forces that are really required.
Although, as my noble friend's Question states, we need stronger reserve forces, the Government have undoubtedly improved on the situation that they inherited as my noble friend Lord Ridley and others have pointed out. In 1984 that excellent document Territorial Army Expansion 1986–1990 was published. I wish to ask two questions arising from it.
First, was phase 1 as set out in this document successfully completed by the end of 1986, and were the units concerned in that first phase up to establishment? Secondly, how far has phase II got in being implemented, and is it likely to be completed so far as the Government intend and can tell by 1990?
1492
I must say that there is a very great defect on the part of the Government in presenting the facts. But for the help of the noble Lord, Lord Irving of Dartford, I would not be in possession of this document. With great difficulty I obtained it only two hours ago from the Printed Paper Office, which denied at first that it had it.
It is time for the Government to say more about the territorial army in the annual Statement of Defence Estimates. It is only by turning to the desultory references in the index of Part I of the statement that one finds out anything about what the TA is doing. There is no overall description of its composition, functions, equipment or commitments. As regards the strength of the TA, that was stated on page 28 of Part II of the statement as being 70,400 men and 7,500 women for 1987.
However, there was no mention of the establishment. One could only find that from a single sheet of paper headed "Ministry of Defence Supplementary Votes for the year ending March 1988", which was published in February of this year. There one finds the maximum numbers to be maintained—not the 70,400 of 1987 but aiming at 87,350 for 1988. As has been said, we are going to be far short of that establishment.
I earnestly suggest that in future the yearly statement on defence should have a special chapter on the TA dealing with its strength, establishment, composition, functions, equipment, commitments and so on, so that we can all know what is being done and so that those who might wish to support their country by joining the TA can know more about it. I should have thought that the first step in any recruiting campaign would be for the Government to do their part effectively.
My mind goes back to when I was at Oxford in the late 1920s and in the senior division of the OTC. It used to be a most valuable source of recruitment of officers. Most of our universities had officer training corps units. I understand that 12 or 15 of our universities now have OTCs. I ask my noble friend to say how they are doing and what their total strength is. The noble Viscount, Lord Slim, referred to the need for technically qualified officers for the armed forces. The universities are the best source of such officers.
Turning to the functions of the territorial army, it is interesting to see what is envisaged. I take a particular interest in what is envisaged for the gunners. In that area one draws on one's memory of the last war. For example, in that war we sent a great many anti-aircraft guns into the desert, assuming that we would be heavily attacked. However, at about the time of Alamein, the Americans came to the Middle East and we had air superiority. Therefore, our antiaircraft guns were not needed for that role. Luckily, they were just mobile and adaptable enough to be used as anti-tank guns. They were so used, and effectively, with armour-piercing ammunition.
One reads in Territorial Army Expansion 1986–1990:
"We intend to raise a further five Air Defence batteries equipped with the Javelin Guided Missile, increasing the number of TA Air Defence regiments from three to four".
That is splendid. I do not know enough about the Javelin guided missile to know whether it can be

1493
adapted to a ground role if it were needed. In other words, flexibility is a great advantage in wartime, as we all found. We should make our plans in peacetime in such a way that there can be some adaptability in wartime.
Meanwhile, it is reassuring to find, as one does in a paragraph in the first part of the Defence Estimates for 1987, that helping local authorities to deal with peacetime emergencies is something that the territorial army has been called upon to do locally. That not only gives its members useful experience in handling their equipment in difficult conditions which they could easily come across in wartime, but it means that our local authority organisation, which is not always adequate for handling emergencies, can be supplemented with such help.
12.22 a.m.
Lord Irving of Dartford: My Lords, I too should like to thank the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, for giving us the opportunity to discuss the important subject of our reserves. He will understand, and forgive me, if I cannot congratulate him with the same enthusiasm on the time of day that we are discussing the matter.
I should like to join him in the tribute that he paid to those dedicated people who serve in our reserve forces. Unlike most noble Lords who have spoken, I have had no contact with the territorial army. I, like others of my age, in the spring of 1939 had a choice: I could do six months in the army or join the territorial army for three years. I chose to join the army, little believing at that time that it would not be six months but seven years.
This is the first opportunity since I took over this responsibility I have had of addressing myself to the question of our reserve forces. I looked at the Defence Estimates and the document to which the noble Lord, Lord Renton, referred, where there is barely a mention, as he said of the territorial army.
