Sitting of 17 February 1988

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

    Nature Reserves
    Mr. James Lamond: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to be in a position to state his policy towards the transfer of the management of state-owned national nature reserves to voluntary bodies or the private sector.
    The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): The Nature Conservancy Council is conducting a review of its national nature reserve policy, which is due to be completed later this year. I would also refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave on 13 January, in which the Government's policy towards the ownership of land by non-departmental public bodies, including the NCC, was set out.
    Mr. Lamond: As the NCC is funded by the Secretary of State, through the Treasury, is it not more likely to bend to his will, even though no voluntary organisations could possibly buy land from it? Is the Secretary of State not concerned that, last year alone, over 200 privately owned sites of special scientific interest were destroyed? Why does the Secretary of State not drop the daftest idea that he has yet had?
    Mr. Ridley: I hope that, as the NCC is funded by the taxpayer, it will bend to the will of the taxpayer, as the hon. Gentleman suggested. The loophole to which he referred was closed by legislation, as he should know.
    Sir John Farr: Whether or not such rights are eventually transferred from the state to some other body, will my right hon. Friend make absolutely sure that public rights of access that already exist are preserved in future?
    Mr. Ridley: Yes. A year ago, of the 160,000 hectares of national nature reserves only 43,000 were publicly owned. It is important that public rights of access should be preserved, and they are preserved under many different statutes.
    Dr. Cunningham: The Secretary of State must be aware that important bodies, such as the Royal Society for Nature Conservation, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and others, have expressed grave reservations about the wisdom of the proposal to dispose of national sites and parts of our national heritage. If he is to ask such bodies — many of which manage such sites efficiently
    960
    and have a proven track record—to take responsibility for more of our national heritage, will he clearly and unequivocally provide the necessary funding for them to do so? If he does not do so, their job will simply be beyond them.
    Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman does not seem to have quite got it right. Three quarters of the sites are in private ownership and are well looked after by private individuals at their own expense. If there is to be a supplement from public funds to the management of nature reserves, t can be done through the SSSI management agreements. That system is proceeding satisfactorily. However, I do not believe that the Nature Conservancy Council should be a way of achieving the nationalisation of land.
    Mr. John M. Taylor: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the state has no particular flair for managing nature reserves, any more than it has any particular gift for making motor cars? Will he not get better value for money out of genuine enthusiasts, anyway?
    Mr. Ridley: I tend to agree with my hon. Friend's sentiments. All that I have asked the NCC to do is to review its holdings to see whether, perhaps, some should be added to or substracted from them.

    Rating Reform
    Mrs. Mahon: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many letters he has received from members of the public (a) in support of the community charge and (b) opposed to the community charge.
    Mr. Ridley: A summary of the 1,271 responses received by 31 October 1986, when the consultation period on the Green Paper ended, was placed in the Library on 15 December 1986. Since then my Department has received a large number of letters commenting on specific aspects of our proposals and requesting further information.
    Mrs. Mahon: I am disappointed that the Secretary of State did not answer the question. I believe that there is unanimous opposition from the whole spectrum of political thought in this country. In my constituency, the totally unjust tax will mean that an average household of three adults will pay £770 as against £322 now. How will low-income families find that extra £450?
    Mr. Ridley: The hon. Lady should put that question to Calderdale, because that council is currently spending about £83 per adult over the average for the country. It has time to reduce its costs and charges, because we have instituted a safety net that will limit the impact on Calderdale. The only opponent is the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), who does not think that Birmingham should contribute to Calderdale.
    Mr. Latham: Will my hon. Friend inform the House how many of those letters said, "Can we please keep the rating system and, while we are about it, can we have the rating revaluation that would otherwise be necessary?"
    Mr. Ridley: In the original consultation exercise the responses favouring abolition of domestic rates outnumbered those favouring retention by two to one. We have not analysed the letters after that, because they do not express clear opinions, but make limited points or ask questions.
    Mr. Rees: Have any of the Secretary of State's correspondents asked whether it would be in order for the voters' list to be checked against the poll tax list in order to aid prosecution?
    Mr. Ridley: Those matters have been discussed extensively upstairs. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the voters' list is a public document, and I have no doubt that community charge registration officers will see it, just as they see many other bits of evidence in arriving at registrations.
    Mr. Marlow: With the greatest respect, was that not a rather silly and stupid question? Is not the weight of correspondence dependent on the activity of the lobbies? Is not the Government's responsibility to introduce policies that are effective and will be popular, not what people might think according to some biased question put in an opinion poll before a policy is introduced?
    Mr. Ridley: We have received about 5,000 letters on this subject, and 35 million people will be liable to pay the community charge. The statisticians in the House will recognise that that is an insignificant proportion.
    Mr. Rooker: Would it be a good idea if, even after the legislation has passed through the House on the conveyor belt after the guillotine, the Government put this issue to the people again, because of its substantial constitutional importance, to determine whether they would prefer the tax to be based in the way in which the Prime Minister originally said it would be on people's ability to pay?
    Mr. Ridley: We put that issue to the people in June last year, and the hon. Gentleman was lucky to retain his seat.

    Planning Policy
    Mr. Riddick: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans his Department has to reduce planning restrictions in towns and inner cities.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. David Trippier): We have a substantial programme of work to simplify and improve the planning system. In particular, we have introduced provisions for simplified planning zones by which general permission can be given for specified types of development in an area.
    Six urban development corporations have been established in England to adopt a single-minded approach to regeneration of inner-city areas. Three more have been announced. All have development control powers.
    Mr. Riddick: I am grateful for that reply, which clearly recognises the need to reduce planning restrictions in UDCs and special planning zones. Does my hon. Friend agree that the relaxation of planning restrictions should also be extended to towns and cities, such as Colne Valley and Huddersfield, which have no special status and where the planning restrictions do more than anything else to restrict and stifle the growth and prosperity of small businesses?
    Mr. Trippier: That is why we have introduced 16 planning measures since the publication of the first White Paper, "Lifting the Burden", which contained a form of deregulation that will benefit the smaller firms to which my hon. Friend referred. The most notable of those measures is the extension to the general development order to promote exemptions from specific planning permission
    962
    and the modernisation of the use classes order. There is no lack of recognition in the DOE of the fact that the planning constraints that affect the growth and enterprise of small businesses obviously apply outside the inner-city areas and in Colne Valley also. The 16 measures that we have introduced will help that process.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Did not the report "Faith in the City" detail most objectively with the polarisation, poverty and decline in physical conditions in the inner cities? Is not the embarrassing nature of that report one reason why the country is having to put up with the vindictive and malicious attacks on the Church of England from the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food?
    Mr. Trippier: The hon. Gentleman will not expect me to comment on that specific detail. I clearly remember reading "Faith in the City". We recognise some of the problems that the report has identified, and it is relatively easy for people to agree about the nature of the problems. However, the solutions suggested in the document were, in the main, unacceptable to the Government. The Government clearly recognise the problems of the inner cities. Our policy on that point has already been outlined by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, and it will be developed further. That policy reveals our concern for the inner cities, and we will develop the policy to regenerate them.
    Mr. Thurnham: While removing unnecessary restrictions on businesses, will my hon. Friend pay close attention to the existence of historic covenants and the strength of public opinion that supports them?
    Mr. Trippier: Yes, Sir.
    Dr. Cunningham: One of the most controversial proposals for inner-city redevelopment at the moment relates to the Chelsea football ground at Stamford Bridge. What has been happening about that? Clearly something very odd, funny and questionable has been happening in the Department about the proposal. On 20 November the Minister for Housing and Planning, in a written answer, said that it "would not be justified" to call in the application. Although the council has followed the proper procedures by notifying the changes to the local plan in public notices, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Mr. Trippier), as recently as 11 February said that the Department had changed its mind and was calling the planning proposal in —[Interruption.] Yes, this is a very important matter and I intend to get it on the record.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Very long questions deprive Back Benchers of time.
    Dr. Cunningham: Something very odd is going on in the Department of the Environment. There is a very nasty smell about it. The public, the people of Hammersmith and Fulham and the people at Chelsea football club and its supporters are entitled to know what is happening.
    Mr. Trippier: The hon. Gentleman has made some disgraceful allegations and he deserves to be reprimanded for making them. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made it clear to the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) on 11 February that the planning application was notified to him as a departure from the Greater London development plan on 8 January.
    Dr. Cunningham: That is not true.
    Mr. Trippier: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will consider withdrawing that remark later.
    I was obliged to consider the proposals afresh in the light of the council's view and the considerable number of representations received. In the light of the new information, my right hon. Friend concluded that the planning application should be called in for his decision following a local public inquiry. Obviously he cannot comment further at this stage, lest he prejudice his quasi-judicial function.
    Mr. Redwood: Does my hon. Friend agree that public land hoarding, planning restrictions and the attitude of some local councils are still unduly restricting development in towns and cities where it is much needed? Does he agree that, as he tries to find ways through the red tape, he and the Department should reduce the over-rapid rate of growth in places such as Berkshire, which is picking up the tab for the failure in the cities?
    Mr. Trippier: We have to try to achieve a balance in the Department of the Environment. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made clear earlier about development in the southern regions, which has certainly been higher than was previously expected, the Department must consider these matters with the planning authorities in reviewing development plans. However, I understand my hon. Friend's points.

    Housing Mobility
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any proposals to increase housing mobility amongst owner-occupiers; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister for Housing and Planning (Mr. William Waldegrave): There have been a number of welcome changes which make it easier and cheaper for people to buy their own homes. These have included reductions in stamp duty, increased competition in conveyancing —which has led to a drop in charges—moves to speed up local authority searches, and an end to mortgage queues.
    Mr. Lloyd: I am surprised at the Minister's response. Does he not recognise that, because the Government have allowed over-development to continue apace in the southeast, a terraced house there costs about three times as much as one in the north? That means that there is no possibility of mobility between the regions amongst owner-occupiers, as there is no real possibility of the south-east housing its own population.
    Mr. Waldegrave: The argument is usually put the other way by northern Members—that they do not want a relaxation of planning controls in the south to bring down prices against the north. One of the comparative advantages of the north is its much cheaper prices. I remind the hon. Gentleman that last year there were a record number of first-time buyers—just under 700,000 — and many more first-time buyers even in the south than in 1979.
    Mr. McCrindle: Has my hon. Friend's attention been drawn to the limitations on mobility applying to those who have engaged in the otherwise very desirable plans of part renting and part ownership? Has he any thoughts on how such people who may wish to move to another part of the country can be helped to do so?
    Mr. Waldegrave: We certainly support such schemes, both in the commercial sector and when subsidised by the Housing Corporation. There has been an increase in such schemes, and we welcome it.
    Mr. Soley: That is an incredibly complacent response. Does the Minister realise that people are having problems buying for the first time and in trading up and renting, all because of the mess into which the Government have got themselves over housing finance? When will the Government respond to the very sensible request from the Duke of Edinburgh's committee, the Church's report and every housing expert in the country? The Government must grasp the nettle of housing finance and introduce a sensible reform of the schemes for both renters and owners which makes it fairer for both groups within and between the two systems.
    Mr. Waldegrave: It is rather extraordinary that the hon. Gentleman should say that, when he spent a considerable time trying to prevent us from increasing the private rented market, one of the benefits of which would be to increase mobility. I remind him that the shift in the house-price-toearnings ratio in London and the south-east between 1979 and 1987 moved from only 4·66 times earnings to 4·80 times earnings. The catastrophe is not quite as great as the hon. Gentleman suggests.
    Mr. Hill: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the difficulties that many purchasers encounter is the increasing length of time that it is taking the Land Registry office to bring forward recognised plans so that conveyancing can take place? Is it possible for his Department to have a word with the Land Registry office to find out where the blockage is, and whether the problem is shortage of staff or of accommodation? This is one of the great handicaps in conveyancing.
    Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend has made a good point, and I shall make the inquiries for which he has asked. Lord Templeman has recently introduced a Bill to open up the Land Registry, which is a sensible move and one that I believe will help.

    Football (Membership Schemes)
    Mr. Pendry: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will next meet the president of the Football League to discuss the membership card scheme.
    Mr. Ridley: My hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for sport is in regular contact with the president of the Football League. They will meet next on 21 March.
    Mr. Pendry: When the Minister with responsibility for sport eventually skates back from the winter Olympic Games at Calgary, will the Secretary of State concentrate his junior Minister's mind less on the problems of Eddie the eagle and more on the larger problems affecting our national game? In particular, will he tell him that membership card schemes are not working, that they are not the answer to the hooligan problem, and that more flexibility is needed at club level? Following the recent cup tie between West Ham United and Queen's Park Rangers, the chief superintendent of police said that the membership card scheme caused the club problems. Will the Secretary of State ask the Minister to reconvene meetings with the football authorities to ensure that a solution is based on common sense?
    Mr. Ridley: I would not dream of telling my hon. Friend what he should think or do. He is far more expert in these matters than I am. Let me include the hon. Gentleman in this general protestation of ignorance, because I have to tell him that in connection with the match between Queen's Park Rangers and West Ham on 30 January, the Metropolitan police said that the membership scheme was at fault. However, it was an all-ticket match. The problem stemmed from the circulation of forged tickets to West Ham supporters.
    Mr. David Evans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is up to the Football League and the Football Association to put their house in order and that that is not the responsibility of the Government? We are pleased to see the police carrying out dawn raids, arresting people and seizing crossbows, truncheons, guns, pistols, and so on. If the Football League and the Football Association are not prepared to put their house in order, does my right hon. Friend agree that it would then be the responsibility of the Government to ensure that people are able to conduct their business on a Saturday afternoon in the way that they wish? May I remind my right hon. Friend that there is a membership scheme at a well-known football club and that there have been no arrests for 18 months —apart from the day when we allowed away supporters back?
    Mr. Ridley: I congratulate that football club on the success of its membership scheme. I commend that scheme to all clubs. Obviously, we would like the football authorities put their own house in order and continue to improve their record on crowd control, violence and hooliganism. If that does not happen, it will be very difficult for the Government not to take action. I hope that we shall very soon see the action that my hon. Friend mentioned and would like to see.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: Will the Secretary of State convey to the Minister with responsibility for sport on his return from the winter Olympics the view that the best hope for professional football in Britain rests in the provision of attractive and comfortable facilities for spectators and, in particular, in the attraction once more of families as spectators? Will he suggest to the president of the Football League that football in general would benefit very much if clubs applied those policies, which are undoubtedly in the interests of the clubs and of the game itself?
    Mr. Ridley: On his return, I shall certainly pass on to my hon. Friend what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said. I think that my hon. Friend and I entirely agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman. What we are talking about is how to achieve it.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, valuable as membership schemes are and could be, it would be even better if police and clubs did not admit to grounds anybody who was the worse for drink and if the clubs themselves did not sell drink to spectators? That would help enormously to overcome the very serious violence that continues at football matches.
    Mr. Ridley: I am subject to correction, but I think that certain measures are already being taken in the direction that my hon. Friend suggests.

    Housing Corporation
    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last met the chairman of the Housing Corporation; and what matters were discussed.
    Mr. Waldegrave: I last met the chairman on 11 January, when we discussed the funding of housing co-operatives and the Housing Corporation's approved development programme for 1988–89.
    Mr. Jones: When the hon. Gentleman next meets the chairman of the Housing Corporation, will he discuss with him the genuine concern of many housing associations about the implications of the Housing Bill? The Bill will mean that rents in the housing association sector will be raised to such levels that tenants will be paying half their incomes in rent. Will he also tell him that some low-paid tenants will be severely penalised and that some people will be deterred from working because of the substantial drop in income as a result of the loss of housing benefit?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is quite right about this matter. The new Housing Corporation for Wales, which no doubt he will welcome, like the Housing Corporation in England, will be able to have different percentages of grant alongside private money. That will increase output and maintain rents at reasonable levels.
    Mr. Squire: Will my hon. Friend confirm that many of the excellent provisions of the Housing Bill will enhance the role of housing associations and give them a better opportunity to play their traditional role of housing people who are earning less than average wages?
    Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is right. The purpose of the new mixed-funding arrangements is to enable housing associations to carry out more of their traditional functions, helping the people whom they need to help by bringing in private money alongside public money.
    Mr. Allan Roberts: Does the Minister agree that that is not the view that all the housing association movement takes of the Secretary of State's legislation? The housing association movement, and everyone associated with housing associations, want a housing association tenancy established to protect the nature of the housing association movement—everyone except the Secretary of State and the person whom he appointed, his friend, Sir Hugh Cubitt, to run the Housing Corporation. Why will the Secretary of State not allow the Minister to accept what everybody wants—a housing association tenancy?
    Mr. Waldegrave: Characteristically, the hon. Gentleman has not got his facts right. My right hon. Friend did not appoint Sir Hugh Cubitt, who is an admirable chairman of the Housing Corporation.
    Mr. Roberts: A mere technicality.
    Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman says that the facts are a mere technicality. I agree. The point about a housing association tenancy will be best met by the proposal for a chartered social housing sector, which we discussed exhaustively and exhaustingly in Committee.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: Did the Minister discuss with the chairman the paradox of Government policy that the implication of the Housing Bill for the Housing Corporation, with all the approval of new landlords, the

    967
    approval of landlords after the establishment of housing action trusts, the mixed funding and additional housing association funding, is that there will be a large centralised quango, much larger than any housing authority? Would not the best solution be to devolve the Housing Corporation's responsibilities regionally in England, as has been done in Wales, and democratise the Housing Corporation?
    Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman will know that there are effectively separate corporations in Scotland and Wales. I do not think that we would yet want to go down the route of dividing it up in England, but I hear what the hon. Gentleman says.

    Property Services Agency
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many people are directly employed by the Property Services Agency.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Christopher Chope): A total of 22,235 non-industrial and industrial staff at 31 December 1987.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Would not those 22,000 people be better off in the private sector? If my hon. Friend has no plans to do that at an early date, will he comment on the more modest proposal to introduce commercial accounting and put the PSA on a trading fund basis? I believe that the PSA has had a report on this matter for about a year, so perhaps my hon. Friend is in a position to announce a conclusion?
    Mr. Chope: Sadly, I am not in a position to announce a conclusion to the recommendation of the Deloitte report, to which my hon. Friend referred. I hope that we shall he able to put the PSA on a commercial footing with a trading fund.
    Mr. Cryer: Will the Minister say what weight the PSA gives to local authority representations when they put forward projects such as building courthouses, as in the case of Bradford, where the local authority made representations to allow land for a rail link between two stations? That was refused on the arbitrary decision of the PSA. Does he think that the PSA should take into account the people who know best — the people in Bradford, who were elected to do the job?
    Mr. Chope: In the court building programme, the PSA acts as the agent of the Lord Chancellor's Department.
    Mr. Gow: Welcome though my hon. Friend's announcement is that the PSA will move on to the basis of a trading fund, will he understand that it does not go nearly far enough, and that the best service that could be rendered by his Department would be to bring the PSA, at the earliest possible moment, into the private sector?
    Mr. Chope: I understand my hon. Friend's strong views, which are based on experience and knowledge of the PSA. For that reason, they are held in great respect.
    Mr. Boyes: Is not the problem in the PSA the continuing reduction in staff—about 36 per cent. since 1979 — which has led to a growing backlog of £145 million worth of essential maintenance work? Because of low pay and conditions, particularly in London, there are problems of recruitment and retention of qualified staff to do that work, which has led to more expensive outside
    968
    contractors and consultants being brought in. How much is that costing, and would it not be cheaper for the taxpayer to pay the existing staff a decent and appropriate wage?
    Mr. Chope: The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that staff numbers have reduced significantly in the Property Services Agency. There were 35,223 in 1979 and only 22,235 at the end of last year. But 85 per cent. of the maintenance work already goes out to private contractors. There is an expanded budget for maintenance work in the next financial year.

    Development Corporations
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many mini urban development corporations he proposes to set up to combat dereliction in inner-city areas; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Trippier: My right hon. Friend proposed four designations last December—three new urban development corporations in Bristol, Leeds and central Manchester, and the extension of the Black Country 1JDC area to parts of Wolverhampton.
    Mr. Coombs: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government's success in bringing derelict land back into use, increasing employment and improving the environment, is also giving skills to inner-city residents? What further plans has the Minister to designate areas as urban development corporations?
    Mr. Trippier: I welcome and agree with what my hon. Friend said in the early part of his question. We have plans to designate other areas as UDCs.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Before the Minister decides to set up more urban development corporations, will he tell us exactly what is going on with regard to the National Audit Office report on the London Docklands Development Corporation? There are strong rumours that the chief executive resigned after a very short period because he was concerned about the speculation and indeed, the misuse of resources in the Docklands area. In other words, there is a lot of fiddling going on in the area. Will the Minister tell us when he expects to get the report of the National Audit Office? Can he assure us that no fiddling is going on in the LDDC area?
    Mr. Trippier: I resent strongly the allegations that the hon. Gentleman has made in his question. There are two points. First, the NAO report can neither be speeded up nor delayed by the Department of the Environment. The NAO is a law unto itself, so I can give the hon. Gentleman the categorical assurance that there is no delay in that regard. It is nothing short of scurrilous that the hon. Gentleman should refer as he did to the resignation of the former chief executive of the LDDC, who resigned for purely personal and family reasons.
    Mr. Brandon-Bravo: My hon. Friend will know that some cities have responded to the Government's lead by setting up, in effect, their own development corporations. Will my hon. Friend join me in offering every good wish and welcome to Mr. Michael Neale—recently adviser to LDDC — to Manchester and to Merseyside, as chief executive of Nottingham development enterprise? Will he join me in welcoming the initiative by Nottingham's Conservative city council?
    Mr. Trippier: I am delighted to have the opportunity to endorse all that my hon. Friend has said. It is usually through the initiative of Conservative councils or Members of Parliament that such proposals for economic development are made.
    Mr. Rooker: What about Birmingham?
    Mr. Trippier: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) asks, "What about Birmingham?" He may choose to remember or not to remember as the case may be, that the initiative known as Birmingham Heartlands was the initiative of the chamber of commerce.
    Mr. Heffer: The hon. Gentleman cannot say that about Liverpool, because the regenerated areas in my city were developed by Liverpool city council, which is elected by the people of Liverpool. The Government have not given the support that they should to those areas. We do not need mini development corporations. What we need is Government assistance to the elected representatives who are trying to deal with the serious problems of those areas. It would be good if the Government were prepared to do that. The hon. Gentleman has been to Liverpool and seen what the council has done for the people. Is it not important to give aid to the local authorities and not to outside bodies that do not represent the people?
    Mr. Trippier: What I have seen in Liverpool is that the city council, to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, has plunged the city into enormous debt.
    Mr. Heifer: The hon. Gentleman did.
    Mr. Trippier: No. It seems miraculous to me and to my colleagues in the Department of the Environment that other Labour-controlled local authorities within Merseyside have managed successfully to balance their books. Furthermore, the major urban regeneration that has taken place in Liverpool, transforming the area and reducing unemployment, has been done principally by the Merseyside Development Corporation.

    Out-of-town Shopping Centres
    Mr. Sumberg: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has for improving the procedures for conducting public inquiries into planning applications for out-of-town shopping centres; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Waldegrave: We are developing ways of grouping applications and staging inquiries into such schemes in Greater Manchester and elsewhere. New rules of procedure for inquiries and a code of practice for major inquiries produced in response to the Select Committee will both be relevant to large out-of-town schemes.
    Mr. Sumberg: Is my hon. Friend aware that one of his inspectors is currently conducting an inquiry into a massive shopping development on the Prestwich hospital site in my constituency? Will he make it abundantly clear to that inspector that the plan is opposed by a vast number of my constituents both on environmental grounds and because it will have a terrible effect on existing shopping facilities?
    Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend has made his own view very clear to the inquiry and the inspector and has made representations to the Department, which have, of
    970
    course, been passed on to the inquiry. It would be wrong for me to comment on a proposal that is now the subject of a public inquiry.
    Mr. Eastham: Is it not irresponsible for developers to build massive developments outside established cities and towns that destroy shopping inside the cities? Thousands of jobs will be lost as a consequence of the greed of those who build out-of-town shopping centres that are not required.
    Mr. Waldegrave: It is not a matter of greed; it is a matter of the customers wanting them. The centres would not be built if there were not people who wanted to shop in them.
    Mr. Sims: Is my hon. Friend aware that the council of the London borough of Bromley and a number of local organisations are involved in considerable expenditure and a great deal of work in preparing their case for the public hearing in June of an appeal against an application for the development of an enormous leisure and shopping centre right in the middle of the green belt at Hewitt's farm? It would quite out of the question to allow this application, which would run contrary to all the policies laid down by my hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Would it not save a great deal of time and trouble if my hon. Friend were to make it clear straight away that such an application for a development in the green belt land is simply not admissible?
    Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend will probably know that we recently re-issued our advice on large shopping developments, in green belt land and made it clear that it was very unlikely that any such applications would be approved.
    Mr. Flannery: Is the Minister aware that at the very centre of my constituency, called the Hillsborough centre, we now have major developments, with large numbers of small shops standing empty? Some of them are being taken over not by shopkeepers but by building societies and the like and people are writing to me about it. Is is not a fact that that is happening in cities everywhere and causing dereliction, and that people who have shopped in the centres of cities all their lives are now having to go outside to do their shopping? Is that sensible? It is inhuman.
    Mr. Waldegrave: I do not imagine that the building societies would be providing offices unless they were being used by customers. They must be serving someone. It is right that it is a material consideration in a planning inquiry or decision that the effects on local centres should be taken into account when new developments are being proposed.

    Peak Park Planning Board
    Mr. Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any plans to introduce direct elections to the Peak park planning board.
    Mr. Ridley: I have no plans to do so.
    Mr. Knox: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Peak park is one of only two areas in the country in which planning decisions are finally reached by people other than directly elected representatives? Why should those of my constituents who live in the Peak park have to put up with this undemocratic treatment?
    Mr. Ridley: I know well my hon. Friend's concern about the matter. In all the national parks, a sizeable proportion—about the same as that in the Peak district—of people who are not resident in the area serve on the parks committee. In my hon. Friend's case, of 34 members of the Peak board, 12 live in the park and a further six live within one mile of the boundary, including two councillors with electoral ward divisions lying partly within the park. I do not believe that it would be right to change the system of choosing national park authorities, because that would give rise to enormous complications in many areas.
    Mr. McLoughlin: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that a great percentage of the county appointees live well outside the area of the park? This is causing grave concern for people who live in the national parks. As my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Mr. Knox) said, there is only one other area in the country where a person cannot serve on the planning authority if he is a resident and has been elected. This is very unfair. Will my right hon. Friend at least consider issuing new guidelines to local authorities about appointing people who live within the area of the national parks and have to abide by national park restrictions?
    Mr. Ridley: I understand my hon. Friends' concern about this matter, but people must understand how difficult it would be to change the system of those who are elected and then appointed to the board. We have already requested local authorities to ensure as far as possible that they appoint people who live in or near the area.

    Local Authorities (Contract Compliance)
    Mr. McAllion: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will seek to amend the Local Government Bill to allow local authorities to use contract compliance to tackle sex discrimination and discrimination against people with disabilities.
    Mr. Chope: No. Sir.
    Mr. McAllion: The Minister has already conceded the principle of contract compliance in respect of racial discrimination because of the duties imposed on local authorities by section 71 of the Race Relations Act 1976 to promote equality of opportunity. I note that in an amendment made in the other place yesterday to the Local Government Bill the Minister has now been forced to accept the principle of contract compliance in respect of people with disabilities. Why, therefore, will he not accept the same principle in respect of discrimination on grounds of sex? Is the hon. Gentleman saying to the House that there is no discrimination against women in employment —if he is, he should look at the Benches around him—or is he saying that there is discrimination but Ministers do not care sufficiently about it to do anything?
    Mr. Chope: We shall carefully consider the implications of the amendment approved yesterday in the other place. Local authorities are part of the enforcement processes only in relation to racial discrimination by virtue of section 71 of the Race Relations Act 1976. That is recognised in the Local Government Bill, and that is why that provision is dealt with differently from sex discrimination.
    Mr. Marlow: Is my hon. Friend confident that the Government can devise a series of stock questions on
    972
    racial discrimination which will not undermine the main purposes of the Bill, which is to prevent political interference by local authorities — Labour local authorities—in proper commercial activities? If my hon. Friend is confident, perhaps he could let us into the secret.
    Mr. Chope: I am confident about that. Indeed, some questions have been prepared and are the subject of consultation at the moment.
    Dr. Cunningham: Why do the Government not accept the representations of the Equal Opportunities Commission, which has made it clear that, in respect of discrimination against women in employment, it would like the Government to take exactly the same approach as they are taking under the Race Relations Act 1976? Should not the Government now accept the defeat in the House of Lords and make it clear that, in respect of people with disabilities, they will change the legislation accordingly?
    Mr. Chope: Both this House and the other place have rejected the arguments of the Equal Opportunities Commission. If the commission decides, as a result of consultations on its document, to press my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for changes to the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, which includes a section 71-type duty, the Government will give careful consideration to such a proposal.

    Homelessness
    Ms. Primarolo: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the latest estimate for the number of homeless people in Bristol; and how many are under 21 years.
    Mr. Ridley: Bristol city council's latest return to my Department showed that 343 households were accepted as homeless under the Homeless Persons Act in the period July to September 1987. The ages of homeless people are not reported.
    Ms. Primarolo: Is the Minister aware that in Bristol not only is there the problem of homeless young people but it is estimated that more than 20,000 people are effectively homeless, 14,000 of them forced to live in accommodation that is legally considered to be unfit for human habitation? The Government's Housing Bill refuses to place on housing action trusts a legal duty to deal with homelessness. Will the Minister therefore agree to discuss again with Bristol city council its allocation of funds under the housing investment programme, with a view to giving more money to Bristol so that it can effectively tackle the problem of homelessness in the city?
    Mr. Ridley: The hon. Lady is unnecessarily critical of Bristol city council, which has done rather well in this respect. Of the 343 households that are homeless—not the thousands that she mentioned—only 76 were in bed and breakfast on 30 September last year. Their average stay was only 27 days. That is a good record, on which I congratulate the council.
    As the hon. Lady seemed to want a housing action trust to be placed in Bristol, I shall certainly look into that possibility.

    Housing Co-ownership Schemes
    Mr. Stern: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to encourage the growth of housing co-ownership schemes.
    Mr. Waldegrave: Co-ownership schemes can normally proceed without direct Government assistance, although my right hon. Friend is responsible for granting co-ownership societies entitlement to various tax reliefs if their rules meet the requirements of section 341 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970.
    Mr. Stern: I am grateful for that reply. Does my hon. Friend agree that co-ownership schemes often provide the only route by which young couples on low incomes can achieve their desired form of housing—house purchase —especially in areas such as Bristol, where house prices have recently risen sharply? Will he do all that he can to encourage the provision of those schemes so that young couples have a chance to buy their own homes?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I quite agree with my hon. Friend. A problem to do with a company which promotes such schemes and which is based in my constituency in Bristol has recently emerged. It has written to me about a technical problem to do with tax and we are trying to sort that out as quickly as we can.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Minister consider amending the present proposals in the Housing Bill to ensure that before any private or other landlords can make a bid for council blocks, streets or estates, tenants are given the opportunity of setting up a co-operative organisation to buy those properties for themselves, or for themselves with others?
    Mr. Waldegrave: It will be open to tenants to do that, and I suspect that in many cases tenants will want to bring forward such schemes. When the Bill is passed, and following the publicity about what the proposals mean, which we shall ensure is put out, I hope that many tenants will come forward with such proposals.

    Rent Arrears
    Mr. David Shaw: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he is satisfied with the performance of local authorities in reducing the level of their rent arrears.
    Mr. Waldegrave: No, Sir.
    Mr. Shaw: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in the main, it is Labour local authorities which have large amounts of rent arrears, and which, by not collecting their rent arrears, often claim to the Government that they are short of money and are always asking the Government for more money? Would it not be better if they collected those rent arrears first and so had more money to spend?
    Mr. Waldegrave: The facts speak for themselves. The 10 worst authorities, which account for a third of the total of nearly £200 million rent arrears, are Labour -controlled. Most of the top 20 are Labour. So I have to confirm what my hon. Friend has said.
    There are, of course, many differences between Labour authorities. Why, for example, does Walsall, a Labour council, have rent arrears of about 13 per cent., whereas Bolton, also a Labour council, has 1·2 per cent.? The reason is that one is much better managed than the other.
    Mr. James Lamond: Is the Minister aware that Oldham, a Labour council, was so fed up with trying to collect its arrears that it put the task out to private contractors on a commission basis? They soon gave up, because they could make no impression, either.
    Mr. Waldegrave: I suspect that the position there, as in some of the London boroughs, had been out of control for so long that it was beyond anyone's capacity to put it right quickly.
    Mr. Holt: Would my hon. Friend care to examine the records of the two local authorities in my constituency — Middlesbrough and Langbaurgh — and see how appalling Middlesbrough's record is compared with that of Langbaurgh? Middlesbrough is Labour-controlled and Langbaurgh has a hung council. Yet, in their turn, the Government treat Langbaurgh shabbily in the rate support grant and treat Middlesbrough as though they had too much money to give away. When the Government act in that way, how does it encourage local authorities to collect rents?
    Mr. Waldegrave: There is no direct relationship between outstanding rents and rate support grant. Arrears of rent are, however, a consideration in HIP allocations.
    Mr. Bell: I wish to correct the statement made by the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) concerning Middlesbrough council. Will the Minister accept that Middlesbrough council runs services to its community, has rates and rent in proportion to those services and has a record second to none throughout the country, let alone the north-east?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I shall not get involved in a civil war at Langbaurgh, if I can help it. The House should agree that it is scandalous that there are authorities that have up to 38 per cent. of their collectable rent outstanding. That is evidence of incredibly bad management.
    Mr. John Marshall: Is it not the duty of local authorities not to curry favour with a small minority of non-rent paying tenants, but rather to carry out their duties to all ratepayers and to the vast majority of tenants who pay their rents?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I agree with my hon. Friend. Rent arrears are only one sign of bad management. Where there are rent arrears there are other symptoms of bad management, such as too many squatted properties and too many voids.
    Mr. Soley: Creative statistics will not get the Minister out of this one. His Government have cut housing benefit, as he knows, seven times and will do so again in April. That means that a nurse will pay about 40 per cent. of her net salary before being entitled to housing benefit. They raised rents again by £1·60 yesterday. They have taken away all the benefits to the rented sector and wonder why it is collapsing. What right has the Minister to talk about choice for tenants in those circumstances? Why does he not tell the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw), who is so concerned about this, that his council is busy selling off an estate over the heads of the tenants, when they do not want their estate to be sold off? What sort of choice is that?
    Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman wisely changes the subject as much as he has done because he is on weak ground on rents. He has not addressed himself to the question to which I would be interested to know the

    975
    answer. Why does Walsall do so much worse than Bolton? I do not believe that there is any difference in housing benefit between Walsall and Bolton. There are some badly managed councils, and, as the figures show, the great majority are Labour-controlled.

    Rating Reform
    Mr. Canavan: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his latest estimate of the number of people who will pay the poll tax.
    Mr. Chope: We expect that 35 million adults in England will be subject to the personal community charge.
    Mr. Canavan: Does that figure take account of the number of people who will not register and the number of people who are either unwilling or unable to pay the poll tax? In view of the statement on Monday by Mr. James Thomson, the regional assessor for Fife, that if a sufficient number of people refuse to register it would "choke up the works", and the helpful statement yesterday by the Prime Minister, who said that failure to register on the poll tax register will not in any way affect one's right to vote, does the Minister realise that many people, including myself, will initially refuse to register and pay, and will encourage as many people as possible to do likewise, so that we can scrap these vicious poll tax proposals?
    Mr. Chope: The hon. Gentleman should have a word with the Leader of the Opposition if his last remarks are to be taken seriously. Most people will register, and if they do not they will be subject to penalties, so it will not be worth their while not to register.
    Mr. Forth: Is it not patently fair that people who are entitled to vote on the one hand, and to the services provided by the local authority on the other, should expect to pay a fair and reasonable share of the costs of these
    976
    services? Where a tax is the law of the land, is it not reasonable to expect people to pay that tax, and to face the penalties if they do not pay?
    Mr. Chope: My hon. Friend is right. We are talking about a community charge that will meet only one quarter of the total cost of local government expenditure. The remainder will be funded by business and by national taxpayers, and the one quarter that will be met by the community charge will not be met by an equal community charge paid by everybody. About 7 million people will be entitled to a rebate, so they will not have to pay the full community charge.
    Mr. Winnick: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has received over the poll tax.
    Mr. Ridley: I refer to the reply that I gave earlier to the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon).
    Mr. Winnick: Is the Secretary of State aware that I am in a genuine dilemma, in that I oppose this wholly unfair poll tax, yet realise that this crazy scheme will undoubtedly be one of the factors that will help to remove his Administration from office?
    Mr. Ridley: I thought that the hon. Gentleman's dilemma was that the Labour co-ordinating committee has stated:
    "When the local council wants to carry out a programme of service expansion local people will no longer be cushioned by increasing business rates and rate support grant. They will want to know that increased expenditure is well spent."
    That is the view of the Labour party.
    Mr. Dykes: Is it completely wise to be the only country in the world giving up some sort of property charge?
    Mr. Ridley: I would never claim a monopoly of wisdom, and I am always interested in my hon. Friend's views.

Royal Ulster Constabulary
3.30 pm
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Tom King): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement on matters within my area of responsibility arising from the investigations carried out by Mr. Stalker and Mr. Sampson.
In his statement to the House of 25 January, my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General said that the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland had concluded that, having considered all the facts and information ascertained and reported by Mr. Stalker and Mr. Sampson, and having re-examined the original Royal Ulster Constabulary investigation files, the evidence did not warrant any further prosecutions in the two incidents in which charges of murder have already been brought, nor in the third incident at Ballynerry. He did, however, conclude that there was evidence of the commission of offences relating to perverting the course of justice, but further concluded, on grounds of public interest, that it would not be proper to institute any criminal proceedings. The question of further action therefore falls to be considered in the context of the question of disciplinary proceedings.
The Director of Public Prosecutions has advised the Chief Constable of the RUC of those offences in respect of which he concluded there was evidence. The Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary has today announced that he has invited the chief constable of Staffordshire, Mr. Charles Kelly, to consider whether disciplinary charges should be brought in the case of RUC officers of chief superintendent rank and below, and if so what charges would be appropriate.[Interruption.] Mr. Kelly has appointed one of his assistant chief constables to help him in this task.[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. The House has been pressing for this statement for a long time.
Mr. King: The work has already started. The Chief Constable of the RUC has told me of his concern that it should be completed without delay in the interests of all concerned. The Chief Constable has also confirmed to me that he considers that any charges brought should be heard by a chief constable of another force. I have made clear to him my concern for these disciplinary issues to be resolved as soon as possible.
Mr. Sampson also made observations on the role played by more senior officers. The Police Authority for Northern Ireland is the discipline authority for those ranks. Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary, Sir Philip Myers, has therefore informed the chairman of the police authority of these observations, and is making available relevant material for his attention. I have seen the chairman who has confirmed this position to me and that these matters will now be considered by the authority. I shall keep the House informed of further developments on these matters.
The circumstances surrounding and following the incidents in 1982 gave rise to concern about procedures, responsibilities and control within the RUC. In the light of Mr. Stalker's interim conclusions and of Mr. Sampson's further comments upon them, a special inspection into those matters was carried out by Mr. Charles McLachlan, one of Her Majesty's inspectors of constabulary, and I
978
received his report on 25 January. I am grateful to him for the most thorough manner in which he carried out that task. I have since discussed his report with the Chief Constable.
I am most anxious that there should be a better public understanding of the two major issues involved. The McLachlan report deals with the procedures and practices that have been followed in police work in Northern Ireland arising out of anti-terrorist operations. The report essentially covers two areas: first, how the special branch, with its own crucially important and distinctive task, still remains an integral part of the overall force within the disciplines of mainstream policing. The House will be aware of the concerns expressed in 1982 that the special branch had become a "force within a force". The second issue is how to ensure that, notwithstanding security and other considerations, there is a proper procedure for the investigation of all serious incidents, and that full and accurate information is given to the Director of Public Prosecutions.
Those questions go to the heart of the problems faced by a police force using the normal processes of the law while fighting a vicious and ruthless terrorist enemy. Intelligence is the lifeblood of that fight. Without it, the security forces are seriously handicapped. It is vital that it is protected. Moreover, knowledge of even the procedures used by special branch and other RUC officers will not only make their task still more difficult, but it will put lives at even greater risk. That is why the security forces are understandably and rightly so committed to protecting intelligence. But the lessons of those incidents show clearly that that desire must not operate outside effective accountability and control.
On the question of a force within a force, Mr. McLachlan's report makes it clear that, while the Stalker-Sampson inquiry rightly focused on the situation in 1982 and immediately thereafter, matters were substantially improved shortly afterwards. In 1983, at the request of the Chief Constable, a former very senior officer of the Security Service carried out a special review into certain aspects of special branch management and its relationship with the CID. His recommendations were implemented in full. The new rank of senior assistant chief constable was introduced for the RUC in 1984. Since then, both the special branch and CID have answered to the same senior assistant chief constable, so that their work has been fully co-ordinated.
Special branch operations must be conducted in secrecy, but they must not be carried out without the knowledge of the RUC senior command. Mr. McLachlan stresses that the regional assistant chief constables are now aware of the operations of special branch within their respective areas, and re-emphasises the importance of them continuing to monitor them. In addition, he makes a number of specific recommendations designed to ensure the highest standard in the selection and training of members of special branch, the prevention of overspecialisation, the encouragement of cross-posting both within the RUC and with other police forces and the further integration of the branch with the other parts of the force. In putting forward these recommendations, Mr. McLachlan pays a strong tribute to the present professionalism and standards of members of special branch, stressing the vital part they play in combating terrorism.