I am grateful to the Council of the Territorial Auxiliary and Volunteer Reserve Association for the briefing that it has given me. I am bound to say that, having read it all, it leaves me somewhat disturbed.
Responding to the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, I believe that our reserve forces are of an extremely high calibre. They make an extremely effective contribution to our defence. On mobilisation, the territorial army would be a vital part of the reinforcement of BAOR and the defence of Britain. Every support should be given to ensure that it can fulfil the role that it has been given.
The first question was: are there enough? In another place it was said that in 1957 there were 233,177 private soldiers. Ten years later the figure had dropped to 81,500, but by 1987 the number of private soldiers had fallen to 62,000, when we need 86,000. As the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said, there was a programme of expansion, which we welcomed, which was started in 1982. That was to include six Royal Engineer air damage repair squadrons to keep RAF airfields open after conventional attacks and also the conversion of three home defence yeomanry regiments from the infantry to a light reconnaissance role.
The second major phase, which started in 1986, was to provide for the formation of six more infantry
1494
battalions, an armoured reconnaisance squadron, two more Royal Engineer airfield damage repair squadrons, and the first TA helicopter squadron. The Home Service Force was to have an additional 5,000 men. I think that it is in this area where there has been a serious shortfall in recruitment, and this, together with the wastage, has presented us with a quite serious situation at the moment.
I think that the Royal Airforce Reserve programme has done rather better. The numbers have risen to 1,400. However, that is well below the target which was set for it and which it was to achieve by December this year. That was a target of 2,201. In other fields recruitment has been even less encouraging.
As has been said, recruitment is now back to where it was in November 1985. Even under the expansion schemes where the targets were indeed modest, most of them are not to be achieved for several years yet, as in the case of the RNR, the RMR and Home Service Force, and in some cases as far in the future as 1993.
The noble Lord, Lord Holderness, has pointed to the danger of reliance on reserve forces. If 40 per cent. of our total forces are to be reserve forces we had better be sure that we have them. It would be dangerous to rely on them and then find that our total forces were inadequate because of that shortfall. It is planned that the 40 per cent. should be secured by only 5 per cent. of the defence budget. That may well be the reason for the shortfall, because TAVRAs itself points to a number of occasions when money that has been promised has not materialised and further support is necessary. Indeed, some of my colleagues in another place have pointed to the fact that the fall in manpower, not just in the territorial army, may well be due to the concentration of the Government on nuclear forces at the expense of our conventional forces.
The reasons given by TAVRAs for the failure to recruit have been touched on by a number of noble Lords tonight, such as the question of the difficulties of firms being able to give release. I think that there are two problems here. One is the problem of firms themselves and the timing. The other, which has equally been pointed to, is the fact that many middle managers, and perhaps even some senior managers, no longer have any experience of the services at all. I should like to know from the Minister what steps the Government are taking to ensure that understanding is there and support is given. It may be, as some noble Lords have said, that it is necessary to give some incentive to industry to do this. It may be that the rebate on national insurance contributions is one way of securing that co-operation.
There is a decreasing number of young people and, therefore, as TAVRAs says, this provides a much smaller pool of manpower from which to recruit. The question therefore is: if there are difficulties here are the bounties adequate, are incentives enough? It is all very well to say, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Holderness, has said, that they are generous, but if they are not producing the manpower are they generous enough? We ought to look into that matter too.
It has also been said by TAVRAs that the DHSS benefit is thought to be one of the difficulties. Some

1495
members of the reserve forces will be worse off under income support as travel allowances are included as income. A person on unemployment benefit loses his benefit when he trains on Saturday. This is regarded by many members serving in the reserve forces as unreasonable. It is alleged that there is some harassment by certain DHSS personnel of some unemployed people. I do not know whether or not that is true, but I hope the noble Lord will ensure that no minor irritants will make it difficult for people who want to serve in the forces, and particularly the territorial army, to do so.
It has been said that there have been other minor irritants, and it has been pointed out that No. 2 dress maintenance allowance was withdrawn. Happily, that has been restored. There has been difficulty over waterproof clothing for the territorial army, although I understand that that is now improving. There has been a reduction of man training days, and there are some very poor training centres. It is believed that by 1990 all the new units will be in accommodation but not in their final accommodation. It is a great pity when there is a new unit that it should have an unsettled period of moving into temporary accommodation instead of beginning to build itself into a home that it can regard as its own and a base from which it can move forward in terms of its training.
I should like to know from the Minister what the progress is in terms of recruitment, what he is proposing to do to stimulate recruitment in respect of the difficulties with industry, and what he can do to take away some of the minor irritants that I have mentioned.
If we are not to have conscription—and I do not think any major party in this country since the war has advocated conscription—it is absoutely vital that our reserve forces are adequate to meet the job they have to do, to provide a supply of trained personnel which can be made ready for any emergency.
I hope that the Minister will have some satisfactory answers to the points raised by most noble Lords this evening and some proposals for dealing with the whole question of recruitment.
12.31 a.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I should like to add my voice to those who have offered thanks to my noble friend for this opportunity to pay tribute to the members of our reserve forces, and in particular to the volunteer reserves, who give so willingly and enthusiastically of their time. They do indeed deserve to be called, to quote what I think were originally Winston Churchill's words, "twice a citizen". They make a vital contribution to the defence of this country and to Europe as a whole. No other country can point to such a proud tradition of volunteer service.
This Government recognise the value of that contribution, and by expanding the reserves and providing the resources necessary to equip them to carry out their essential operational roles have sought to capitalise on their enthusiasm. In 1979 the strength of the territorial army was 59,000. In 1982 we commenced a major expansion programme for the
1496
TA, and its strength has since been increased by more than one-quarter as compared to 1979.
The major new units in this expansion, six infantry battalions and an air defence regiment, have now all been formed and are recruiting. We have also formed a large number of smaller units, including eight airfield damage repair squadrons and an army air corps squadron equipped with Scout helicopters. One further unit which is to be raised is the Royal Engineers squadron which is to be formed on Jersey and paid for by the states as their contribution to the defence of the British Isles, a gesture which will be welcomed on all sides of your Lordships' House. In addition, a home service force has been created and 43 of the planned 47 companies have been formed. There has also been a trial of the concept of a Continental territorial force, involving UK ex-patriots living in Germany.
My noble friend Lord Renton was disappointed that the open government document had not received wider distribution. As I recall it, that document was published in 1984 when I was the junior Minister responsible for those matters. There was a statement in the other place and indeed in your Lordships' House, which I repeated here, explaining about the publication of that document. It was widely available at that time, and I am sorry if its popularity has run them rather short in the Printed Paper Office and that there was difficulty in getting a copy.
The reserves of the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force are no less important, and although they are smaller in number than those of the Army, they have undergone similar expansion. The Royal Naval Reserve has increased by about 10 per cent. since plans for expansion were announced in 1984 and we envisage a further expansion of more than 35 per cent. from the present level of 5,700 to 7,800 as soon as that can be achieved. The Royal Marine Reserve has increased by 60 per cent—no less—since 1979. The RAF volunteer reserves have increased five-fold since 1979 and now number more than 1,600.
Such a major expansion of the volunteer reserves has, I admit, not been without some difficulty, and the national employer liaison committee was established in 1986 to consider some of these. Many of the committee's recommendations have been implemented, including the recently announced major image-building campaign to which my noble friend and other noble Lords referred. No matter what improvements this Government may introduce for the volunteer reserves, be they in the area of equipment, training or remuneration, we still need to be assured of the maximum level of good will and support from the country's employers. I firmly believe, like my noble friend, that employers who are willing to give this support will reap benefits for their own organisations.
Membership of the reserve forces can develop the qualities of leadership and responsibility, discipline, trade skills, self-confidence and pride, all of which have a direct benefit to both the individual and the employer alike. We have already started to see what may be achieved in this area on a localised level. Here, perhaps I may refer to one example which I hope might be followed elsewhere in the country; namely, the recent very successful reception and presentation for major city employers organised by

1497
the Lord Mayor of London. Given the impetus of the national image campaign, under the professional and energetic guidance of Mr Tommy Macpherson and his committee, I am convinced that the desired levels, of co-operation will be achieved.