979
I now turn to the second major issue covered by Mr. McLachlan. This concerns the vital need that serious incidents are thoroughly investigated. At the heart of this is the point that the policies and practices of the RUC should in future reflect the paramountcy of the CID investigations, including the need for evidence to be preserved and for no obstacle to be placed in the way of questioning of suspects and witnesses.
Mr. McLachlan considers that the combined responsibility for both CID and special branch makes an important contribution to the proper handling of such inquiries. In addition, he now recommends that in controversial incidents involving RUC officers, the Chief Constable should consider whether an experienced assistant chief constable from another force should be appointed to lead the investigation; and that an experienced senior CID officer should attend any debriefing where firearms have been used by the RUC and people killed or injured. He also recommends improved arrangements at the scene of such incidents so that the forensic, pathology and photographic resources available are used to best effect.
In addition, however, to the specific recommendations of Mr. McLachlan in this area, as my right hon. and learned Friend told the House on 25 January, the Director of Public Prosecutions was intending to discuss with the Chief Constable and deputy chief constable of the RUC safeguards to ensure that in the future facts and information given to the Director are in all respects full and accurate, whether or not any security interest is involved. The House will recognise that this is precisely the issue that I identified earlier and that has to be addressed. I can inform the House that a first meeting has already been held and that these discussions are now proceeding.
The House will note, therefore, the steps that have been taken and are now in progress to address these difficult issues. The Chief Constable has implemented in full the recommendations of the special review in 1983; further changes have been made subsequently, including in particular the control of both CID and special branch under a single senior officer; and the Chief Constable is now in discussion with the Director of Public Prosecutions on the necessary safeguards for full and accurate disclosures to the director. I can also tell the House that the Chief Constable has confirmed to me that he has accepted in principle all the recommendations of Mr. McLachlan.
There is one further particular aspect that I should mention. Shortly before one of the incidents in 1982, two RUC officers were given approval to cross the border into the Republic of Ireland. At the meeting of the Anglo-Irish Conference yesterday, I advised Irish Ministers of the full circumstances of the officers' presence in the Republic. I emphasised that the two officers who made the crossings were in plain clothes, were unarmed and were in an unmarked car. As the Chief Constable said in the statement which he issued on 7 April 1984, the crossings were made
"for observation purposes only. There was no preplanned incursion, nor is there any deliberate or authorised system of incursion."
Nevertheless, it is fully accepted that it was wrong and regrettable that two RUC officers were permitted to enter the territory of the Republic unannounced as part of an on-going operation. It is the Government's intention that
980
this should not happen again and the Chief Constable for his part has undertaken to ensure that it does not; nor has it occurred since.
These incidents of 1982 and the subsequent events illustrate sharply the acutely difficult problems faced by a parliamentary democracy and the police service in combating the evil of terrorism. These incidents, in which six lives were lost and in which one person was seriously wounded, have already led to four policemen being prosecuted for murder, two more senior officers suspended, and the shadow of innuendo cast more widely over the RUC. Undoubtedly, serious mistakes were made which have damaged the reputation of the RUC.
This is a particular tragedy for a police force of the courage and professionalism of the RUC today, who have given ample recent evidence of their commitment to protecting the whole community from violence from whatever extreme it may come, and who fully deserve the tributes that Mr. Stalker, Mr. Sampson and Mr. McLachlan all pay to them. We owe it to them and to the whole community in Northern Ireland to ensure that these matters that I have described to the House today are dealt with promptly and correctly, that the wider lessons have been fully learnt, and the necessary changes effected to ensure that such problems can never happen again.
Mr. Kevin McNamara: This is perhaps one of the most serious and grave statements that we have heard about the British security forces in Northern Ireland while these present problems have been vexing the House over the past 20 years. We have also heard the most amazing rehabilitation of John Stalker. By what they have said, the Government have confirmed every item and every incident to which he refers in his biography and found it necessary to implement those reforms and ideas that he put forward.
The House will have listened with regret to what the Secretary of State said, because it is about an area of these islands where we are supposed to enforce the rule of law. In many ways, what the Secretary of State has said has sought to muddy the waters. Talking about the McLachlan report, he was confirming the Stalker-Sampson report. Indeed, we heard him attempting to staunch the wounds of an enormous casualty list that has emerged since the Attorney-General first made his statement.
The first casualty was the rule of law. "Be you ever so high," said Lord Denning, "the law is above you" —unless, of course, you are a police officer suspected of perverting the course of justice, conspiracy or obstructing a constable. It is perhaps well that the statue of justice is blind; otherwise it would see the scales weighed heavily against the innocent in Northern Ireland.
The second casualty is the Royal Ulster Constabulary —those brave and honourable men who held the line at the Tunnel in Portadown and throughout the marching seasons, who were the subject of abuse, and who saw their families threatened, being burnt out or bombed out from their own homes. All that they had won for the RUC and all the esteem that they had achieved is lost by the Attorney-General's statement and by what we have heard today.
The third casualty has been the Anglo-Irish Agreement. It has been badly, but I hope not fatally, wounded. The spirit of trust that had grown between both Governments is badly damaged. The difficulties that the present Irish

981
Government had on the floor of Dail Eireann to get through extradition, the searches of nearly 50,000 houses in the Republic, and the pressure that was placed upon the Irish Government are all as good as lost by the Attorney-General's statement. The mounting confidence between the Gardai and the RUC and the co-operation at all levels have been put at risk by the Attorney-General and the Government by their actions.
The final casualty—
Hon. Members: Question.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. McNamara.
Mr. McNamara: The final casualty is the Secretary of State. When I heard last week, I did not know whether to feel pity or contempt—pity for what had happened to him, or contempt for the fact that he allowed it to happen to him. All we have heard today is an attempt to salvage what he can from the mess with which he was left.
Let us look at what the statement actually says. New procedures and new structures of command will not help the situation at all unless there is confidence in the men who operate them and in their objectivity. There is no word about how we will prevent future Chinese parliaments, which we heard about before. There were rules and procedures before, but they did not stop the records being altered about the telephone calls that were made and about the movement of cars and operatives. We still do not know what was recorded on the tape in the hay shed and whether Macaulay was properly prosecuted. We do not know whether telephone calls went from Armagh to RUC headquarters when the outrageous lies were perpetrated and the cover-ups carried out.
The Secretary of State has rightly used the power to make this statement that was contained under the order that we passed last year, the Police (Northern Ireland) Order 1987. In so far as one can be happy about the statement, we are happy that the Secretary of State has gone right through all the ranks of the RUC, not just the foot soldiers, but has referred to the policy authority.
May we know the time scale of the inquiries by the chief constables? May we know the ranks of the officers who have been referred to the police authority following Mr. Sampson's report? What were their ranks and how many have been referred for possible disciplinary proceedings? Will the Secretary of State explain the strange account of the incursion into the Republic, that
"two RUC officers were given approval to cross the border",
but that
"There was no preplanned incursion",
and that it was
"part of an on-going operation."
What sort of gobbledegook is that, and what is it meant to mean?
At the beginning of my observations, I gave a list of the casualties of this affair. However, there is one victor from all this, which has scarcely said a word but has enjoyed immensely not a mere bone thrown at it by the Government, but the whole roast and the silver platter as well—that is the Provisional IRA. It is the only victor of this sad three weeks of accounts from the Government.
Mr. King: The only matter on which I agree with the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) is, as I made clear in my statement, that I
982
regard these as very serious issues. The hon. Gentleman's comments referred to the rehabilitation of Mr. Stalker. Some people have been anxious to peddle various theories of conspiracy and have to sought to imply that the work that Mr. Stalker did was lost with his transfer and non-availability. I can confirm to the House that all Mr. Stalker's work was available to Mr. Sampson. I have seen the full copy of Mr. Stalker's draft final report on these matters, and the recommendations that fall within my area of responsibility. Mr. Sampson has commented on them, and likewise Mr. McLachlan had full access to the work that had been done.
The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the same team that had been working for Mr. Stalker carried on working with Mr. Sampson and was, in fact, reinforced in the sense that the information that he had garnered in the volumes of reports that he produced were all available to the Chief Constable and the Director of Public Prosecutions. I advise the House that a number of recommendations flow directly from Mr. Stalker's work and recommendations.
I cannot answer specifically the hon. Gentleman's question about time scale because, of course, it will be for Mr. Kelly to determine what, if any, charges he recommends should be brought forward, and the time scale. However, I can advise the House that he has already started that work and that it is not in anybodys's interest that it should be delayed. I hope that we shall have an early resolution and understanding of whether there are to be charges and, if so, what they will be, so that the people concerned know where they stand.
In spite of the hon. Gentleman's dire warnings—as much as any hon. Member, I am under no illusions about the strength of feeling of the Irish Government and Irish Ministers—the House will be aware that the Taoiseach today moved a motion in the Dail and spoke to it, in which he made clear the determination to secure the achievements and goals of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. I want to put on record on behalf of the Government, and I sincerely hope on behalf of all hon. Members, our warm recognition of the Taoiseach's firm commitment to the continuance of the closest cross-border security cooperation in the vital interests of all the people in the island of Ireland.
Sir John Biggs-Davison: Is not Mr. Des O'Malley, TD, right to deprecate the use of security cooperation by other Irish politicians as what he calls a "diplomatic crowbar" to extract concessions from Her Majesty's Government? May we have an end to these apologies for border crossings by members of the security forces? Will the Government make members of the Garda Siochana, the Irish Army and the Irish air corps welcome if they want to cross the border to our side in pursuit of the common enemy?
Mr. King: With the obvious exception of the extremist political groups, I am not aware of any party in the Republic which advocates the discontinuance of cross-border security co-operation. Certainly in his speech to the Dail today the Taoiseach made it clear that
"the protection of the security of this State,"—
the Republic—
"and the protection, to the utmost of our ability, of the interests and security of all the people of Northern Ireland … dictate cross-border co-operation. It is obviously in the interest of both communities that this co-operation should be as effective as possible."

983
The Taoiseach said that in the Dail this morning. I welcome those comments and I make absolutely clear the British Government's commitment to the closest cooperation.
I am glad to see the strong support that the Taoiseach is receiving from the leaders of other constitutional parties in the Dail. I am encouraged by that, as we are all aware that difficult issues are involved and very strong emotions have been stirred. I have listened to what my hon. Friend has said. We are determined to achieve the closest cooperation. As my hon. Friend is aware, there is much interchange and a close relationship between the Garda and the RUC. I stand by the statement that I made on the matter of the particular incursion.
Mr. James Molyneaux: While these police officers are being offered up as sacrifices, will equally effective action be taken against those who actually made the crucial decisions, whether at the level of the Joint Intelligence Committee, MI5 or certain other bodies perhaps at a slightly higher level?
Is that not vitally essential, particularly in the light of the comments made by the spokesman for the official Opposition, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), who seemed very reluctant to tread on that ground?
Mr. King: If I understand the question correctly, the right hon. Gentleman knows better than I that those are not matters for me.
Rev. Ian Paisley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at this very hour a gallant young 23-year-old lance-corporal of the Ulster Defence Regiment, Alan Johnson of Kilkeel, is being buried? Is he not also aware that nothing that he has said at the Dispatch Box today will give any comfort to the mourners at that funeral? Will he take that on board and think of those who are suffering as a result of an officially declared shoot-to-kill policy of the sectarian Irish Republican Army? Will he now do what he did not do in his statement and tell the House that the four police officers were cleared of the charge in the court of law? Why did he not tell the House, when he was talking about their being brought to court, that they were cleared?
Will the Secretary of State also tell us that, now that discipline is to be applied in the ranks of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, similar measures should be taken in the ranks of MI5, and should reach to the top of MI5, the Prime Minister's own office and the Prime Minister herself, who is in charge of the security arrangements? Does the right hon. Gentleman really think that anyone in Northern Ireland will be bluffed by what he has said about Charles Haughey today? I listened to the debate in the Dail. Charles Haughey made it clear that extradition had been stopped, and would be stopped until such time as he and his Government got their act together.
Was not the Anglo-Irish Agreement sold on the basis that we would have extradition? Now Mr. Haughey has told us that we shall have none whatever. Would it not be better for the Secretary of State to admit that the Anglo-Irish Agreement has failed? Is it not his duty to institute immediate talks with all parties concerned for a new and viable agreement — an alternative to the present agreement—in which the majority of the people of Northern Ireland can take part, and which they can support? Is that not the best way forward?
Mr. King: Of course I am aware of the appalling and savage murder of the UDR lance-corporal Alan Johnson in Kilkeel. As the hon. Gentleman knows full well, Lance-Corporal Johnson is sadly another in the list of victims in the continued assault on democracy — the terrorist campaign that Northern Ireland has had to endure. What I have said today is relevant because I know that the best hope of ensuring that we avoid such killings in the future is by obtaining the fullest commitment of everyone in the island of Ireland to the defeat of terrorism. That is why close co-operation with the Irish Republic is in the interests of all in the Province.
With respect, what the hon. Gentleman said about extradition is not correct. The Taoiseach made clear his concern that extradition should operate effectively, and stressed that it was necessary for it to work within the terms of the new Act that the Dail passed recently. I made it clear to Irish Ministers that I hope that it is possible to resolve the problem. I know that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General is anxious to find out whether it can be resolved on the technical basis of the provision of adequate facts for the Irish Attorney-General, so that extradition can operate effectively. But, far from saying that extradition had been stopped, the Taoiseach made it very clear in his speech today that he wished to see it operating effectively, and that it was in the interests of the Republic as well as those of the United Kingdom.
Mr. John Hume: Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that the good faith of the Irish Government in co-operation did not begin today, that they have acted in good faith since they came to office—particularly, as the results show, in security co-operation? Will he also acknowledge that the trust and confidence on which such co-operation should be based has been dealt a very damaging blow by the amazing statement of the Attorney-General, which seemed to suggest that certain people are above the rule of law and that the rule of law is transcended by national security? Has he any plans or proposals for steps to undo the damage done to that essential trust?
Mr. King: Of course, I know very well the strength of feeling on those issues. The Irish Government have ma de clear to me their views both on the Attorney-General's statement and on the judgment on the Birmingham six, although one of those issues is not my responsibility.
Having said that, I recognise that, in certain respects, we are not able to meet the Irish concerns. The Taoiseach referred to an impasse; however, I noted that in his speech today he was careful to stress that there was not an impasse right across the board in Anglo-Irish relations, but only in respect of those issues.
As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said earlier, there was, in a sense, something of an impasse for us over extradition arrangements, which were not exactly as we would have wished. But, having argued our case very strongly, we eventually had to decide that the Irish Government were sovereign in that regard, and they made their decision. The Attorney-General has his responsibilities—very clear responsibilities—and, with integrity, he made his decisions. Ultimately, such decisions must be made. Then we have to see how it is possible to deal with the lack of confidence or other problems that may flow from those decisions.
In this instance, we have made it clear that we do not like the extradition arrangements. They raise additional

985
problems. Having said that, however, we will try to make them work. That must be the spirit in which we approach the problem. As the longest-serving member of the Anglo-Irish Conference on either side, I believe passionately that we should thank God that we have got a mechanism that enables us to sit down and argue out difficult issues, instead of engaging in megaphone diplomacy on either side of the Irish sea.
Mr. Julian Amery: While I welcome very warmly my right hon. Friend's commitment to continuing co-operation with the Republic in the struggle against the IRA, does he not agree that such cooperation requires some flexibility in respect of the border —a border that is crossed, I understand, by hundreds if not thousands of civilians every day? Was it really necessary to apologise for our two policemen having crossed the border in plain clothes for observation purposes? Can my right hon. Friend assure us that flexibility between ourselves and the Republic will allow policemen from the Garda and the RUC to continue flexible co-operation? As I understood it, my right hon. Friend's statement contained an assurance that we would not do it again.
Mr. King: I made a very clear statement, which I have also made to the Irish Government. I recognise my right hon. Friend's close interest in these matters. However, we now have the best opportunity of really close co-operation with the Irish. We can only take the greatest satisfaction in the achievements so far. My right hon. Friend will remember the substantial arms find on Five Finger beach in Donegal. Just imagine the terror and carnage that would have occurred if those weapons had become available within Northern Ireland.
How are the benefits of co-operation to be achieved? The RUC, in which I have the fullest confidence, recognises the need for an understanding with the Garda. There are sensitivities on the Irish side, as there are on our side. What I said about the incursion is, I think, correct. It is necessary to make the position clear, because I also believe that there are huge benefits to be gained from sensible co-operation, without our trying to work in ways that affect too keenly some of the sensitivities on the Irish side.
Mr. David Steel: Does the Secretary of State accept that neither a debate in the House nor internal disciplinary inquiries within the RUC can get to the heart of what was a mistaken policy, which was clearly being pursued by sections of the police and security forces in the Province at the time, and which led to the murder of civilians? That is the key issue.
The right hon. Gentleman referred in the opening paragraph of his statement to areas within his responsibility. Will he be more specific than he was in his reply to the leader of the Official Unionists, and make it clear that that area does not include the activity of the security services and their relationship with special branch? That is the area for which the Secretary of State cannot answer to the House.
Following the meeting that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) had on Monday with Chief Constable Hermon, we certainly agree with the sentence in the statement in which the Secretary
986
of State talks about it being undesirable that the "shadow of innuendo" should hang over the RUC itself. Our concern is that his statement will not lift that shadow. Does he accept that it is not in the national interest that a sour and hostile atmosphere should exist either between the Republic of Ireland and ourselves or between the two communities in Northern Ireland, because it is in precisely that atmosphere that the IRA flourishes?
Therefore, will he accept that nothing less will do than the establishment of a Select Committee of the House with the capability of inquiring into these matters and the oversight of the security services? If for security reasons it has to be a Committee of Privy Councillors, so be it. It is surely not good enough that the Congress of the United States and most of the major European democracies have such accountability while we do not. Will he see that such an inquiry is established without delay?
Mr. King: Certainly, of course I am aware of and deeply regret the difficulties and problems that this has posed for the RUC. The events of 1982 continue to haunt the RUC. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) paid tribute to just one of the incidents in which the RUC was involved — the protection of Nationalists in Portadown and elsewhere. That is only one of a whole range of activities that involve protecting the community from terrorist attacks from whichever side they come. The RUC have also been involved in seizures of arms from both sides of the community. We have recently seen arms seizures from extremists on both sides. Mr. Sampson, Mr. Stalker and Mr. McLachlan have all expressed their admiration for the present-day RUC and its excellent work. However, this ghost from all those years ago has come back to haunt the RUC, and I greatly regret that.
One point was incorrect. These events did not lead to the murder of individuals in the sense that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North put it. It is important to remind the House in connection with the very unsatisfactory phrase "shoot to kill" that the hon. Gentleman used that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General said
"that … no evidence has been disclosed of any offence—such as incitement to murder—such as would be comprised in what has been loosely called a shoot-to-kill policy."—[Official Report, 25 January 1988; Vol. 126, c. 24.]
We are concerned here with the key issues that I sought to put before the House; the perversion of the course of justice has to do with the issues of the subsequent investigation and those aspects.
We have had a report by a chief constable that runs to some 17 volumes of criminal investigation. That was the most thorough investigation that could have been carried out, and Mr. Stalker interviewed some 300 police officers, some of them undercover and secret surveillance men. There were 600 written statements from policemen, forensic scientists, doctors, pathologists and relatives of the dead men. That is the depth of that investigation, and all that information was available to the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Attorney-General. In a democracy where sensitive security issues are involved, in the end matters in his area must be the responsibility of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General and I must be responsible as Secretary of State. In the final analysis, we are accountable to the House.
Mr. James Kilfedder: All decent people here and in Northern Ireland, and I would say elsewhere,

987
will be delighted to pay tribute to the RUC for its courage, fairness and professionalism. That force is facing an evil and sophisticated terrorist organisation that will take comfort from every word of criticism that is uttered today against the Royal Ulster Constabulary, a force that has lost so many gallant officers in order to defend the people of Northern Ireland. We should try to support the security forces in Northern Ireland. Nobody is attacking or setting up committees of inquiry to inquire into the activities of the IRA and the way in which it murders and mutilates innocent people.
Is it now possible after a sustained campaign in the media and from Dublin for the suspended police officers to obtain a fair, unprejudiced disciplinary hearing? I and many people in Northern Ireland fear that they they will be sacrificed in order to please a Republican element.
Finally, may I ask the Secretary of State about the penultimate paragraph in his statement about a minor incident that took place six years ago? Was an apology deliberately included in that statement as a result of the meeting of the Anglo-Eire Conference yesterday, when Dublin demanded that further criticism should be made of the RUC? This is strange, because when a Dublin Minister visited Newry last week he demanded that a British Army observation post should be demolished. Who is fighting the enemy?
Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman asked about the suspended officers. I have made clear, and I think it is right, that the Chief Constable decided that these matters should be decided by independent chief constables from other police forces. I am sure that that is right, and I think that it is in the interests of any officers who may find themselves facing any disciplinary charges that these matters should be dealt with as speedily as possible. I think that the whole House will understand that.
In the case of the report that I gave the House about the incursion, as I had given information to the Irish Government about the presence on their territory and in their jurisdiction of RUC officers in the course of an operation, I thought it right to report that to the House.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. May I ask for briefer questions please? We have a very heavy day before us and I have had great pressure from hon. Members who wish to speak in a subsequent debate.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: The Secretary of State has spoken about serious mistakes in a force in which I still have very many friends, even after the many years since I was in the Province. I agree that those mistakes have to be corrected because, unlike the IRA and all the other paramilitary organisations, the RUC is our responsibility. Does he agree that, if we concern ourselves with those matters, we are in no sense condoning the shoot-to-kill and the bomb-to-kill policies of the paramilitary organisations in Northern Ireland? Is it not now appropriate for us to debate the first part of the Secretary of State's statement—not today but shortly? We tend to forget the security situation in Northern Ireland in a way that the Secretary of State cannot. We ought to discuss it and his plans for reorganisation.
I was surprised at one answer that the Secretary of State gave the leader of the Official Unionists, the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux), when he
988
seemed to indicate that as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland he had no responsibility for the other security organisations working in the Province. That was not the way I operated and that matter ought to be cleared up. I should like to ask the Secretary of State a number of brief questions to which we ought to know the answers Under what Act is the Kelly inquiry instituted? I ask that question because my investigations this morning show that, if it is the 1970 Act, the public interest comes into it, as it came into the Attorney-General's statement the other day.
If there are disciplinary charges on very serious issues, what representation will be available to the police officers concerned, and will they have the right of appeal? These are important issues that were considered for open court but it was decided not to do that. The men that have been brought to my notice feel very strongly about this. It is being said, "Is the Secretary of State aware that if it is in the public interest that Mr. Stalker can print his views of what went on, surely these policemen have the right equally to make public their views on the same matter."
Mr. King: I very much appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's remarks. As a predecessor of mine, he is familiar with these issues. As he knows, the question of a debate is a matter not for me but for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, who will have heard what he said. I note that a draft order under the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act is among the remaining Orders of the Day, and I hope that it will be debated shortly.
I understand that, following the introduction of new regulations, police officers facing disciplinary charges will be able to be legally represented. That is my present understanding of the matter, and I shall inform the House if that is not correct. As to the other questions that the right hon. Gentleman asks, I cannot add further to the answers that I have given.
Rev. William McCrea: In his statement today, the Secretary of State has brought no encouragement to the people of Northern Ireland. Will he accept that over the past months the majority of the population have been sickened by the manner in which the RUC, which obeyed its orders and carried out its duty, has been hounded to please a nest of Republican vipers? Will he accept that the RUC deserves the support of the House when carrying out its difficult duty facing a terrorist organisation, the IRA, which has brutally murdered its members and which continues to destroy young lives and homes in the Province?
Does the Secretary of State agree that it would assist the debate if most of the Opposition Members who have spoken, other than the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) who set himself apart from them in his remarks, had used their verbal powers to condemn the murderous scum of the IRA, which is bringing turmoil to the country, instead of using their verbal power against the Royal Ulster Constabulaory, which has suffered so much during those years of turmoil? Does the Secretary of State agree that my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Rev. I. Paisley), the leader of my party, stated a fact — that the four members of the RUC who were brought to court were cleared? Are they to be part of the disciplinary procedure, or will the court's decision stand?
Mr. King: As to the hon. Gentleman's last point—I apologise to the hon. Member for Antrim, North, whom

989
I did not address—it is correct to say that those four policemen were acquitted. I cannot go further as to against whom criminal charges may be brought. That is entirely a matter for Mr. Kelly and his colleague; rightly, I am not privy to those matters.
It is precisely to defeat the evil of the IRA, the INLA and other extremist organisations, from whichever side they come, that we must ensure that we achieve the highest level of support throughout the community for the work of the security forces and the RUC. We are entitled to expect the highest standards, which is why, when those high standards are not achieved and mistakes are made, they must be addressed. That is what I have sought to do in my statement today.
Mr. Seamus Mallon: Does the Secretary of State agree that many people will see his statement as a damning indictment of the leadership and direction of the RUC? Does he further agree that public confidence will not be restored, or the damage done to the process of justice ameliorated, unless the Chief Constable, assistant chief constable and deputy chief constable whom Mr. Stalker wanted to interview under criminal caution are removed from their positions in Northern Ireland?
Given that this police service required the involvement of people ranging from Sir Arthur Young, Sir Kenneth Newman, Chief Constable Drury, John Stalker, Colin Sampson, Mr. Charles McLachlan, Chief Constable Charles Kelly and other police officers who were brought over to investigate other instances, will the right hon. Gentleman further agree that it is time that there was a Chief Constable in charge of the RUC who could rule his force properly and with integrity, who would not need the involvement of policemen from this side of the Irish Sea?
Mr. King: When I listen to the hon. Gentleman, I sometimes get the impression that he is trying to imply that the events that we are discussing have occurred in the past year. He knows that these events occurred in 1982. He said that my statement is a damning indictment of the current leadership. I precisely paid tribute, as did Mr. Stalker, Mr. Sampson and Mr. McLachlan, to the changes and improvements that have been made and to the professionalism and integrity of the current RUC.
To be fair, the hon. Gentleman will be aware of the number of times that hon. Members representing constituencies in Northern Ireland have had reason to be grateful for the efforts of the RUC. I know of occasions when he has asked for help because he was worried about intimidation and invasions by thugs of parts of his constituency. The RUC has turned out on such occasions to protect people regardless of their religion or background.
Sir Eldon Griffiths: Will the Secretary of State confirm that, under the double jeopardy rule—which I, among others, negotiated with a Labour Home Secretary — the evidence brought against the police officers charged with murder, but who have been found innocent, will not be admissible for disciplinary purposes?
Will he acknowledge that Mr. Stalker, whatever else he did, was naive in failing to realise that undercover stories are sometimes essential to protect sources in intelligence gathering? As my right hon. Friend was present at St.
990
Anne's cathedral, when a memorial to 252 murdered police officers was unveiled, will he confirm that he is at one with the Primate of all Ireland, who said.
"Without the RUC, civilised life in this province would be impossible"?
Should we not consider that as the heart of the matter?
Mr. King: I believe that my hon. Friend is correct in his point about double jeopardy, but I should like to check that matter, and if I am not correct I shall so advise him.
In his second point, my hon. Friend mentioned undercover stories. The purpose of my statement — I sought to be franker with the House than has hitherto been the case with this matter—is to explain a dilemma. In the protection of sources of intelligence lives are at risk, and people seek to protect them in any way available to them, for the highest and most principled of purposes.
Having said that, there must come a time when that protection and those undercover stories are subject to accountability. My hon. Friend, who knows a lot about this matter, will have listened carefully to what I said about discussions between the DPP and the Chief Constable. At the end of the day, the DPP must be given full and accurate information. I think that I have said enough for the House to understand why some of these problems arose.
My hon. Friend rightly referred to that moving occasion at which a memorial to 250 members of the RUC was unveiled — the window that the Police Federation has had installed. It was the clearest reminder of what the archbishop said: that the whole community of Northern Ireland owes a massive debt to the members of the RUC, the UDR—both full-time and part-time — the security forces and all those in public positions, such as judges, who have helped to maintain civilised life in Northern Ireland.
Mr. Harold McCusker: Is the Secretary of State aware that the three incidents that were investigated occurred in what was my constituency? I support the Secretary of State in asking people to understand the circumstances of six years ago. Is the House aware that, in the previous 11 years, five of the six men who were shot and their associates — this is not intended in any way to excuse any wrongdoing—had murdered 222 people in my constituency, 42 of whom were policemen, 35 of whom were UDR men, over 20 of whom were innocent Catholics and the rest were regular soldiers —constituents of hon. Members—and Protestants? I ask hon. Members to understand that background, not to excuse wrongdoing but so that they may know the circumstances in which these people were operating.
May I ask the Secretary of State two simple questions? Are we to take it from the statement about over-specialisation that department E4A is being abolished? If so, can he tell us at what political level it was approved that members of E4A should be trained in speed, aggression and fire power by the SAS; and, having been trained, what were they expected to do? Secondly, can he tell us whether he uncovered the person in the security services, in his office or in the RUC who advised the special branch of the RUC to use the cover of the Official Secrets Act 1911 to convey to the men on the ground that national security was the basis upon which they could defend their wrongdoing? Has the Secretary of State uncovered the person who gave that advice, or does he expect us to believe that a middle-ranking police officer came up with the idea?
Mr. King: I think the whole House will have noted the opening remarks of the hon. Member and what occurred in his constituency, and will have gained an understanding of some of the pressures and appalling challenges that were faced by people in his constituency. The House will have noted that he was careful, correctly, to make it clear that in no sense was he condoning wrongdoing. I understand that five of the people who were killed were acknowledged members of terrorist groups—of course, that in no way condones any wrongdoing that may have occurred; the hon. Member put that on the record — and my understanding is that that information is correct.
The hon. Member was right to say that we must ensure that, if there was wrongdoing, there is a proper and full investigation. I cannot comment on any of the matters that he raised about E4A. I shall certainly not comment on the last point the hon. Member raised.
Mr. Jerry Hayes: Mr. Stalker claims that he was forced off the inquiry and out of office because of pressure by Ministers of the Crown. Will my right hon. Friend deny this? If so, will he make it clear to Mr. Stalker that this contemptible behaviour of touting his allegations and his book from town hall to town hall plays into the hands of the men of violence?
Mr. King: I have seen some suggestions; I do not think there has been a specific statement by Mr. Stalker. If there is uncertainty in the House, I am more than ready to make it clear that I am unaware of any truth in these suggestions.
From my point of view, the events in Manchester that led to the non-availability of Mr. Stalker were extremely inconvenient in relation to Northern Ireland. It meant greater delay and an interruption of the process of the inquiry. One did not need a crystal ball to know that there would be all the allegations that people have made about cover-up or conspiracy. It was profoundly annoying. We wanted an early resolution of the matter, but I constantly had to disappoint the House because of the interruptions and delays those problems caused.
Mr. Ken Maginnis: Does not the Secretary of State consider that the behaviour of Mr. Stalker was reprehensible in so far as he was, during his investigation and since his removal from the inquiry, engaged in a cynical exercise of self-promotion? Was Stalker being professional when, from May 1985, he communicated both his position and his prejudices on the issue on an almost daily basis to Michael Unger, the editor of the Manchester Evening News? Is it not a fact that he has, since then, turned the inquiry into a drama, an entertainment or even a farce, where fact cannot be differentiated from fiction?
Can we expect members of the RUC to get justice from something that he has trailed through the public domain for so long? Are the heads of middle-ranking officers now to be offered on a platter to placate Dublin's uncooperative and duplicitous politicians? When do the Government intend to stop toadying to terrorists and their apologists and remember, for example, the 195 people who have died in my constituency, with 168 of those cases remaining unsolved? When do the Government intend to remember the 150 people who have died in an escalating death toll since the Anglo-Irish Agreement was signed? Indeed, when do they intend to remember the 2,625 people who have died from terrorist violence?
Mr. King: On the hon. Member's first point, I have had the opportunity to study Mr. Stalker's draft final report on the matters within my responsibility. In that there is much excellent work. It is very unfortunate that there was, as everyone in Northern Ireland knew, a lack of confidence between Mr. Stalker and the RUC. I know that part of that undoubtedly derived from a feeling, justified or not, that an awful lot of the proceedings in Northern Ireland seemed to be appearing regularly in press bulletins. If the extracts of Mr. Unger's diary are correct, I find it difficult to understand how that could properly have taken place. I am concerned with the substance of the inquiry and to see what lessons are learnt from it.
In respect of the pursuit of terrorism, I believe more firmly than ever in my time as Secretary of State that the best hope for the end of terrorism is the carrying forward of the co-operation with the Irish Government which is starting to develop in cross-border security, as we have seen in the recent searches.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have to bear in mind, as I have already said, that a very important debate on ILEA is to follow and that there is great pressure to take part in it. I will allow questions on the statement for a further 10 minutes, but I propose to give preference to hon. Members who were not called on the statement on a broadly similar subject on Monday 25 January.
Mr. W. Benyon: Accepting the very nature of the alleged offences, and accepting everything that my right hon. Friend has announced today, but remembering that all these things happened way back in 1982, may I ask whether it is not essential to carry the Government in Dublin with us because, without their active co-operation, there is not a cat in hell's chance of defeating terrorism?
Mr. King: I certainly attach the greatest importance to that. I think I have given testament to that. The hours that I have spent in discussion with the Irish Government on these serious issues are evidence of that.
Mr. Roy Beggs: Cannot the Secretary of State, setting aside matters relating to 1982 which are under consideration, pay tribute without apology to the service given by the RUC and the security forces to all the citizens in Northern Ireland? Will he assure the House that RUC officers who carried out operational directions and anti-terrorist duties will not be sacrificed and persecuted to satisfy high-level, anti-Unionist agitation through the media, Republican prejudice and unwarranted interference from the Irish Republic and the representatives of that foreign Government? Will he agree that the shootand-kill policy and the bomb-and-murder campaign of the IRA, which have resulted in 252 police officers being murdered, the majority of which murders are unsolved, make it necessary in considering any future disciplinary action to take account of the circumstances that prevailed in 1982?
Mr. King: I have already paid clear tribute to the RUC, as have other right hon. and hon. Members. As to the position of anyone who may face disciplinary charges, I think the integrity of the chief constables who will be responsible for both stages of that process is the firmest assurance on the point the hon. Member makes.
Mr. Ian GowIs my right hon. Friend aware that it is not his wise and resolute statement this afternoon but the response of the Opposition Front Bench —very ill-judged—that will give encouragement to the IRA? Will my right hon. Friend consider again the answers that he gave earlier this afternoon? Does he recall that the preamble to the Anglo-Irish Agreement refers to the need for real co-operation between friendly neighbouring states to defeat terrorism? Is my right hon. Friend really telling the House that if members of the Garda — whether armed or unarmed, in uniform or in civilian clothes—should cross into the north in pursuit of terrorists he would lodge a complaint with Dublin?
Mr. King: On my hon. Friend's opening remarks, I found the response of the Opposition deeply disappointing and I understand entirely why my hon. Friend commented as he did. On the question of a member of the Garda crossing the border in pursuit of such an operation, it is absolutely essential that there is trust and understanding between the RUC and the Garda. What is not acceptable on either side is for these things to happen without warning and without co-operation. That must be understood on both sides.
Mr. Peter Archer: Will the Secretary of State now accept what some of us tried to say at the outset —that one cover-up leads inexorably to the next? Mr. Stalker finds senior police officers concealing the truth, so he in turn has to be silenced. If the boil is now finally to be lanced, would it not have been wiser, in the interests of everyone, to appoint investigators from outside the police force? Can the Secretary of State tell us which of the reports that he has mentioned this afternoon will be made public?
Mr. King: I have already made it clear to the House that the reports will not be published, for the reason that they contain a considerable amount of extremely sensitive information. What I have tried to do in my statement is to give the House the clearest picture of what is covered by the recommendations and the particular aspects of concern.
On the idea of Mr. Stalker being silenced, I sought to address that point. In the one independent study of this matter that I have seen, the conclusion of the writer is that there was no evidence whatever of an involvement in that way. The matters that arose in Manchester, as I said, I bitterly regret because they were extremely inconvenient.
Sir John Farr: Does my right hon. Friend accept that I find it difficult to support what he has had to say and to share his confidence that what he is doing will be anything other than detrimental to the RUC, which the House holds in great esteem? It seems to some Conservative Members not only that he is taking a step that will damage the RUC but that possibly prosecutions should be against people of a higher rank. On cross-border incursions, surely my right hon. Friend does not suggest that in a country divided by a border, in which families are divided by a border, it is anything other than good that plain-clothes policemen, off duty or on duty, should cross from south to north and from north to south as rapidly and frequently as possible.
Mr. King: My hon. Friend referred to the action that I am taking. The disciplinary matters are for the Chief Constable, and they are actions that he is taking. The
994
police authority is taking action, and it has clear responsibilities for the RUC and for the morale and good standing of the RUC. On my other announcements, my hon. Friend will have noted that Mr. McLachlan's recommendations have all been accepted in principle by the Chief Constable. They are working in the interests of a stronger and improved RUC in those respects.
I have nothing to add to my point about incursions.
Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: May I ask the Secretary of State a simple question? In view of the value set by Mr. McLachlan on the preservation of evidence — endorsed by the Secretary of State in his statement—was Mr. McLachlan made aware of what happened to the crucial tape of the events in the hay shed in which the boy Tighe was murdered in 1982?
Mr. King: Those matters have to do with the criminal investigation and not with the structure and organisation of the RUC, and that is the view that Mr. McLachlan took.
Mr. Richard Shepherd: A 16-year old boy was murdered—possibly murdered, I should say—the policemen lied to the court, and there is evidence of perversion of the course of justice. The Chief Constable — if we are to believe Mr. Stalker — for 18 months delayed the inquiry in respect of the tape and then told him that the transcript of the tape was destroyed. At the end of the day, what I cannot understand is how that can reflect well on British justice and the rule of law. Are not decisions such as this, which fudge the issue, more likely to detach Ulster from the United Kingdom?
Mr. King: The issues that my hon. Friend raises are germane to investigations into criminal proceedings and that matter is addressed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. My statement is concerned with discipline and the structure and organisation of the RUC, which are within my responsibilities.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Will the Secretary of State answer the question that I tabled last week, which he avoided answering? Does that tape exist? He knows the answer to that question.
Will he condemn West Yorkshire police who persist in smearing Mr. Stalker by issuing unofficial statements linking him with the murder of Sergeant Speed?
Mr. King: On the latter point, I have no information, and I am certainly not entering into arguments between two mainland police forces in this matter. The hon. Gentleman knows well that the first matter is for my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General.
Mr. Henry Bellingham: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, while the events of the past few weeks will undoubtedly damage Anglo-Irish relations in the short term, they make it more imperative than ever that we have a structure such as that provided by the Anglo-Irish Agreement which is a framework for sensible discussions between the two countries?
Mr. King: I very much agree with my hon. Friend, and I certainly believe that very strongly. We may not always agree, but we have a mechanism and a procedure under which discussions can take place. I welcome the comments of the Taoiseach in the Dail today making clear the Irish Government's position.
Mr. Jim Marshall: Will the Secretary of State accept that, despite the comments of Conservative Members, the Official Opposition wish to support and do, indeed, support the security forces in the Province in the fight against terrorism? However, in that fight we must above all be seen to be acting within the law. Opposition Members do, indeed, support the fight within the rule of law.
Does the Secretary of State accept that, if the RUC is to be successful not only in its fight against terrorism but in its fight against other forms of crime, it is essential that it should have the confidence and support of both communities in the Province? As the Secretary of State will accept, there has been a gain of confidence in the RUC among the Catholic community in the past few years. If we are to remove the damage that has been done by Stalker and the innuendo and rumour, it is essential that the ghosts of six years ago should be fully exorcised and that the disciplinary procedures are seen to be operated—it is to be hoped, within a relatively short period.
On extradition — a question that the Secretary of State raised — he accepted that the Republic has laid down certain rules and guidelines for the acceptance of extradition warrants from the United Kingdom. The Secretary of State accepted that those conditions existed and that it was correct for a foreign sovereign Government to place such conditions upon extradition warrants. If that is the view of the Secretary of State, will he ask—and inform—his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General to comply with those conditions, as that is the reason why extradition proceedings are not taking place?
On the matter raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), will the Secretary of State again take on board the need for a full day's debate on all these issues? We certainly do not accept that the three-hour debate on the emergency provisions legislation provides adequate time or scope for such a full debate.
Mr. King: The last matter is not one for me, but I think that the hon. Gentleman heard my earlier comments. I thank him for his opening remarks, which showed a balanced approach. I think that the whole House will be pleased to hear that support for the security forces and the comments on the importance of acting within the law and the need for the security forces to have the community's confidence and for disciplinary procedures to be seen to operate fairly and effectively.
996
On the hon. Gentleman's point about extradition, my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General is anxious for officials to meet to resolve the technical problems. We hope that it will be possible for that to happen soon, so that extradition can operate effectively.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am very sorry that it has not been possible to call those hon. Members who have been rising. I assure them that I have taken careful note of their names and that they will be given some preference when this matter is next debated.

Standing Committee Proceedings
Sir John Farr: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—
Mr. Speaker: I shall take the point of order.
Sir John Farr: I am grateful to you for accepting this point of order. I know that the correct procedure is for me to write to you but, in view of the urgent nature and importance of the matter and the implications to the House, I feel that I should give you notice orally before I send a letter—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Notice of what — a matter of privilege?
Sir John Farr: It relates to the proceedings this morning in Standing Committee C, when the Chairman recommended that I should—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry, but I cannot adjudicate on the Floor of the House on matters that have gone on in Standing Committee. If the hon. Member would like to write to me about the matter, I shall certainly consider what he says, but it cannot be raised on the Floor of the House now.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY 4 MARCH
Members successful in the ballot were:

Mr. Nigel Forman

Sir John Biggs-Davison

Mr. Jim Marshall

Grandparents (Adoption of Children)
4.52 pm
Mr. Ray Powell: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide legal rights to grandparents for the care or adoption of their grandchildren.
By this Bill, I seek to highlight the fact that the law on this matter, besides being most complicated, provides little legal right for the grandparents of children who are at the centre of care or custodial proceedings arising out of divorce, legal separation or death of the parents or where the children have been the subject of abuse in the matrimonial home.
My Bill will seek to correct a situation in the law that was recognised and partially corrected in 1978 when the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) commenced a campaign, erroneously called the "Grannies Charter", which led to extra clauses being inserted in the Domestic Proceedings and Magistrates' Courts Bill 1978. Those clauses allowed grandparents to apply to the courts for the right to see their grandchildren. The position in law was further recognised by the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Walters) when he introduced an amendment in 1986 to the Child Care Act 1980. I commend both hon. Members for their tireless efforts and all those whose speeches I have read on this subject. Indeed, I was pleasantly surprised at the extent of effort that has already been made. Nevertheless, the law as it stands provides little legal right for grandparents, for the most part, or for any other interested party, be that family, friend or neighbour.
The law should recognise that the grandparents, from time immemorial, have been regarded by all except the law as part and parcel of the family unit. It should recognise also that, like the children who are at the centre of access, care and adoption proceedings, the majority of grandparents are the innocent victims. The law should recognise and protect the close bond that develops between children and their grandparents.
Because the grandparents, when seeking access, care or adoption orders in the courts, are not treated as close family, as they should be, it leads to many distressing situations that neither they nor the children involved can understand. I should be the first to admit that the children's welfare must be of paramount importance and that there are times when the grandparents' suitability to look after young children is in question, but I know of cases when the grandparents' request for care or adoption has been turned down for the reason of age alone. I suppose that that is understandable in some cases, but it cannot be justified when the people who then become foster parents or guardians are older than the grandparents. That is totally unacceptable.
It is to be hoped that, by making the grandparents' legal position clearer in these circumstances, they will not be the subject of the sometimes unassailable and tyrannical treatment that is meted out to them by the employees of some social services departments. It is heartbreaking to read some of the letters that I have received from grandparents who have been at the receiving end of some of these caring services' decisions. Some people from social services seem to treat grandparents more like interfering strangers than loving members of a close family unit.
Even when grandparents seek access to their grandchildren — what could be more natural than a
998
loving grandmother or grandfather wishing to see her or his grandchild—things are not simple. There are many cases when grandparents have been denied this access by ex-sons-in-law or ex-daughters-in-law or, in some instances, sons or daughters, guardians or foster parents or even, dare I say, the social workers, who on occasions seem only too intent on destroying close family ties—for the good of the children, or so they purport.
I point out that, in the eyes of the law, there may be ex-husbands, ex-wives, ex-sons-in-law or ex-daughters-in-law, ex-fathers-in-law or ex-mothers-in-law, but there cannot be an ex-father or ex-mother, ex-son or ex-daughter or, indeed, an ex-grandparent or ex-grandchild. Blood binds these people together and blood ties cannot be broken by any laws. To attempt to do so is usually to cause great distress.
As I have already stated, the laws appertaining to children and young persons are complex and involve the law courts at many levels. Although I bring the Bill forward in an attempt to change the law for just one group involved, it would have been preferable if the Government had looked into the whole matter of child care laws and brought forward a major review. When debating this subject in the past, many hon. Members have advocated that a family court system should be set up to deal with the type of problems with which I have dealt.
I should like to place on record my deep indebtedness to the many grandparents who have taken the time to write to me on this subject. I am especially grateful to Mrs. Shirley Hefferman, the founder and organiser of POPET, the Parents of Parents' Eternal Triangle, for the wealth of information and help which she has so willingly provided. She has catalogued for the record 400 heartbreaking and emotive cases, some ending in suicide. I have no doubt that her efforts will be rewarded one day, and justice will be done.
There are 93,000 children in care today. An estimated 20,000 children are in care awaiting adoption. Most of them will still be in care at 16, and about 9,000 children are now in care in England and Wales because they have been deserted. Research shows that children in care for six months or more have only a one in four chance of returning to their natural families.
We have the Children Act 1975, the Domestic Proceedings and Magistrates' Court Act 1978, the Child Care Act 1980 and the Children and Young Persons (Amendment) Act 1986. Numerous other Acts cater for and cover child care, but it is essential that we examine the rights of grandparents. I believe that the Government have a duty and responsibility to reform all the laws on children and young persons. That will take time, effort and expense, but it is essential, if we are to give protection to children, that legal rights be given to people who are near and dear to them, so that they are afforded access to them, and the right to love and care for them. They should have the right to shower on the children the love and affection that children who have suffered through no fault of their own deserve.
Thousands of grandparents do not know where to turn when confronted with their grandchildren being taken into care. They should have the right to have their grandchildren before the social services take them into care and appoint guardians and foster parents for them. Most of the heartache I have been told about during the