One of the areas on which this campaign is expected to have an impact is the unduly high turnover of trained manpower. I do not pretend that this is other than a complex problem and as such must be tackled on a broad basis. Nevertheless, I think that the easing of employer pressures can only be a step in the right direction. In this context, I was interested to note my noble friend's remarks on the financial benefits to be gained from reduced wastage. While injecting a note of caution on the use of figures based on the rather differently organised US National Guard, we should certainly expect to see a significant financial saving accruing from a reduction in wastage. Perhaps of greater importance, however, are the obvious benefits to be gained from the attraction of high quality recruits and a greater return from service.
Of course, recruiting is one area to which we need to pay constant attention. I am sure your Lordships will agree that the television campaign over the past two years has been a great success. While the level of recruits coming in has been satisfactory, last year saw a disappointing outflow, with turnover remaining at about 33 per cent. However, I am pleased to say that this reverse is now showing signs of having been arrested. We are seeing some net monthly increases in the numbers of personnel available.
This general expansion of the reserves reflects the key role that our reserves play in the defence of the United Kingdom and within NATO. The use of the territorial army to reinforce BAOR in time of war is well established. Not only do territorials provide a major proportion of infantry units, making up the best part of an infantry division, they also provide more than 50 per cent. of logistic support and medical personnel and perform a wide variety of tasks from holding vital ground in the forward battle area to the provision of lines of communication in the rear.
TA and home service force personnel also provide a significant part of the ground forces for home defence, a role which may be less glamorous but is no less essential. They would carry out a range of demanding tasks including the provision of reaction forces, reconnaissance and signalling. The home service force would also play its part guarding key points vital to the continuation of the war effort and making full use of their valuable local knowledge.
Turning to our maritime defences, when the RNR has reached its target figure it will provide some 12 per cent. of the RN wartime manpower and will man about 60 per cent. of its wartime mine countermeasures force. It will be responsible for naval control of shipping and the organisation and control of convoys of merchant vessels in war, not just around the United Kingdom but worldwide, to maintain safe passage for our vital imports and exports. It would also provide trained personnel to augment Royal Navy personnel in many war roles.
The Royal Marine Reserve is trained to work alongside regular Royal Marines, should the need arise. Its numbers are being expanded at present and
1498
are expected to increase from 1,300 to 1,580 in the next few years. It will then represent 20 per cent. of the Royal Marines' regular strength on mobilisation.
Within the Royal Air Force one squadron of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force Regiment is now operational in an air defence role. The remaining six auxiliary regiment squadrons are field squadrons primarily dedicated to ground defence of airfields. Other auxiliary units and the four RAFVR flights augment the RAF's war capability in a wide variety of roles, ranging, from maritime communications to aerial photographic interpretation. In addition, a Royal Auxiliary Air Force support force is currently under trial. This is similar in concept to the Home Service force and if, as I hope, the trial is successful, it could eventually make a similar contribution to the capabilities of the Royal Air Force.
Other trials are examining the use of reserve aircrew in the flying role. RAFVR personnel have been integrated with regular RAF crews flying VC10 aircraft and as air electronics operators in the Nimrod. This is the first time that volunteer reserves have operated in the flying role since the 1950s. Another trial involves the employment of Royal Auxiliary Air Force Regiment personnel alongside their regular colleagues in RAF regiment Rapier squadrons. If successful, these trials could lead to a further expansion of reserves in these roles. Of course, to fulfil their operational roles the reserves need not only sufficient manpower but also high quality equipment and realistic and demanding training.
I turn first to equipment. Here too, there has been a substantial improvement in the equipment for the reserve forces. This is particularly marked in the case of the territorial army, which receives not simply old equipment from the regular army but also its share of new equipment. For example, the territorial army has already been equipped with such modern equipment as the Javelin air defence missile and the Milan anti-tank missile, the light gun for artillery units, Fox, Sultan and Spartan vehicles and Clansman radios. Issues of the new SA80 rifle and LAW 80 anti-tank weapon will follow on shortly. In some cases, equipment will be issued to the territorial army before regular army units, depending on the operational role of the units concerned. I know that my noble friend also welcomed the issue of wet weather clothing and sleeping mats, which will start later this year. Noble Lords may also recall that we are conducting a trial of a new design of boot for the armed forces, which I hope we shall be able to issue to the territorials in due course.