999
past months could have been avoided if grandparents had been consulted at the start; in that way, the children that we seek to protect would have benefited.
Let this message go out loud and clear. Hon. Members care about the the plight and misfortune of children and parents—especially grandparents. We shall act to ensure that the law is just and fair and will be altered to protect and win further rights for thousands of heartbroken grandparents who are denied access to their grandchildren. My Bill will help all the thousands of grandparents in this terrible position who desperately want to give true love and understanding to their grandchildren. Theirs is such a pure, innocent, friendly, sexless type of real affection that it should not be denied to their grandchildren. The joy that that would give to grandparents can be clearly understood only by those who have experienced such a wonderful family bond.
For all these reasons, I ask the House to give me leave to bring in my Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Ray Powell, Mr. Don Dixon, Mr. Frank Haynes, Mr. Alfred Morris, Mr. Gareth Wardell, Mr. Sean Hughes, Mr. Stuart Bell, Mr. Barry Jones, Mr. Robert Litherland, Mr. Roy Hughes, Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse and Mr. Robert Wareing.

Grandparents (Adoption of Children)
  GRANDPARENTS (ADOPTION OF CHILDREN)
  Mr. Ray Powell accordingly presented a Bill to provide legal rights to grandparents for the care and adoption of their grandchildren; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon 22 April and to be printed. [Bill 98.]

Inner London Education Authority
5.5 pm
The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Kenneth Baker): I beg to move,
That this House notes that the Inner London Education Authority has combined profligate overspending with a persistent failure to raise standards of education in its schools; recognises the urgent need for improvements; welcomes the Government's proposals for the transfer of educational functions to the inner London councils in 1990 as the best means of building an education service of high quality for the people of inner London; and approves the decision to table amendments to the Education Reform Bill for this purpose.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I should tell the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition.
I should also tell the House that Mr. Speaker intends to give some preference during the debate to hon. Members representing seats in the Inner London education authority area.
Finally, Mr. Speaker has particularly asked me to appeal for brief contributions, as many right hon. and hon. Members want to take part in the debate.
Mr. Baker: The need to improve the quality of education in inner London is urgent. The contrast between ILEA's levels of expenditure and its mediocre performance is frankly scandalous, and ILEA has shown itself quite incapable of improving matters. There has been a growing view that our objective to raise standards in inner London would be best achieved by a single, orderly transfer of education functions. For that reason, on 4 February I announced the Government's intention to table amendments to wind up ILEA and to transfer education responsibilities to the inner London boroughs and the City of London from 1 April 1990; and I tabled those amendments yesterday.
The authority is so large, and its lines of responsibility so attenuated, that it has been very difficult to start the process of change in the classroom which is so necessary. In addition, those in control of the authority have been too intent on fighting battles peculiar to the London Labour party to get on with the job of improving education. The head teachers of inner London have not been given the support they need. ILEA lost one in seven of its head teachers in 1986. One of them said:
"Most of us fought like dogs to save the ILEA. We wouldn't cross the street to save it now."
Mr. Tony Banks rose—
Mr. Baker: I have just started; I shall give way later.
There has been weak political management, coupled with culpable extravagance. Let me remind the House of the levels of ILEA's spending in terms of unit costs. In the primary school, teaching staff costs for metropolitan districts average about £530 per child, for the outer-London boroughs, £590 and for ILEA £730. For primary support staff, the average for the metropolitan districts is £110, for the outer-London boroughs, £130, and for ILEA, £230. As for secondary school support staff costs, the average for the metropolitan districts is £120 per pupil, for the outer-London boroughs, £160, and for ILEA, more than twice that sum—£370. Or take central administration and inspection costs. The average for the

1001
metropolitan districts is £13 per head of population. The corresponding figure for the outer-London boroughs is £17. The figure for ILEA is £36.
How can one be happy with an education service in the capital city of our country in which the level of truancy has got worse over the past decade? In the final year of compulsory education, the truancy rate is almost 30 per cent. across ILEA as a whole, and much worse in some schools. More than 20 per cent. of young people leave school without any qualifications. Barely 15 per cent. of school leavers achieve five or more O-levels, or equivalent, and Her Majesty's inspectorate's assessment is that about 40 per cent. of classes in secondary schools are unsatisfactory or poor. I can do no better than quote the ILEA chairman, Neil Fletcher, who said in 1987:
"We have achieved little or nothing in educational terms this year."
Many would accept these criticisms, but argue that there should be more time for ILEA to turn the corner. That is a triumph of hope over experience. ILEA has had seven years in which to reform itself since my predecessor, my noble Friend Lord Carlisle, demanded that it set its house in order. It has not done so. Many of those outside ILEA's charmed circle believe that it is incapable of doing so. That is why the time has come for a new beginning, to rebuild the education service in inner London. I give way to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks).
Mr. Tony Banks: I cannot remember what I wanted to ask.
Mr. Baker: I am delighted that the hon. Member has been convinced by the argument.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The Secretary of State made great play about the cost of ancillary support in ILEA schools. Is it better to have a school secretary or a teacher typing out and duplicating material?
Mr. Baker: That is a daft intervention. By any standard, ILEA, in terms of both central administration and support staff, is extravagant. That is almost beyond debate. It is accepted.
Mr. Paddy Ashdown: I can perhaps make the intervention that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) sought to make. The Secretary of State said that head teachers were worried about the state of ILEA. Is he aware of the recent statement made by the London Head Teachers Association, a branch of the National Association of Head Teachers? It said:
"It is absolutely essential to emphasise … the need for a unified education service in Inner London."
How does he square that with what he said?
Mr. Baker: I am delighted that the hon. Member can at least speak for one person in the House other than himself, although I find the idea of him speaking for the hon. Member for Newham, North-West extraordinary. I have asked to see the various head teacher associations about this matter because they have expressed their views, and later I shall be sending out other invitations. I can square what the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) has said with what I have said. Many individual head teachers in London have clearly expressed the view that they do not wish to continue under ILEA.
Mr. Frank Dobson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Baker: Let me continue my speech. I will try to give way to as many Opposition Members as I can.
In our manifesto, we signalled the end of the unitary authority for the education service in inner London. As councils have taken advantage of the opportunity presented by that policy, many have also argued that it would be more sensible to have an orderly transfer of educational responsibilities, and this we have now accepted.
Mr. Jack Straw: The Secretary of State said that in the manifesto the Government signalled the end of ILEA. He knows that not to be the case. Why was it that he and other members of the Cabinet rejected the proposition from the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) that ILEA should be abolished? Why was that not included in the manifesto?
Mr. Baker: I answered that point a fortnight ago, but I am happy to answer it again. In the manifesto we clearly signalled the end of a unitary authority in London because we allowed London boroughs to opt out if they wished to do so. Because three London boroughs have already decided to do so and two others have also shown their interest in doing so—[HON. MEMBERS: "Which?"] Both boroughs have seen me about this. I am not including any of the Labour boroughs, but one happens to know through the gossip net — I never pay attention to the gossip net, and never adduce it as support for our policy — that certain other discussions have taken place and interest has been shown by some of the Labour boroughs. However, I do not wish to give credence to the gossip net.
Yesterday, we tabled amendments to the Education Reform Bill.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Secretary of State give way?
Mr. Baker: No. I do not intend to give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Yesterday we tabled amendments. Some are arguing that constitutionally a new Bill is needed. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) has argued this point. I have looked into this and there are precedents for what we are doing. For example, with the Labour Government's Industry Bill in 1975, which was under the guillotine, there was a supplementary timetable because an important part of it had to be redrafted to accommodate a major change in policy. On that occasion, the Government did not provide an extra day on the Floor of the House. When the amending guillotine motion was moved, the new clauses and amendments were not available to the House. It is absurd to claim that the Education Reform Bill, which clearly envisaged from the start the end of the unitary authority, should not be amended in this way.
Mr. Stuart Holland: As one of those who was responsible for drafting the Industry Bill in Government, I would be obliged to know what the right hon. Gentleman thinks the substantive part of that Bill concerned.
Mr. Baker: The Bill, as it was presented to the House, set out a voluntary process by which companies provided

1003
information to their employees, and the Government in which the hon. Gentleman served — or was he a civil servant at that time?
Mr. Holland: A civil servant.
Mr. Baker: The Government which the hon. Gentleman served in that capacity decided that voluntary powers were no longer necessary and changed them to compulsory powers. Therefore, there is a precedent for this procedure.
Mr. Holland: There is no comparison between those provisions of the Industry Bill and what the Minister is doing. A comparison would be if the Government, after introducing a Bill that did not include a major national holding company such as the National Enterprise Board, then sought to do so.
Mr. Baker: I regret that the hon. Gentleman thinks that a change from companies voluntarily providing information to the Government compelling them to do so is a minor matter. That view is not shared by the Conservative party.
In clause 115 of the Education Reform Bill, we set out the need for a residuary body in the circumstances of ILEA's abolition. We made it clear that that residuary body would be modelled upon the one that was set up for the abolition of the GLC. Thus, the principle of abolition was clearly envisaged in the Bill as it was presented to the House. What we are doing in the amendments introduced yesterday is specifying in more detail how this should be done.
Twenty-five clauses were added yesterday and nine have been dropped from the earlier Bill, so there is a net addition of 16. Of those 16, half relate to the London residuary body and the other half to the arrangements for the transfer of staff. It would have been irresponsible not to have specified in detail the arrangements we propose.
I come now to the details of the new clauses that will be before the Committee. In new clause 61 we shall require the inner-London councils to publish development plans. Each plan will provide a basis for local consultation and will offer local people an opportunity to comment to their councils.
I intend to issue statutory guidance as soon as possible after Royal Assent making clear the ground to be covered in those plans — for example, the boroughs' proposals for organising the transfer of responsibilities and the way they would implement them for primary, secondary, special and further education, including adult and continuing education, and for services such as the careers service and the youth service. We shall wish to pay particular attention to the administrative structure and arrangements for senior appointments. We intend to issue a draft of this guidance while the Bill is before Parliament so that we may take fully into account the views of interested organisations. I shall shortly be inviting ILEA and the leaders of all the inner-London boroughs to meetings with me and the unit that I have established in the Department to deal with this process.
One important aspect of these plans will be the property which the boroughs will need to inherit from ILEA to run their education service. The duties of the London residuary body will be extended to allow it to function as the residuary body for ILEA. It will have the task of disposing of assets which remain unallocated to local
1004
councils, and will be able to use the proceeds of these disposals for the purpose of paying staff compensation. It is our intention that part of the proceeds of the sale of county hall should be available for this purpose. The clause I have tabled will ensure that a proper distinction is made between the London residuary body's functions arising from the abolition of the GLC and those arising from the abolition of ILEA.
Mr. Tony Banks: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Baker: In a moment.
The hon. Members who are familiar with the arrangements following the GLC abolition will know that the London residuary body has taken on certain functions of the GLC to allow time for other arrangements to be made. A similar provision is included in the new clauses I tabled yesterday. I remind hon. Members that we propose to extend the life of the London residuary body to three years beyond the abolition of ILEA. This will allow sufficient time for any appropriate arrangements to be made.
Mr. Banks: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way and no doubt he is grateful to me that he can now have a drink of water. He answered one point about the extension of the life of the LRB. Is he aware that the LRB was aiming to wind itself up 12 months earlier than the statutory limit set down in the abolition Bill, and that, in anticipation, it has been getting rid of its staff? What will he do about getting more staff for it now that he plans to extend its life?
Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman follows these matters closely. The LRB has conducted its affairs exceptionally efficiently. The new clauses give it the additional functions of winding up the residual functions of ILEA. I have seen the chairman of the LRI3, Sir Godfrey Taylor, this morning and he is content with that particular role.
Mr. Banks: I am not surprised.
Mr. Baker: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to resign and offer his services in various capacities in inner London, I am sure that many will at least consider him, if not offer him something.
Eight of the clauses tabled yesterday relate to staff transfer and follow closely those arrangements established for the abolition of the GLC. They are designed to prevent any disruption to the education of children. [Interruption.] For that reason all ILEA staff working at individual schools and colleges at the date of abolition will transfer by order to the employment of the borough concerned. Those block transfer arrangements will cover well over 80 per cent. of ILEA staff.
For all recent local government reorganisations a staff commission has been set up. The work of the staff commission was greatly valued at the time of the abolition of the GLC. The clauses that I have tabled will provide for a staff commission with the same terms of reference as the one for the GLC.
The particular concern of the staff commission will be in relation to staff who are not transferred by order, namely those not linked to particular schools or colleges. Those include the staff in county hall and divisional offices, the direct labour organisation and the supplies organisation, as well as groups such as inspectors, youth and community personnel, educational psychologists,

1005
educational welfare officers and drivers. It may be that some of these staff will be transferred by order with the agreement of the relevant borough. In any event, individual boroughs will need to recruit staff in order to carry out their responsibilities as education authorities. The staff commission will give guidance to authorities about their arrangements for the recruitment of staff, encouraging them in the first instance to consider staff from ILEA. We want to ensure, so far as possible, that the store of experience which is available within the authority's staff continues to be used for the benefit of the education service in inner London.
Mr. Nigel Spearing rose—
Mr. Baker: I will give way in a moment.
Redundancy compensation will be available for those staff who are not offered a post by one of the boroughs, and detriment compensation will also be available, where appropriate, on the generous terms applying at the time of the abolition of the GLC.
Mr. Spearing: The Secretary of State has touched on a matter which runs contrary to what he said earlier. He talked about schools and colleges, but did he not say that there would be special arrangements for special schools and the whole of the 500,000 adult education structure? In what he has just said he is implying that the boroughs will be the prime employer. How does that square with what he said earlier?
Mr. Baker: In some cases the boroughs will want to take on the responsibilities exclusively, for example, on special education. In other areas they may wish to do so on a co-operative basis with the neighbouring borough. That is why I am inviting the leaders and chief executives of the London boroughs and ILEA to see me. What may be appropriate for one borough may not be appropriate for another.
The detriment arrangements will provide compensation for those who are recruited directly by local government employers but on lower salaries than they had been paid by the ILEA. The detriment compensation would offset the salary loss up to a maximum of £5,000 a year for up to seven years. Redundancy payments will be based on length of employment, with a special weighting for those over the age of 41.
Mr. Tony Banks: Will the Secretary of State give way?
Mr. Baker: No; I have given way twice to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Banks: Only once.
Mr. Baker: Twice. The hon. Gentleman missed his other chance.
Let me make it clear that the fundamental principle of our proposals is that each borough should become the LEA for its area. Under the Education Act 1944 I have the power to require authorities to set up joint education committees for particular aspects of their service, where I believe that this would be of benefit. Less formal cooperative arrangements are also available. The Government have not decided which, if any, aspects of the education service in inner London might need to be treated in this way. We shall naturally be looking carefully at this question, but we believe that this is a matter on which the
1006
views of the inner-London boroughs and of organisations and others with an interest in education should be taken fully into account.
Mr. Simon Hughes: If consultative arrangements did not produce an agreement to share resources, can the Secretary of State honestly say to the House now that he is satisfied that boroughs which he has often criticised, such as mine in Southwark, are competent to run education for the children of Southwark? That has never been his view. Is it now his view?
Mr. Baker: I find it extraordinary that a Liberal Member makes that point. A closely neighbouring borough, Tower Hamlets, where the Liberals are in charge, has expressed considerable interest in running its education authority. What is right for the Liberals in Tower Hamlets does not seem right for the Labour party in the rest of inner London.
To answer the hon. Gentleman directly, there are various safeguards. There is the whole process of publishing the development plans and all the discussions that go into that. We shall be particularly concerned with the administrative structure that will be set up by each borough to administer the local education service. There is the possibility of co-operative arrangements and already there are signs of interest in them in certain areas. There are safeguards in the Education Reform Bill in that while this will be happening we shall introduce the national curriculum, so it will not be possible to distort the curriculum for political reasons. There will be more open enrolment. The Liberal party broadly supports all of those. There will be a greater choice for parents. There will be improvements in financial delegation and heads will have much greater authority. There will be the opportunity for schools to opt out. The ultimate safeguard, which will no doubt please the hon. Gentleman because he is a democrat in all these matters, is that there will be borough elections in May 1990. Local councils will have to go to their electorate with their proposals for the education service in their area and by then they will be independent LEAs.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Until I was elected in June 1 was an education officer with an outer-London borough. Is my right hon. Friend aware that we had good inter-borough relationships with other boroughs and with the shire counties for special education? Clearly, individual boroughs cannot provide the complete range of special education that is necessary.
Mr. Baker: I am glad of my hon. Friend's confirmation of that. There is a great deal of co-operation on special education within inner London and between inner London and the rest of London. It is likely that there will be a large amount of that in future. The services cannot always be duplicated.
Mr. Brian Sedgemore rose—
Mr. Derek Fatchett rose—
Mr. Baker: Many hon. Members wish to speak, including those who represent inner-London constituencies, so I must press ahead.
Mr. Fatchett rose—
Mr. Baker: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I shall continue. He will have his chance later if he wishes to speak.
I should like to say something about the financial implications of our proposals. Opposition Members continue to spread scare stories about the rich boroughs gaining and the poorer boroughs being left destitute, but that simply fails to recognise the effect of the new arrangements for local government finance from 1990. Under the new financing arrangements each inner-London borough will get a standard share of the unified business rate and a revenue support grant based on an assessment of its need. That assessment will include allowance for socio-economic factors. It will take account of special needs and deprivation. The balance of funding will come from the community charge, although in the early years there will be dual running with domestic rates and safety net arrangements to assist the transition for community charge payers in the inner-London boroughs.
From 1 April 1990, therefore, all inner-London boroughs will get a needs grant which will take account of their individual circumstances. Part of that grant will be based on an assessment of education need, including such factors as the number of pupils and students and a measure of additional educational needs reflecting the socio-economic circumstances of the area. The Government will naturally be consulting on the detailed arrangements with the local authority associations.
Mr. Corbyn rose—
Ms. Joan Ruddock rose—
Mr. Baker: No, I will not give way.
The result will be to allocate resources to boroughs according to their needs, which is what ILEA claims that it does currently with the resources that it distributes centrally. The Government recognise that the boroughs are likely to inherit high-cost provision from ILEA because it is such a high-spending authority.
There are powers in the Local Government Finance Bill, currently before the House, to cap community charges. Those powers will allow my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to distinguish between different categories of authority when determining the criteria for selection. The inner-London boroughs will form one of those categories and this will enable my right hon. Friend to consider their particular circumstances. In addition, we are considering whether any special transitional measures for community charge capping might be desirable in the case of the inner-London boroughs. That means that, by the time of the borough elections in May 1990, each inner-London borough will have assumed education responsibilities.
Their education policies will be a central part of those elections and that is how it should be. Behind all the arrangements, supporting and buttressing them, will be the Government's radical proposals to improve the quality of education throughout the country. All the policies which I have already mentioned and which are part of the Education Reform Bill—the national curriculum, open enrolment, financial delegation and the power of schools to opt out—will, of course, apply to inner London.
We now have an opportunity for a new beginning. The leaders of the Labour councils in inner London, for all their huffing and puffing, recognise that. In a letter to The Independent on 9 February they wrote:
"The uncertainty has now come to an end."
1008
I welcome that recognition. I remember only too well that false hopes about what would happen in the House of Lords over the Greater London council abolition Bill meant that the Labour boroughs started very late in the day to plan for transfer. That delay was damaging for them. Three boroughs are now well advanced in their planning. Westminster has already appointed a shadow chief education officer—a former senior official of ILEA. Preliminary work and discussions have taken place in another two boroughs. It is in the best interests of everybody, for ILEA and the Labour boroughs, to cooperate now in planning the transfer. I hope that all the boroughs will use the two years available to the full and that they will enter into discussions jointly with my Department to achieve orderly and beneficial change in the interests of parents, staff and children—particularly the children.
What we are doing is to give local councils and local people the opportunity to improve London's education service, and to create schools and colleges of which we can be proud. I commend the motion to the House.
5.32 pm
Mr. Jack Straw: I beg to move, to leave out from "notes" to the end of the Question and tc add instead thereof:
"that successive reviews under the present Administration have concluded that the educational needs of inner London are best served by a unitary authority; salutes the Inner London Education Authority for its achievements in maintaining and improving educational standards and opportunities; and condemns Her Majesty's Government's about-turn in deciding to break up the Inner London Education Authority, a decision without mandate or popular support and one which will put educational standards and provision in inner London at serious risk."
The Government are led by a Prime Minister who has made an obsession of constancy and never turning back or turning round. This afternoon's motion asks us to approve a Government U-turn that is so complete that it wholly contradicts what was said by Ministers on Second Reading of the Education Reform Bill. Indeed, the U-turn is so sudden that it contradicts the settled line taken by the Government as late as the end of January. It is so hasty that the crucial detail of what we are being asked to approve was not tabled until last night, in 23 clauses and a host of amendments, in what amounts to a medium-sized new Bill.
In his speech this afternoon, as in his statement on 4 February, the Secretary of State has stretched credibility to breaking point by asking us to believe that there is no significant difference between the policy that we are now invited to approve and that which the House approved on Second Reading on 1 December 1987. The Government's new policy is to break up ILEA. The Secretary of State tried to suggest that that was the same policy on which the election was fought, by which ILEA was to be retained. He claims that it is all part of the same continuum or, to put it in the Secretary of State's words, that the U-turn for the destruction of ILEA was somehow "signalled" or "flagged" in the election manifesto in June 1987, which explicitly provided for ILEA's continuance.
If the Secretary of State knows what was in the June 1987 manifesto, he must know that his current claim is sheer baloney. There is not a word, dot or comma in that manifesto about the abolition of ILEA. All that was said

1009
about ILEA concerned allowing boroughs, in strictly defined circumstances, to opt out of ILEA. The manifesto said:
"In the area covered by the Inner London Education Authority, where entire borough councils"—
one assumes that that means that it is the unanimous view of a borough council—
"wish to become independent of the ILEA, they will be able to submit proposals to the Secretary of State requesting permission to take over the provision of education within their boundaries."
That pledge was contained in the Bill, debated on Second Reading less than 11 weeks ago, and in the speeches made by Ministers on that occasion. On Second Reading the Secretary of State went out of his way to play down any disruption that might follow in the wake of any individual borough applying to opt out. He said:
"I shall need to be satisfied that the borough has a full plan covering every aspect of the education service for its area … no borough can opt out of ILEA without specific parliamentary approval."
As ever, it is to the Secretary of State's deputy, the Minister of State, to whom we are truly indebted. When she replied to the debate, she went much further. She went out of her way to distinguish between the Government's proposals, which, at most, would have ensured that no more than four boroughs would have opted out leaving the majority of ILEA intact, and the policy that was then being urged upon the Government by the right hon. Members for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) and for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit). In answer to those two right hon. Gentlemen specifically the Minister, with the Secretary of State at her side, said:
"the Government's aim is to improve both the quality and cost-effectiveness of education in inner London. That would not be achieved at this stage by imposing educational responsibilities on unwilling boroughs."—
[Official Report,l December 1987; Vol. 123, c. 780–856.]
That was the clear view of the Secretary of State and of the Minister. Perhaps the Secretary of State can tell me how that view is consistent with the view that he has now enunciated to the House. I defy him to do so.
Mr. Michael Heseltine rose—
Mr. Straw: Ah! The real Secretary of State is here, the man who makes the decisions. Of course I will give way to him.
Mr. Heseltine: Does the hon. Gentleman not recognise that my right hon. Friend belongs to the listening party? Having listened to the arguments, he has come to the right judgment.
Mr. Straw: I recognise only too well that the right hon. Member for Henley has rolled over the Secretary of State and forced the U-turn upon the Government. I am extremely glad of his confirmation of that, but it was not the line adopted by the Secretary of State.
The Secretary of State would have us believe that there is no difference between the decision adopted on 1 December and that adopted today. How odd it is that today the Secretary of State made no reference, at any stage, to the speeches of the right hon. Members for Henley and for Chingford or the early-day motion to which those right hon. Gentlemen were such proud signatories and which was the only cause of the subsequent policy change.
Mr. John Maples: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that the steps that the Government have taken are so wrong, how does he square that with the views of the immediate past chief education officer of ILEA and a former deputy education officer of that authority, that if four boroughs were allowed to opt out it would be better to abolish ILEA now?
Mr. Straw: I square that by giving the view of Mr. Stubbs who believes that ILEA should never be abolished either by allowing individual boroughs to opt out or by its complete dismemberment.
The settled policy of the Government was based not only on the policy enunciated on 1 December. In a detailed press notice issued on 21 January 1988—less than two weeks before the Secretary of State's statement today—the Home Secretary set out the new electoral arrangements for the Inner London education authority. That set out in detail the new arrangements that would be operated for the ILEA elections to take place in 1990. Yet, less than two weeks later, the Secretary of State had to stand on his head and tell the House and the country that improving the quality and cost-effectiveness of education in inner London would, after all, be achieved by imposing education responsibilities upon unwilling boroughs—the exact opposite of what the House was told just 11 weeks ago.
For such an extraordinary change in policy—that is what it manifestly is — we might be forgiven for expecting a clear or detailed explanation to be offered by the Secretary of State, but, as we heard from his tawdry, lacklustre speech, none whatever was forthcoming—
Mr. Tony Marlow: It says it here.
Mr. Straw: No, it does not say that at all.
The real explanation has nothing to do with the needs of London's children and everything to do with the private enterprise of the right hon. Member for Henley and his Siamese twin the right hon. Member for Chingford. Where is the right hon. Member for Chingford, given the close interest that he has claimed to take in the future of London's education and given the articles that he has written excoriating inner London education?
Mr. Dobson: He is mending telephones for BT.
Mr. Straw: I think that I do both the right hon. Members for Henley and for Chingford no disservice if I say that, in the past, neither has been known as a byword for educational enlightenment. In fairness to both right hon. Members, we can say that in the past their ignorance of ILEA and its work has been matched by a humble public silence. For instance, the right hon. Member for Henley wrote a book fewer than 10 months ago entitled, "Where There's a Will." I understand that the right hon. Member for Chingford is not here because he is earning an honest copper writing a slim volume for British Telecom entitled, "Telephone Boxes in Working Order."
Mr. Corbyn: Will my hon. Friend confirm or deny that the book written by the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) is already remaindered at Waterloo station?
Mr. Straw: If the section on education is anything to go by, which is the only chapter that I managed to read, I am not surprised.

1011
The right hon. Member for Henley devoted a Fabian-leaning chapter in "Where There's a Will" to "Education, Investing in the Future." But in the whole of that chapter —and in the whole book—there is not a single word about the abolition of ILEA. That is the issue that the right hon. Gentleman now regards as of paramount importance above all others in British politics, yet 10 months ago he wrote not a single word about it in his book, which offered the most detailed prescriptions for all the country's woes, and many that we did not even know were woes at all.
As was all too apparent in the statement two weeks ago, for the right hon. Members for Henley and for Chingford the issue of ILEA's future is all a bit of a lark—an occasion, as the right hon. Member for Henley described it, for a "couple of likely lads" — the right hon. Gentleman's words, not mine—to mess about with the education of 270,000 pupils as if it were an expendable plaything.
The ignorance and irresponsibility of those two right hon. Members may just be excusable as neither of them holds high office any longer; but, if there is any excuse for them, there can be no excuse for the ignorance and irresponsibility of the Secretary of State. By his supine decision to roll over and order the break-up of ILEA, he has shown himself to be an unworthy guardian of the needs and interests of London's children and students and to be blind to inner London's achievements.
I am not surprised about the Secretary of State's ignorance. He has been Secretary of State for nearly two years; yet, according to an answer that he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), in the whole of that time he has managed to visit just one ILEA school, which was a voluntarily-aided Roman Catholic school. In the whole time that the right hon. Gentleman has been Secretary of State, he has not visited a single county primary, voluntary-aided primary, voluntary-controlled primary or county secondary school in the whole of ILEA. Yet, on the basis of total ignorance, he believes that he can make judgments on the future of 270,000 pupils and students, about which he knows virtually nothing.
Mr. Martin Flannery: My hon. Friend might remember that in Committee the other day I was talking about visiting schools, and the Secretary of State lectured me, telling me that it was about time I visited a few schools. He said that, having visited just one Catholic school in ILEA. What a nerve!
Mr. Straw: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It proves the point that the Secretary of State has never been willing to allow the facts to interfere with his ignorance about ILEA.
Mr. David Evennett: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that ILEA has been a great educational success?
Mr. Straw: Yes; and if the hon. Gentleman wishes to listen, I shall quote from a report by Her Majesty's inspectors, which the Secretary of State has sought to suppress from the House.
During the statement two weeks ago, the Secretary of State made much play with selective quotations from reports on ILEA schools by the inspectorate. I asked him from which reports he was quoting, to which the Secretary of State replied:
1012
"These are very recent reports. I shall make them available."—[Official Report, 4 February 1988; Vol. 126, c. 1182.]
I asked the right hon. Gentleman what reports he was referring to and whether he would specify all the reports that had been written on ILEA. The right hon. Gentleman fudged the issue. I have checked in the Library which reports he made available. No report on ILEA has been made available since the right hon. Gentleman made his statement. Indeed, the most recent report that has been made available was in respect of an inspection on Clapton school for girls, dated 28 October to 1 November 1985 —two and a half years ago.
Mr. Kenneth Baker: The hon. Gentleman referred to the published reports on ILEA by the HMI. All the reports are now published and made publicly available. When I quoted, I quoted from publicly available reports. I shall take no lectures from any member of the Labour party about the publication of reports because, while the Labour Government were in office, they did not publish one report.
Mr. Straw: The decision to publish HMI reports was taken by the then Sir Keith Joseph—a decision that we applaud—and no thanks to the Secretary of State. If the right hon. Gentleman is trying to preen himself on his record of publication, perhaps he will say why, in the answer that he gave me, he made no reference to the report by his senior chief inspector on the future of ILEA, dated 2 February. It was sent to me by a well-wisher. It gives a completely different picture from that which the Secretary of State has tried to paint.
Today the Secretary of State said:
"ILEA has shown itself quite incapable of improving matters."
The motion describes ILEA as a profligate overspender
"with a persistent failure to raise standards of education".
Mr. John Marshall: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Straw: I shall give way in a moment.
Let me read to the Secretary of State what the report says about the authority that has apparently failed to raise standards. On primary education, it says:
"The ILEA's provision for the under-fives is among the best in the country".
On primary, post-nursery education, the report says:
"overall the quality of ILEA's primary schools is similar to that found generally in the country."
On non-advanced further education, the report says:
"Standards of provision and work are generally good and in some cases excellent. In our recent national survey on non-advanced further education, the proportion of good work seen in ILEA's colleges was significantly higher than that of the country as a whole."
Is that an example of an authority with a persistent failure to raise standards of education?
Mr. John Marshall rose—
Mr. Anthony Coombs rose—
Mr. Straw: I shall give way in a moment.
On adult and continuing education, the report says:
"overall ILEA's adult education is a first-rate service in every respect … Most of the work seen is judged excellent or good".
On youth service, the report states:
"Overall the quality of youth work and provision is good but there are examples of poor standards in practice … That said youth work in the ILEA has to deal with some of the most difficult situations in the country: in Brixton, in Tower

1013
Hamlets and in Soho and the West End where it is concerned with homeless drifting young people, not only from London —often involved with drugs."
On special education, the report states:
"The ILEA makes complex and extensive provision for the full range of special needs and puts particular emphasis on catering for special needs in ordinary schools".
The report is critical of ILEA's secondary schools. It says:
"Secondary education in the ILEA is generally rather poor though there are a few schools of high quality, mainly in the voluntary sector … Pupils taking public examinations at 16 in the ILEA do less well in absolute terms than do their counterparts from maintained schools in England as a whole".
Her Majesty's senior chief inspector wrote to the Secretary of State:
"When the results are statistically adjusted for socioeconomic factors the ILEA appears to perform up to expectations."
Just to deal with the central part of the case that was made by the Secretary of State, which is that ILEA has been incapable of improving itself and that it has persistently failed to raise educational standards, I shall quote paragraph 6 on page 8 of the senior chief inspector's report. It states:
"Whatever its"—
ILEA's—
"previous shortcomings, over the past two or three years there has been a marked move towards the improvement of quality, notably through an increase in inspection and in school improvement strategies arising from the findings of inspection as well as from the policies of the authority. In fact there are clear signs that the findings of inspection are beginning to have an influence on the formulation of policy in the Inner London Education Authority."
Of seven services analysed in the report, four are described as good, two are described as average, and one is described as poor. The one that is described as poor is also described as getting a great deal better. I ask the Secretary of State whether the report was made available to the Cabinet and the Cabinet Committee when the Cabinet decided to dismember ILEA, as the right hon. Member for Henley has wished.
Mr. Kenneth Baker: It is not a report; it is a confidential minute to me from the senior chief inspector. In the course of each month, I receive many such reports on a variety of different matters. The hon. Gentleman said that it came into his hands through a well-wisher. We should like to know who the well-wisher is, because it is a leaked document. The paper that is attached to it is not a separate report; it is a summary of all the independent reports that have been published. They are public documents and are available. The hon. Gentleman quoted selectively from it. I remind him of the grave concern about secondary education that that minute conveyed to me. The hon. Gentleman said that secondary education is a matter of concern. It is a matter of grave concern when the figures come out and 40 per cent. of lessons are judged to be unsatisfactory or poor.
Mr. Straw: I quoted from that document, but the Secretary of State knows that I quoted the next paragraph also, saying:
"When the results are statistically adjusted for socioeconomic factors the ILEA appears to perform up to expectations".
1014
Above all, I quoted from the section showing that, according to the senior chief inspector, standards in ILEA are rising and the authority has been doing a great deal to ensure an increase in standards.
Mr. John Marshall: How does the hon. Gentleman square his comment about ILEA with those of Mr. Neil Fletcher a year ago? Writing to members of his own Labour group, he said:
"We have achieved little or nothing in educational terms this year."
Prior to that, he said:
"Parents believe the schools are now out of control. Their heads have largely adopted a bunker mentality, believing things are going to get worse before they get better."
Surely Mr. Neil Fletcher knows the facts of the situation, and the hon. Gentleman should accept them.
Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman does well to read from the Conservative Central Office brief a quotation that the Secretary of State has used about three times. The important thing about that quotation, as Mr. Neil Fletcher has made clear in a long letter to the Secretary of State this afternoon, is that it was taken completely out of context.
Mr. Richard Tracey: On the point about secondary schools, is the hon. Gentleman aware that, within ILEA, there are facts showing that there are 83 totally empty secondary school classrooms, that 20 per cent. more pupils are leaving the ILEA area and 20 per cent. fewer are going into it? Parents are particularly concerned about secondary education. That is the crux of the matter. The hon. Gentleman does the House a disservice by ignoring it.
Mr. Straw: As ever, the hon. Gentleman is wrong. Every day there is a net importation into ILEA of 3,000 pupils, including 300 from Barnet.
Mr. Marlow rose—
Mr. Straw: I shall not give way. If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I must get on and finish my speech.
It is not only the inspectorate that has praised the performance of ILEA, but, for example, the Confederation of British Industry and leading industrial-ists. One of the many good things that ILEA has done has been to establish the London business compact. According to The Times Educational Supplement,
"Some of Britain's top industrialists are praising the authority for breaking new ground in collaboration with employers.
Sir David Steel, former BP chairman, says that the scheme is a long-term policy for the good of the country."
The Secretary of State mutters under his breath that that will continue, but he is placing at serious risk all the good things that ILEA has done.
Mr. Marlow: The hon. Gentleman has launched a full-frontal assault on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I am glad, but not surprised, that my right hon. Friend is totally undamaged by it. Having launched his assault, will the hon. Gentleman tell the House whether it is the policy of the Labour party to reinstate ILEA at a later stage?
Mr. Straw: It is the policy of the Labour party to fight for the continuance of ILEA and to ensure that this obnoxious proposal is overturned in the House of Lords when it is debated there. Unlike the Conservative party,

1015
the Labour party has democratic procedures for deciding the future of its manifesto. It will not be written on the back of an envelope and then torn up a few weeks later.
The Secretary of State referred to ILEA's examination results. A great attempt has been made by Conservative Members to use crude examination figures, suggesting that ILEA is near the bottom of the league table. The right hon. Member for Henley may well try to do that, but, as he will know, that is as absurd as seeking to compare the examination results of Eton college with those of an inner-urban school in adjacent Slough. Her Majesty's inspectors accept, as does anyone who studies the matter, that examination results must be offset by reference to pupils' socio-economic backgrounds. When that is done, ILEA's performance turns out to be average or above average. It was above average—almost exactly the same as for Oxfordshire and well above that for the right hon. Member for Chingford's Waltham Forest—when it was controlled by the alliance of Liberals and Conservatives. According to the Sheffield university league table, ILEA came 56th. According to the Department of Education and Science's own statistical bulletin, No. 13 of 1984, ILEA was placed 45th—somewhere below Oxfordshire, but miles above Waltham Forest at 86th.
Mr. Kenneth Baker: Before the hon. Gentleman concludes his reference to exam results, on the undoctored results, ILEA comes bottom of the list. I would not quote those figures. When the list was published, it came close to the bottom. It was 86th. I shall not base my argument upon that. The hon. Gentleman said that if we allow for socio-economic factors, it comes about halfway down the list—about 56th or so. I accept that if we allow for socio-economic factors. I have always said that, and I have said it repeatedly. But the point is that ILEA comes halfway down the list. When we consider education results and costs, it is number one. It is the cost-effectiveness of ILEA that is the gravest indictment against it.
Mr. Straw: I was about to refer to costs. Ten authorities were below ILEA. It was not bottom of the league. It is typical of the Secretary of State not to have the details at his fingertips, to make a point, and then to say that he is not making that point. It is absolutely typical of the shoddy way in which he seeks to treat the House.
Mr. Elliot Morley: Is my hon. Friend aware that, on the adjusted results of two analyses, the Conservative-controlled boroughs of Bexley and Bromley had worse examination results than ILEA in the Sheffield university study and the Department of Education and Science's own analysis of examination results, adjusted for socio-economic factors? Does that mean that the Secretary of State will abolish Bexley and Bromley because their results are worse than ILEA's?
Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend has made a crucial point. As ILEA is by no means the least cost-effective authority, will the Secretary of State use his axe on other authorities, including many Conservative authorities, and say that, if they fall below a particular standard, they, too, will be abolished, or that their educational responsibilities will be handed over to authorities which have no mandate for them and do not want them?
I shall now deal with the issue of costs, which the Secretary of State has just raised. First, there will be higher costs for running any service in the centre of a capital city,
1016
but the Secretary of State tries to close his eyes to that argument. All capital city services cost more— indeed, that is true of private sector organisations such as banks and insurance companies. That is why so many have moved their administrations out of the capital. Evidently, that would not be available to a London-based service. That fact is also true of the Health Service and of social services. Per head the social services costs of Westminster city council, which is Conservative-controlled, are three times those of boroughs outside London, and in many cases Westminster's costs are much higher than those of other inner-London boroughs.
Above all, that fact is true of the Metropolitan police —[HON. MEMBERS: "Give us the figures, Jack."] Indeed, I shall give the figures. Of course, the Metropolitan police force—any city police force—has responsibilities for terrorism, diplomatic protection and fraud simply by being a capital city and such responsibilities are not encountered elsewhere. If those are taken into account, a malign Secretary of State could easily say of the Metropolitan police force, "Here we have a police:Force which has continued profligate overspending and shown a persistent failure to raise standards."
The crime rate of the Metropolitan police area is only marginally above that of the Greater Manchester police and Merseyside areas. However, the clear-up rate for the Metropolitan police is one third that of Merseyside or Greater Manchester. For every 12 crimes that are cleared up per police officer in Greater Manchester and every 13 that are cleared up in Merseyside, only four crimes are cleared up per police officer in London.
When we consider overall costs, those of the Metropolitan police are more than twice as high as those of other authorities. The cost per police officer in the Metropolitan area, at £35,000, is 1·4 times higher than that for England as a whole; the cost of civilians is 3·2 times higher; the cost of premises is twice as high; and the cost of catering four times as high. Will the Secretary of State use those figures to tell us that, on the basis of that persistent failure to improve standards, the Metropolitan police should be handed over to the London boroughs, because that is the clear conclusion of that argument?
Secondly, ILEA has had to pay heavily for a stable teacher force. This afternoon the Secretary of State tried to make much of the fact that one in seven head teachers has left the service in the past year. That argument was completely confounded when it was pointed out to the Secretary of State that both the Secondary Heads Association and the London branch of the National Association of Head Teachers have completely damned his proposals for dismembering ILEA.
It is a self-evident truth that the cost of living in London is much greater than the cost of living elsewhere. The response of private sector employers is to pay what the market will allow, but, because of the Remuneration of Teachers Act 1965, that option is not available to any individual education authority. Therefore, what ILEA has had to do—and what it has done over the past 14 years —is to improve the conditions of service facing teachers in its schools. It has reduced pupil-teacher ratios to make a more congenial working environment. It has greatly expanded in-service training and support. It has increased non-teaching assistance. It has used its ability as a unitary authority to move teachers to the least popular areas—