The Royal Naval Reserve will equally have benefited from the orders for 12 River class minesweepers and 15 coastal training craft placed by this Government. All the minesweepers are now in service, 11 of them with the RNR, and nine of the patrol craft will be operational with the RNR by this summer. I myself was delighted to have the opportunity recently to spend a day at sea on board HMS "Arun", a very new addition to the RNR minesweeping fleet.
For the Royal Auxiliary Air Force Regiment the most significant equipment enhancement has been the equipping of a seventh squadron, which operates in the air defence role, based at RAF Waddington

1499
with Oerlikon guns directed by Skyguard radar, captured from Argentine forces in 1982. This has provided a valuable and cost-effective enhancement to our air defences. Moreover, like the TA, Royal Auxiliary Air Force Regiment squadrons have been issued with Clansman radios and will soon begin to take delivery of the SA80 rifle.
Just as vital as equipment is the training that our reserves receive. Reserve forces inevitably face difficulties because of the limited training time available as compared with regulars, so training must be both special to their planned war role and intensive. Considering these limitations, impressive standards of training and professionalism are achieved.
The TA regularly participates in major exercises both for home defence and in the BAOR reinforcement role. These have included Exercise Lionheart in Germany in 1984, Brave Defender in the UK in 1985, and Exercise Keystone in Germany in 1986. They will participate in the series of home defence exercises in the United Kingdom later this year. Employers have been most helpful in releasing volunteers for exercises, and we were particularly grateful for their response in Exercise Lionheart. I take this opportunity to ask them once again to make their employees available for this year's exercises.
I now touch on two other points which have been raised during the course of this debate: first, the problem of the recently introduced disregard for unemployment benefit and the possibility that it might be extended further. I remember well that this was a matter of considerable concern to members in our volunteer reserve forces and I am aware of the feeling that all reservists' earnings should be disregarded or should at least pay for attendance on Saturdays. There are, however, practical difficulties in taking matters further.
A prime requirement for the payment of unemployment benefit is availability for work on each day on which benefit is admissible. Clearly a volunteer carrying out training on a Saturday is not available for work, unlike someone who attends a drill night, for which a disregard has recently been agreed. In addition, pay for a full day would exceed the amount lost in benefit in contract to many employed volunteers who may suffer a net loss of earnings as a result of missed overtime or shift work opportunities. However, I can assure my noble friend that the matter will be kept under continuous review.
I was also asked about the possibility of reserve forces being used in cases of natural disaster, for example, such as the recent hurricane. There are some practical problems, however, in using reserves for these purposes. Formed regular units are best placed to respond quickly in an emergency and will generally have sufficient manpower to provide the necessary assistance. Thus, certainly in the case of the aftermath of the October storms, volunteers may have problems in being released from their employment and limited man-training days are best used for training rather than for those purposes.
Having outlined the many improvements which we have achieved, I have to acknowledge that there are always more demands for resources than we can meet from a finite budget. Difficult decisions on priorities will have to be made which will seem all the more
1500
unpalatable after a period of sustained growth such as we have had over the last few years. Some of these decisions will necessarily affect the reservists. My noble friend is already aware that we have had to cut back a little on the planned expenditure for the refurbishment of some TA centres. But this must be kept in proportion, and will moreover not affect the construction of new TA centres for new units being established under the expansion programme.
We must also continue to look for increased economy and efficiency in all areas. It is more than 20 years since the TA was last reorganised so it is only right that the structure of the TAVRAs and their relationship with the district commands is being reviewed. A study is also being conducted into the university officer training corps, which will examine how this valued link between the armed forces and higher education can be made more efficient and effective. My noble friend Lord Renton asked specifically about them and I will write to him on them.
In conclusion, during my time as a Minister in the Ministry of Defence I have been privileged to visit many reserve units and I have been consistently impressed with what I have seen. More people are volunteering for the reserves, and they are being increasingly well equipped. I am sure that the House will wish to join me in paying tribute to the men and women who voluntarily, and indeed enthusiastically, give up their time to train to defend their country. Nor should we forget the many people who support them, employers, TAVR associations and most particularly wives and families. The future security of this country will continue to depend in large measure on the dedication of such people and the Government will ensure that they have the support they need and deserve.
House adjourned at ten minutes before one o'clock.

  PRISONS: PRIVATE SECTOR PROVISION PROPOSALS
  PRISONS: PRIVATE SECTOR PROVISION PROPOSALS