1017
for example, Tower Hamlets and Hackney—and to give teachers in those areas support which they could not possibly achieve in an individual borough.
Moreover, ILEA's high level of spending has benefited the outer-London boroughs in terms of training, support, curriculum and development. ILEA has subsidised the outer-London boroughs and the rest of the country. Indeed, my third point relates to the volume of provision. ILEA covers 5 per cent. of the population, but accounts for 18 per cent. of all adult education provision and 25 per cent. of this country's youth provision. That is a question not of profligacy but of democratic choice by the electors of London. London, and London alone, has paid for that choice, and for five years not a penny has been forthcoming from central Government. Those decisions have been made by Londoners for Londoners, and the Government have not paid a single penny for them.
The Secretary of State should say whether he wants that provision to be cut. Conservative Members should say whether they want that because their electors, living in the rest of the south-east, often make great use of adult education provision that is paid for by the inner-London ratepayers. Their electors benefit from the youth service provisions. The Secretary of State should say whether he wants that youth provision cut. He should also say whether the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis wants that provision cut, with all its consequences for the crime rate. He should say whether he wants adult education provision cut because, if he does not, he will never achieve the level of savings that he is now seeking.
As I said on Second Reading, it is not easy to bring the charge of consistency against the Secretary of State. However, as he admitted on "Newsnight" two weeks ago, he can claim an unremitting hostility to ILEA ever since the authority closed the St. Marylebone grammar school for boys in 1977. Like all hon. Members, I understand the strong feelings that school closures engender. There is no doubt about the Secretary of State's feelings about that closure, even though ILEA, the then Secretary of State and the governors of the school, who proposed not a closure but a reorganisation and a merger with another school, would have a different story to tell. Whatever the merits of that decision, anger about it is a wholly inadequate reason, 11 years later, for running a vendetta against ILEA and for placing London's education service at such serious risk.
The case for a single unitary authority has been examined with considerable thoroughness four times during the past 10 years. Lord Marshall, then vice-chairman of the Conservative party, conducted an inquiry —[Interruption.] I am glad that the right hon. Member for Chingford regards this issue as so important that an hour into the debate he has deigned to show his presence.
Lord Marshall, then the vice-chairman of the Conservative party, conducted an inquiry in 1978 and concluded in favour of a single authority. His comments on the flimsy recommendations of the Secretary of State when, as a Back Bencher, he produced a report on an ILEA break-up were:
"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."
1018
The Secretary of State's 1980 views were rejected root and branch by the then Secretary of State, Mr. Mark Carlisle, as they were later by his successor, Sir Keith Joseph. In his statement to the House on 5 April 1984, Sir Keith Joseph stated:
"Those whom we consulted, in particular those Members of the House and others with a close understanding of the needs of inner London, were overwhelmingly in favour of a directly elected authority. We have been persuaded by their arguments. The nature, scale and importance of the education service in inner London, taken together, justify a directly elected authority in this special case."—[Official Report, 5 April 1984; Vol. 57, c. 1124.]
On Second Reading of the Local Government Bill, in December 1984, Sir Keith Joseph explained his reasons:
"We came to that conclusion"—
the conclusion to have a single unitary authority—
"because there is so much movement across borough boundaries by London children and students that to break up ILEA would mean a very big departure indeed from current practice. We therefore decided to keep a unitary authority" —[Official Report, 3 December 1984; Vol. 69, c. 127.]
I ask the Secretary of State again: have those movements across borough boundaries suddenly ceased in the past four weeks? Of course not. In the most densely populated part of Britain, the case for a single unitary education authority remains as strong as ever. It was that case that persuaded Lord Whitelaw, the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister to reject the proposals of the right hon. Member for Chingford when he was chairman of the Conservative party in the run-up to the election and to keep the core of ILEA intact.
As a single unitary authority, ILEA has been able to take resources from where they were most available—the City, Westminster and the southern part of Camden and to use them where they were most needed—in many parts of inner London. ILEA has been the single most important agency for equalising opportunities across our great city. That, plus the fact that the electors have consistently placed their confidence in the Labour party to deliver that service, is what lies behind the desperation of the Conservative party now to abolish the authority—an act which The Financial Times of 8 February 1988 described as one of "political spite."
In his statement on 4 February, the Secretary of State said that the Government
"attach paramount importance to improving the quality of education received by inner London's children."—[Official Report, 4 February 1988; Vol. 126, c. 1179.]
Given the Government's record on ILEA and its prospects, those words will be regarded as unctuous and hollow by those who run London's education service and by those who use it. Given the personal assault that the Secretary of State has made upon London's education service, the wonder is not that standards could be better, but that the service has survived at all. The authority has been rate-capped for the past three years with the Secretary of State in complete control of is budget and, if he chose to exercise it, of its manpower.
It does not lie with the Secretary of State to complain about profligacy or overspending. The Secretary of State has set the budget and he has had the power to set the manpower for ILEA for each of the past three years. This year, the Secretary of State, who claims to be so concerned about education standards in London, is seeking to ensure that there is a cut of £100 million in ILEA's budget. ILEA is to be evicted from the headquarters that it has occupied since 1922. In an act wilfully designed to destabilise the authority, and demoralise the staff, the Secretary of State

1019
engineered to poach ILEA's chief officer for a position for which Parliament had not even given approval. Now, in the interests—as he says—of higher standards, the Secretary of State is to dismantle the London service and pass it over to individual boroughs.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) explained, in the exchanges on the statement, that it is a supreme irony that the Government, after years of mindless abuse of London boroughs, should hold up the councils as paradigms of administrative virtue, ready and willing to do the Secretary of State's bidding.
I have made it clear that the Labour party, unlike this Government, will not play politics with other people's children—[Interruption.] Every decision that we make will be taken with only one interest in mind—that of London's children. The simple reality is that London boroughs face social and economic problems on a scale almost without parallel in the rest of the United Kingdom. The boroughs in greatest need are rate-capped. No council has a mandate to run education, and all the councils will face, as the Secretary of State made clear, additional upheaval that will coincide with the transfers involved in the Secretary of State's other inventions—namely, the introduction of the poll tax and the uniform business rate.
Is it any wonder that the morale of staff in schools, colleges or administration will plummet? Is it any wonder that good people—possibly the best people—will follow the example set by the Secretary of State and Mr. Stubbs and seek to further their careers elsewhere? Is it any wonder that the positive progress to raise standards, which has followed the Hargreave and Thomas reports and which was well documented in the minute from the senior chief inspector, may be stopped in its tracks and that the view of many sober observers is that London will be lucky if standards of education and administration remain intact between now and any transfer in 1990?
No wonder the HMI report to the Secretary of State damned the policy. It stated that the question whether the shift to the boroughs would lead to higher or lower standards was "an open question." Is it any wonder that the respected editor of The Times Educational Supplement, Mr. Stuart Maclure, believes that education standards may be damaged for five years or that the Conservative Education Association has dismissed the proposals as "essentially spiteful and negative"?
The Secretary of State is taking a massive gamble with the education of other people's children through his decision to abolish ILEA. He would not take that gamble with his own children. If the education of 270,000 children is put at risk and damaged, the responsibility will lie not with the parents, the boroughs, the teachers or ILEA, but with the Secretary of State.
The Secretary of State sought today, as he did on 4 February, to take comfort from the relative ease, as he claimed, with which the transfer of the GLC to other bodies took place two years ago. On 4 February he said:
"when I was dealing with the abolition of the GLC I was constantly told that the London boroughs could not do it." —[Official Report, 4 February 1988; Vol. 126, c. 1184.]
Again the Secretary of State re-writes history. The fact is that the London boroughs did not do it. The abolition of the GLC involved only minimal devolution of services to the boroughs. The overwhelming majority were kept intact. Only the administrative arrangements for overall political control were changed.
1020
The Secretary of State deludes himself if he believes that the abolition of the GLC provides any easy parallel for the problems that he is forcing on the boroughs. For example, London Transport was not split up and handed over to the boroughs. It was nationalised and placed under central control. The fire service was not handed over to the boroughs. It was kept intact and made subject to a joint board. Arts provision was transferred to the South Bank board and the Arts Council. Indeed, ILEA took on many central services at considerable expense. For example, it took on architects and the provision of supplies that it had previously obtained from the GLC. Of the 42 major functions that were transferred, 32 —or 75 per cent.—were not transferred to the boroughs. All the major services were transferred to joint boards or quangos.
Once the GLC had lost housing and transport, it did not run any personal service. There is no more direct or personal service than education. The parallel with the abolition of the GLC, as the Secretary of State is aware, is nonsense. In his statement on 4 February and in his speech today, he betrayed his own nervousness and lack of conviction that what he is doing is right when, by his own admission, he said that many of ILEA's services, including perhaps adult further special education, cannot be run properly by the boroughs and will need cross-borough joint board arrangements. I am sure that he will discover that such arrangements will be needed for schools in many of the boroughs.
No Education Minister in recent years has made more of the rhetoric of parent power than the Secretary of State. We were told that great consultations were held on the details of his education proposals, including proposals for the future of ILEA. There were promises that the Government would only proceed by "broad agreement". However, the proposals that we are considering today have not been submitted to any test of popular will. They have not been tested by a general election, borough election or by-election. If the Secretary of State means what he says about parent power, will he back the London Parent Governors' suggestion for a consultative ballot on the proposals? Or is the truth that, like everything else the Secretary of State professes to believing, his subscription to parent power is just skin deep and that the clear views of parents are to be cast aside whenever they get in the way of the leviathan of the Secretary of State?
Unless the Secretary of State is very lucky or very careful—or both—the only political epitaph that he will earn is "this man wrecked London's education". The proposals are without a mandate, without popular support and without reason. They will place the education of 270,000 children seriously at risk. The proposals must be opposed in the Lobby tonight.
Mr. Speaker: Before I call the first of the Back-Bench speakers, may I say that there is great pressure on this debate. When we previously debated this subject, many hon. Members were disappointed because of the length of speeches. I appeal for brief speeches today.
6.16 pm
Mr. Michael Heseltine: Everyone who has listened to the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) will have recognised a fluency of delivery, a recollection of statistics and a reference to quotation that one would expect from someone so deeply immersed in the subject. That is what we would expect from a former deputy leader

1021
of ILEA. He has covered the ground thoroughly from the point of view that he represents. His right hon. and hon. Friends would acknowledge that he has made a formidable and even overwhelming and unanswerable case. However, there is a small lacuna in his argument. When my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) asked whether the logic of the overwhelming case was that ILEA would be restored by the Labour party if it ever came to government, there was no answer.
Ms. Hilary Armstrong: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Heseltine: The reality is known to us all. We know that many people behind the hon. Member for Blackburn in the Labour party know that the Government's decision is right and—
Ms. Armstrong: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Heseltine: They will welcome that precisely as they welcomed the break up—
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is not giving way. He has only just started to speak.
Mr. Heseltine: They will welcome that precisely as they welcomed the break-up of the GLC and the metropolitan counties. There is no way in which the Labour party will restore ILEA, the GLC or the metropolitan counties because Labour Members know that power concentrated in unitary authorities in urban districts is the most effective way to achieve accountability and the effective management of services.
Mr. Straw: The right hon. Gentleman knows, for the reasons that I have explained, that it is impossible to give a commitment about what will be contained in a Labour party manifesto four years before a general election. However, if it is any comfort to him, I believe that the case for a unitary education authority for inner London is unassailable and I will argue that with great conviction when we come to discuss what should be in the manifesto.
Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman knows that the Labour party is making commitments left, right and centre about all manner of national policy without let or hindrance. Yet when it comes to a real decision about real education, Labour Members cannot make up their minds what to do.
Ms. Armstrong: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Heseltine: No, I shall not give way.
No one participating in a debate about the education of London's children disputes the gravity of the problem. The issue is not about the scale of the problem; it is about the right way to address the solution. I hope to argue that, in getting rid of ILEA—a move on which, naturally, I congratulate my right hon. Friend—the Government have a unique opportunity that will not only provide a framework within which to address the educational problems of inner London but, equally important, lay the foundations for a far more relevant and effective framework for London's inner administrative local government services.
1022
I share, as must everyone, my right hon. Friend's judgments about the overspending and misuse of ILEA's resources, and about the inadequacy of results. I must add, however, that in urging the end of ILEA I recognise—as did my right hon. Friend—the value of much of the contribution that has been, and is being, made by those who work for ILEA, Whichever route my right hon. Friend adopts, as he has made clear, the majority of teachers and administrators who work in the new structure will in practice be the same as those currently employed by ILEA. In all that we do and discuss in the House, it would be as well to remember that. There is no great untapped reservoir of talent to which we can turn to man London's education system.
Mr. Tony Banks: Does not the right hon. Gentleman recognise that many teachers are attracted into ILEA because of the resources available and the professional standards, and that they will not necessarily be interested in going into the boroughs and will therefore go elsewhere?
Mr. Heseltine: I understand the argument about teachers being attracted in, but I am equally aware of the larger argument about their being attracted out. That is the heart of the problem. Part of the difficulty that we face is the crisis of recruitment and retention of good teachers in inner London, and a huge trans-London authority, which, far from providing a means to an easier solution, has actually made the solution more difficult.
Mr. Ashdown: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Heseltine: No. Mr. Speaker has clearly asked us not to take longer than is necessary. There has been a huge number of interruptions, and time has gone very fast; so, if the House will forgive me, I shall not give way.
ILEA's policy of trying to attract teachers by widening the support services for them has neither solved the shortage nor improved the education standards. Having said that, however, I do not believe that education standards will be addressed as long as a small minority of teachers can hold back the efforts of the large majority by hiding behind the virtual impossibility of removing teachers from posts for which they are not suited. That, of course, is a problem that affects our education service nationally, and not just in London.
In approaching the issue of ILEA, the first question we must deal with is the proper role of central Government. No one in the House seeks to transfer to central Government all responsibility for the day-to-day running of state sector schools, but what is at the heart of my right hon. Friend's legislation—and rightly so—is the belief that central Government must recognise, openly and more directly, their responsibility for the standards of education. That is not in any way inconsistent with a delegation of wider responsibility and choice to parents, teachers and governors locally. They should play—[Interruption.]
Mr. Holland: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Heseltine: No. [Interruption] I have made it quite clear that I shall not give way.
The essence of the Government's case, which I strongly support, is that all the people involved locally —teachers, governors and parents—should play a bigger role in the provision of education, while the Secretary of State plays a bigger role in insisting on the standards of education. The Opposition ignore at their peril the wide demand in the nation for people locally to play a much

1023
bigger part in the life that they lead and the services that they enjoy. It is at the heart of the Government's policy to build on that instinct.
Mr. Corbyn: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Heseltine: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Corbyn: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, throughout ILEA, every parents' organisation is opposed to the break-up? Polls of every school show that parents are opposed to it, and to the effect that it will have on their particular schools. Will not the right hon. Gentleman agree to abide by the results of the parents' poll, which will almost certainly show an overwhelming majority against the break-up of ILEA?
Mr. Heseltine: I find it fascinating that, if there is such overwhelming public support, the party that is prepared to adopt any issue with a populist ring about it is not even prepared to give a commitment to restore ILEA when it has the chance.
The essential difference between the two sides of the House is that Conservative Members are trying to remove power from the centre and to put it into the hands of the people of this country. To make that possible, the Government are rightly insisting on the need for a basic curriculum, with much tougher testing and inspection. But teachers and heads will take over the management of their schools, and governors, and especially parents, will take on new responsibilities. There will be a greater variety of provision, within the state sector. The prospects now exist—as it is very desirable that they should—for city technology colleges, opted-out state schools and open enrolment, all of which will increase the discretion and accountability of parents for the education of their children. That educational provison will take place in a far more rigorously monitored and competitive environment.
I believe that the House will overwhelmingly support my right hon. Friend in seeing this as the right balance between a range of choice in the provision of education driven by local authority power, parental power, industrial power and teacher power and the workings, in partnership with those interests, of a central Government who see it as their duty to insist on and promote higher standards. Central Government should not—and our Government do not seek to—administer the institutions themselves, but they point to the need to place the power as close as possible to the people, and they argue the need to create local authority organisations that are effective and accountable.
The next stage of the debate must be to discuss the role of local government. It is as much the responsibility of central Government to ensure that local authorities are able to carry out their responsibilities effectively as it is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend to insist on proper education standards. Indeed, my right hon. Friend cannot properly carry out his specific education responsibility if the Government of whom he is a member fail to ensure that local authorities are capable of administering all the other local authority services.
That brings us to the heart of the ILEA debate. I have always been appalled by the argument that ILEA is essential because the inner London boroughs are not capable of administering an education service. If they are not capable—[Interruption.] It has been widely said,
1024
and is one of the most significant arguments used to defend ILEA, that the inner London boroughs cannot be trusted. I find that argument wholly unacceptable.
Mr. Tracey: Does my right hon. Friend find it interesting that the one report that the Labour party does not mention, the report by the only independent commission on London's government, the Herbert Commission, said quite categorically that education should be in the hands of the inner London boroughs and not in the hands of a unitary authority?
Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend makes the point very clearly.
There has been wide debate about ILEA for a long time, and one of the arguments always produced to defend it is that one cannot trust the inner London boroughs. That is a totally unacceptable argument. If those inner London boroughs are too small, too badly managed, too short of resources and too politically extreme, the logic is that we should not tolerate the mismanagement of inner London's housing, planning, refuse collection, social services, urban regeneration and a host of other services. That is the logic of the argument that says that the inner London boroughs are not up to being education authorities.
Within a year we shall face exactly the same debate that is now taking place over ILEA when, one hopes, the Griffiths report recommends the transfer of large parts of community care from the central Health Service to local government. Again we shall have to face the problem that these same London boroughs will be deemed inadequate for their widened opportunities.
In working with my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) to persuade the Government to go down the path that we are debating, I attach considerable priority to the need to persuade the Government not just to end ILEA but, more important, to address the issue of the fundamental weakness of some of the inner London boroughs. Those boroughs are not unimportant or incidental to our national life. They have too much power, affect the lives of too many people, determine the quality of too many public services, operate too ineffectively and waste too much public money for it to be any longer tolerable for central Government to wash their hands of the quality of the services that those boroughs provide.
Central Government should insist upon three fundamental changes. First, they should insist on the break-up of ILEA and the Griffiths report should be seen as a unique opportunity to establish powerful and effective local authorities in inner London. To achieve this, central Government must positively assert their determination as a partner in the endeavour, both by insisting on quality within the services and by demanding value for money for the taxpayers' funds upon which those authorities totally depend.
The Government must address the arguments about the size of these authorities. If they are too small and too weak they should be joined together, not by joint boards that will simply gloss over the structural weakness, but by the fusion of two or more of the authorities.
Next, central Government should insist that each authority has a proper management structure and that the posts within the structure are filled. For example, it is quite unacceptable that today neither Camden nor Lambeth have directors of finance. I see no objection in principle to

1025
legislature changes to bring the practices in local government into line with those of central Government. We could make councillors responsible for the proper discharge of local authority functions, including the recruitment of qualified officials.
Mr. Dobson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is not a Second Reading debate, but a debate on a motion that refers exclusively to the Inner London education authority. Many Opposition Members wonder whether it is in order for the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) to crowd them out by taking up the time that they want to devote to talking about inner London's children. Rather, we are having to listen to speeches that are clearly bids for the leadership of the Tory party.
Mr. Speaker: I called the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) and it is in order for any hon. Member to speak if he is called by the Chair. But he might bear in mind that time is getting on.
Mr. Heseltine: It is perfectly legitimate to be sure, when one is taking a major stand by breaking up the Inner London education authority, that one is responsible in speaking about the authorities to which its powers are to be transferred. It is not enough for the House simply to say that it will break up that education authority and leave a range of weak authorities to which it will be transferred. It is at the heart of our responsibility to ensure that we do this job effectively.
As I have said, I see no objection in principle to legislative changes to bring the practices in local government into line with those in central Government. We could make councillors responsible for the proper discharge of local authority functions, including the recruitment of qualified officials. It would be a simple step for the Audit Commission to have to satisfy itself that the proper steps to ensure the recruitment of the appropriate officials had been taken. No central Government Minister can ignore the power of the accounting officers in his Department, the Comptroller and Auditor General or the Public Accounts Committee. I have no doubt that if we brought into line the responsibilities of local government to fill the posts upon which adequate services depend, it would be a significant change.
I realise the problems of recruiting people to inner London boroughs, and I see no objection at all to making arrangements for specific grants from central Government to help underprivileged authorities in the recruitment of appropriate, experienced staff. It follows that the local authorities cannot be permitted to frustrate the proper appointment of executives of quality and experience in order to conform to the whim of serried ranks of committees that examine the qualities of people applying for official jobs against a whole range of standards about their approach to racism or sexism or whatever it may be, but which have nothing whatever to do with their ability to keep the financial records of the authorities.
Finally, we must make it clear to the handful of local authorities seeking confrontation that central Government is not without alternatives in this matter. Increasingly, central Government, waking up to their latent responsibilities, are insisting on a wider choice of instruments for the provision of public services. The housing associations now provide competition for local
1026
authority housing departments. Urban development corporations can provide a rival means of securing urban regeneration. The need for local authorities to put their services out to competitive tender ensures a much more thrusting quest for value for money.
In all these things, local authorities are finding that central Government are insisting upon quality of service. There is no reason why, in coming to arrangements for the distribution of taxpayers' funds, central Government should not insist upon a specific agreement with individual local authorities about the way in which those funds will be used and the quality of services that will be delivered. There is no question that if central Government took a more positive role in the distribution of funds, many authorities would queue up to get a larger share of the available resources. Local authorities have a perfectly legitimate choice. They can decide whether they want to administer the funds that the taxpayer contributes or whether they are content to see central Government distribute those funds to other agencies that will deliver the quality and the value for money for which the Secretary of State is calling.
The essence of the debate is that the House has to make a simple judgment. It is whether we are prepared to place our trust in the concept of powerful inner-London authorities. Frankly, very few of those authorities merit such trust. Year after year the House has diverted taxpayers' funds to those authorities without insisting upon the quality of the services that they should deliver. That is an abdication of the responsibility of Parliament. If the Government now grasp the opportunities to create powerful and responsible authorities, the demise of ILEA will be viewed with as little concern as the demise of the GLC and the metropolitan counties.
6.39 pm
Mr. Peter Shore: It was right that the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) should be called early in the debate because he is the co-architect and author of this proposal to abolish ILEA. It was interesting to contrast the assurance of his speech, which was based on ignorance, with the diffidence of the Secretary of State, whose speech was based on some knowledge. Clearly, one cannot afford to be so cavalier if one knows something about the needs of inner London and the problems with which the children and people there are faced.
The right hon. Member tried to turn the debate and this vandalistic proposal, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) described it, into a defence of local democracy. I must say I find that rich. If the right hon. Gentleman had any faith in democracy, he would have backed the proposal for a test of democratic opinion before ILEA was abolished. As he must know, ILEA is unique among education authorities because it is composed of directly elected members who have no other function. They are there because people have voted for them to conduct ILEA's affairs. So much for the advance of democracy.
What the right hon. Gentleman said about strengthening the functions and capabilities of small inner-London boroughs so that they can take on these functions was impertinent. When the right hon. Gentleman was Secretary of State for the Environment he did more than anyone else to weaken and undermine the resources available to inner-London boroughs. He began the process

1027
of taking away major planning functions from London boroughs. That was most evident in the docklands area, where he set up the London Docklands development corporation to take power away from the boroughs that he so deeply distrusted. That same right hon. Gentleman reduced, almost to desperation, the funds available for housing programmes and other services in inner London. We do not need to take the right hon. Gentleman very seriously.
We must confront the arguments and proposals put forward by the Secretary of State, who has now left the Chamber and run for cover. He has failed to produce, as my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) showed, a serious or argued case for the demolition of ILEA or for the transfer of its functions to 12 inner-London boroughs. I do not think that he even tried. He seems to be content in the knowledge that he has more troops than us, even though the strength of his vote in the Lobby will be in inverse ratio to the strength of the argument that he advanced.
As an inner-London Member of Parliament, what fills me with disgust—my hon. Friends will share these feelings—is that the educational future and life chances of 280,000 children have been put at risk. Until what is being done can be undone, they and succeeding cohorts of the young will be grievously disadvantaged by what the Government are doing.
The Government have sought to base their case, as they did last Wednesday, on what they call—the motion says this in so many words—
"the persistent failure to raise standards of education in its schools"
and the alleged "profligate overspending" of ILEA. To advance that case, the Secretary of State has done a hatchet job on ILEA. When he quoted the only piece of evidence available to him—that ILEA ranks 86th among LEAs in the league table—he had not even the basic intellectual honesty—he knows better than to use crude examination statistics to prove a point—to place it in the context of the other serious adjusted studies of educational performance that have been published twice by Sheffield university and which are available from other sources.
I know of no serious educationist who would claim that crude examination results are a valid test of the value and quality of an education service. The fact that the borough of Harrow performs two or three times better than ILEA says more about the social background and class composition of the Harrow population than it does about the quality of education in that borough.
It is simply illiterate to attempt to judge one authority against another by examination results without taking into account the social background of its pupils. I am particularly aware of that—I wish that the Secretary of State was present to hear this—as no fewer than 44 per cent. of pupils attending schools in Tower Hamlets are from Bengali families. Bengali is their mother tongue, and a substantial proportion of pupils in schools in that borough came to the United Kingdom only in the past 10 years. It is not serious to make a comparison between examination results at 0-level of pupils in my borough with those who are resident in Harrow, Bromley, Bexley or elsewhere.
The Secretary of State knows very well—we willingly concede this point—that ILEA's performance, while certainly capable of improvement, does not justify its
1028
annihilation. The Guardian was good enough to inform us that the Secretary of State received a 12-page report less than a fortnight ago, from which my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn quoted earlier, from Mr. Eric Bolton, who is his senior chief inspector. The burden of what the chief inspector said has been put to the House, but I shall quote two points because they are relevant to the argument that I am advancing that a case against ILEA cannot be based on crude examination results.
Mr. Bolton said:
"The ILEA, covering as it does the whole of Central London, has to confront a range of social problems, including large-scale homelessness, whose concentration and severity make for what is generally accepted as a unique combination of difficulties."
He notes—this is directly relevant to the Secretary of State's use of crude examination statistics—that when ILEA's examination results at 16 years are statistically adjusted for socio-economic factors, it
"appears to perform up to expectation."
If that is a case for getting rid of ILEA, I cannot recognise it in the language and report of the Secretary of State's senior inspector.
The Secretary of State put forward a second and equally spurious reason for getting rid of ILEA the high cost of education in inner London. I need make only two points because my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn gave the House the truth of the matter when he drew attention to the obvious high cost of all services in inner London—not only those in the public sector, but those in the private sector. Many institutions and companies have had to leave inner London because the costs are so high or because they have difficulty in recruiting people of adequate capability to perform the services that they require.
When the Minister, on 4 February, first presented his statement of intent to abolish ILEA I asked him how he could possibly justify the transfer of education to inner-London boroughs when he and all his colleagues, including the Prime Minister, have nothing but contempt for the administrative capacity and political judgment of the authorities concerned. The Government have decided that inner-London authorities are not competent to run their housing services—hence the Housing Bill. Many other services must be compulsorily put out to tender in the private sector because councils are not thought to be capable of running them properly. The Government have decided that rates decisions should be taken out of their hands—in many cases by rate capping—and decided by ministerial order.
In reply to my question, the Secretary of State made the simple debating point that he was surprised that I and other inner-London Members had so little confidence in our local Labour councils. The answer to that is twofold. First, it is not Labour Members of Parliament but Ministers who have shown their complete lack of confidence in and their contempt for inner-London councils. Secondly, the progressive and massive cuts in Government grant aid for local government services and for housing in the inner-London boroughs have resulted in falling standards of service and increasing inefficiency in administration.
It is against this background of continued stringency that the Government propose in just over two years that each of the inner London boroughs should set up a separate administration for the provision of education services. Apart from the fact that we are to have 12 mini

1029
education administrations where only one existed previously—anyone who thinks that will be cheaper will have another think coming—the crucial factor will be the amount of money that is made available to the individual boroughs.
Under the inner-London equalisation scheme, the rich boroughs—the City of Westminster, the City of London, Camden, Kensington and Chelsea —contributed heavily to education expenditure in the poor boroughs such as Hackney, Tower Hamlets, Southwark, Lambeth, Islington, Hammersmith, Greenwich and the rest. Just how important that cross-subsidisation is can be illustrated by my borough of Tower Hamlets. We contribute £40 million in precept to ILEA. We receive in ILEA expenditure some £70 million. Even today, in spite of the substantial pooling of resources that ILEA can undertake, we are nearing crisis in the shortage of teachers and in the lack of primary school places in Tower Hamlets. We are short of 100 primary teachers. We are in the middle of a population explosion, which will mean that the school population will have virtually doubled between 1982 and 1992. A large-scale £16 million building programme for new primary schools is under way. I do not believe that Tower Hamlets will receive from the Secretary of State direct funding of its education service on the scale that it undoubtedly needs.
No doubt the Secretary of State will consider that our special needs are simply evidence of extravagance and overspending, because that has been the Government's whole approach to the question of need and expenditure from the moment they took office. Wherever they have seen above-average expenditure, they have assumed that the cause is profligacy and waste, whereas we have always assumed, rightly, that it is an indicator of greater need. All the social studies that have been made illustrate that we are right and they are not.
In Tower Hamlets, we have not a Labour but a Liberal council. Among its other innovations, in a period of enormous financial stringency it is pushing through a programme of far-reaching decentralisation. Nearly all the borough services will soon be provided, not from the town hall in Patriot square, but from several mini town halls which are being constructed and serviced at great cost. They out-democrat even the right hon. Member for Henley. The chaos in our borough is such that it is literally inconceivable that an adequate education service can be established in two years' time. All this must be well known to the Secretary of State. If not, he should have a word with his colleague, the Secretary of State for the Environment, who will brief him on the state of administration in Tower Hamlets.
Let me read to the House the views of one of our headmistresses, Sue Gilman, who runs the Cannon Barnet primary school in Spitalfields, where all but one of the 300-odd children are Bengali:
"It is already difficult persuading young teachers to stay in Tower Hamlets because of high rents and house prices. But many are attracted by the range of facilities, the scope for promotion, the in-service training that only an organisation the size of ILEA can offer. Children suffer terribly when there is a high turnover of staff and I fear the problem will get much worse if Tower Hamlets is left to recruit its own teachers."
The House and the country should know that the abolition of ILEA has nothing to do with the alleged quest for higher standards of education, for improved
1030
administration or for the necessary reduction of over-costly education services. It was not in the Government's manifesto. It was explicitly rejected by the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor, Sir Keith Joseph. It has not been recommended by any serious impartial group of educationists or academics. It is solely the result of Back-Bench Conservative pressure, led by the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) and the right hon. Member for Henley. Neither of them has had any experience in ILEA. Both are motivated by a crude political desire to punish what they consider to be a wayward, Left authority.
To give in to such pressure is not the way to make serious decisions about the educational future of 280,000 London schoolchildren. It is indeed a recipe for chaos and a disaster for the young people of Tower Hamlets and many young people in other London boroughs.
6.55 pm
Mr. John Maples: What is interesting about the two speeches from the Opposition Benches so far is that one would think there was nothing wrong with education in inner London. Apart from a passing reference by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) to a little problem with secondary education, as though that was a peripheral activity of ILEA, one would have thought that there was nothing wrong with it.
The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) said that the Secretary of State was putting at risk the life chances of the 280,000 children in ILEA. If those children's life chances have been put at risk over the last two years, it has been, first, by the obsession of ILEA with politics, and, secondly, by the incessant strikes which have been promoted, encouraged and comforted at every turn by his party. If anything has damaged the children's chances, it is the strikes that have been taking place in the schools over the last few years.
I will not try to pretend that everything about ILEA is bad. It is not. There are some good things about ILEA.—[Interruption.] It would have been interesting if the right hon. Gentleman had confessed some of the bad things. There are certainly some good things about ILEA. There has been a good deal of deathbed repentance in the last year since its continued existence has been under threat and its leadership has changed.
However, there are many bad things to do with the standards that have been achieved, the expectations that are made of children and the amount of money that has been spent on achieving relatively little. Today I received a letter from a constituent whose daughter is at an ILEA primary school in the constituency. She says:
"I am seriously thinking of putting my 74½-year-old daughter into private education. In the 2½ years that she has been in school she has not learnt anything. She learnt more in the private kindergarten when she was aged between 2½ and 4½."
[Interruption.] May I make my speech? Opposition Members will get an opportunity to speak later.
Among the quotations by the hon. Member for Blackburn it would have been interesting to hear him mention Mr. Neil Fletcher, the leader of ILEA, who said that the education service was in chaos and had achieved nothing in educational terms. It would have been interesting to hear a quote from the report of Her Majesty's inspectorate, which said that, after attending 200 ILEA science lessons, the inspectorate rated 40 per

1031
cent. as less than satisfactory and 15 per cent. as appallingly bad. It would have been interesting to hear the hon. Member compare the unit cost of pupil-teacher ratios with Brent. I agree that it is not fair to compare ILEA with Harrow or Barnet, but I think it is reasonable to compare it with Brent. There are similar social conditions; the pupil-teacher ratios are almost the same. Brent achieved slightly better unadjusted examination results. The ILEA unit cost of educating a child at secondary school is one third more than the unit cost in Brent, and it does not even succeed in achieving as much.
The Sheffield study has been widely quoted. For all the money that it has spent, ILEA comes at No. 56 out of 96, after adjustment for social factors. That is hardly the sort of performance that one would have thought was justified by the expenditure. The Sheffield study makes two noticeable points, the first being that there is a substantial correlation between the socio-economic background and examination results. That is undoubtedly true, but it is in danger of becoming an alibi for low expectations. While it is certainly a factor in achievement, Opposition Members should recognise the danger that this has become an excuse and an alibi. As a result, in school less is expected of children from poor homes and working-class backgrounds than of other children.
The second point that emerges from the Sheffield study is that there is no statistical correlation between adjusted examination results and the spending of additional money. That is surely interesting in the context of the fact that ILEA spends so much more.
Mr. Chris Smith: The hon. Gentleman has made much of the comparison between ILEA and Brent and told us that in the Sheffield study ILEA came 56th. Where did Brent come?
Mr. Maples: It did not do very well either.
Mr. Smith: Give us the number.
Mr. Maples: I will make my own speech. In citing Brent, I sought to make the point that Brent has similar social conditions and the same pupil-teacher ratio, yet spends one third less than ILEA. If I ran ILEA, I would say to myself, "I wonder whether I can achieve the same with one third less."
The acid test is the unit cost of educating a child in a secondary school. In ILEA schools, it is £2,650. The London average is £1,700. But in the average inner-London independent school it is £2,535—less than in ILEA schools. Do Opposition Members think that the average parent of a child in an ILEA school, if given £2,650 and told that he or she could spend it on education where he or she chose, would put the child back into the ILEA school? Would they not opt for one of the independent schools?
Mr. Dobson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Maples: No. I shall finish my speech. The hon. Gentleman has no responsibility for education, and he is interfering in the debate.
Many very good independent schools in inner London charge considerably less than ILEA. I should have thought that, given the choice, the average parent would take it.
My second point on unit costs is that, if the average head teacher of an inner-London school were given £2,650
1032
for every pupil in his school, I would wager a substantial amount that he would achieve considerably more than ILEA achieves.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Maples: No, I will not give way.
I suspect that doing something about education in inner London is the same as doing something about what is wrong with education in the country as a whole. The national reforms that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State proposes are perhaps even more relevant in London than elsewhere. They have nothing to do with who runs education in London; they have much to do with the national curriculum, opting out and financial delegation. My right hon. Friend's proposals on the national curriculum and testing will do just as much, if not more, for standards in inner London as for standards elsewhere. The proposals for financial delegation and opting out will do an enormous amount in inner London, because they will provide diversity and choice and a far more efficient use of resources. Both the national reforms that my right hon. Friend proposes and the structure are crucial to the reform of education in inner London.
I simply cannot accept the argument that inner-London boroughs are not appropriate vehicles for providing education services. Outer-London boroughs do it perfectly satisfactorily—some better than others and some extremely well. The top two areas in the Sheffield study, which Opposition Members are using as their alibi today, are Harrow and Barnet— two outer-London boroughs which provide education services. No doubt some will do it better than others. Some may do it better than ILEA and some not as well. But the fact that they can do it is borne out by the experience of the outer-London boroughs. The boroughs will be closer to the schools and the people involved, the decision-making machinery will be closer to the action, and the authorities, being smaller, should be able to run a more efficient and less bureaucratic service.
One or two points have to be taken into account in making the substantial change from a Londonwide authority to arrangements under which the inner-London boroughs run their own affairs. The first relates to cross-borough services, to which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred—adult education, special schools and the youth service, music and computer centres and so on. When boroughs were to be allowed to opt out of ILEA, it was fair to assume that they would make the necessary voluntary arrangements to provide such services. However, if we are to break up ILEA, we must ensure that the arrangements are in place and that if we are not satisfied with the voluntary arrangements that the boroughs make there is a mechanism to allow us to insist that the necessary cross-borough arrangements are made.
Secondly, whatever is wrong with ILEA is doubly wrong with one or two London boroughs. ILEA may be profligate and heavily politicised, but the London boroughs of Southwark and Lambeth are more so. [HON. MEMBERS: "Lewisham."] Lewisham comes close. There is concern that some children will be taken out of the frying pan and put into the fire. People question whether their education will be better dealt with by boroughs such as Lambeth and Southwark.
I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will say that one of the remedies that the schools have at their hands is to opt out. No doubt some schools will do

1033
that, but others will not be able to do so, for perfectly good reasons. Some will be too small and for some it will be inappropriate to act as an opted-out service. Will my right hon. Friend assure us that he has, or will have, the power to take the necessary action if that happens and he finds that the education plan of an inner-London borough is inadequate, or inadequately put into effect?
When the Bill is enacted and the smoke has settled and the Labour leaders of inner London boroughs who now say that they will defend ILEA to the death come round to the idea that they would quite like to run education in their boroughs after all, it will be important to turn them into willing partners in this exercise. There will be nearly two years left before their responsibilities are put into effect; during that time it will be important to turn them into willing partners.
I make one point specifically relating to my constituency, which contains the Horniman museum. It was given to the people of London—originally to the London county council, then to the Greater London council and then to ILEA. It performs a valuable educational function and it would be totally wrong to transfer it to the borough concerned. There is a good deal of support for the idea that the museum should become a national institution, nationally financed and with nationally appointed trustees so that it can continue to provide an education service to children in schools in the south-east.
The most important ingredient in the improvement of education standards in inner London is the programme of national reforms that my right hon. Friend proposes the national curriculum, testing, opting out, financial delegation, grant-maintained schools and so on. A few factors need to be taken into account. If they are, I believe that we shall end up with a considerably better education service than we have now in most London boroughs. I hope that that will be the outcome.
7.6 pm
Mrs. Rosie Barnes: We are considering the proposals at a time when children in our schools have had to bear the malign effects of conflict and cuts for far too long. Children in London—especially at secondary level —have suffered more than most from industrial action and political interference from all sides. The introduction of the GCSE—too quickly and with inadequate resources—is adding to their problems. As has already been said, teachers' morale is at an all-time low and the better teachers are decamping in droves, both for financial reasons and because of the political interference in their work. At a time when matters could be starting to stabilise somewhat, our children are being threatened with a further change and a potentially catastrophic period of instability.
I would be the first to agree that ILEA needs reforming, but to abolish it is going too far. It should be replaced with a unitary body for London to provide the high-quality cost-effective education to which our children are entitled. Let us consider what ILEA has done in recent years. We have heard the statistics for the cost per child. Where does the money go? ILEA's own budget document shows that only about 40 per cent. goes on teaching staff; it is nearer to 60 per cent. in most authorities. Administrative costs have risen catastrophically, at a time when the number of pupils and teachers is declining.
1034
I shall quote the words of one of the Government's well-respected chief inspectors, Hargreaves, not from the Hargreaves report but from his recent document on quality:
"Within a national context, ILEA secondary schools, when account is taken of intake, perform as a whole at an average level; but the level of resources is higher than anywhere else in the country … Moreover, is an average performance in national terms good enough in the light of the Authority's equal opportunities policy?"
Hargreaves continued:
"Recently, and by coincidence, I had separate conversations with a member, an inspector and an ILEA head on the same theme. All four of us"—
I share this—
"had one common element in our histories: we were working class and attended grammar or direct grant schools. Our parents had limited formal education and no special educational ambitions for us. Our schools however had high expectations for us and pressured us to work hard, raising our aspirations so that we found our way to university. How high was our confidence, we wondered, that our educational histories would be the same had we attended an ILEA comprehensive school of today?"
Hon. Members should note that that section was removed before the paper was made public.
This is not a record of which to be proud. I constantly cite the fact that commuter trains into London are full of youngsters from the surrounding shire counties who come in to take those plum jobs that our inner-London children should get. Let us not underestimate the considerable areas of excellence that ILEA has fostered over the years.
As a parent of a child with special needs, I have great reason to be grateful for the provision that my son has as a partially hearing boy. He would have had that provision nowhere else in the country—in fact, nowhere else in the world. There has been a boy in my son's school from a wealthy Nigerian family who were looking for private provision anywhere at any price for their son when he lost his hearing through meningitis. He ended up in the partial hearing unit at Sedgehill school, because there was nowhere better. Although I will criticise ILEA for what it has not done well, I will give credit where credit is due.
Mr. Tracey: I have often listened with interest to what the hon. Lady has said about education, especially reflecting on what happens in her borough. Does she think, on reflection, that Greenwich could work better as a separate education authority than the monster of the ILEA?
Mrs. Barnes: I do not. I shall come to that point.
To pay tribute to another area of excellence, this morning I visited the Thamesside adult education institute, one of 18 in ILEA, offering services during the day and evening. The institute attracts 12,500 people a year, almost two thirds of whom are retired, unemployed, in receipt of benefit or on literacy or English-as-a-second-language courses. Seventy-four per cent. of them are women and 500 children are enrolled in the creches there. The total cost of the institute is £.1.6 million. Of that, less than a quarter comes from Greenwich rates. The institute provides a valuable service, which I suspect will be severely threatened if ILEA's responsibilities are entirely devolved to the boroughs. I am sure that this non-statutory provision will suffer.
Mr. Harry Greenway: I was pleased to hear the hon. Lady pay tribute to the partial hearing unit at Sedgehill school, for which I had responsibility for seven

1035
years. Does she agree—it is important for the Government to realise this—that that unit and others like it must continue and that, as part of the special education provision for London, they will need to continue to take children from other boroughs?
Mrs. Barnes: That is important. Although I live in Greenwich, which is division 6, my son is at school in Lewisham, which is division 7, because of his hearing difficulties. Children from a wide catchment area in London go to the three remaining partial hearing units within ILEA.
Why am I protesting about the break-up of ILEA, in spite of my reservations about it? As a London Member, with first-hand experience of how the boroughs have coped with services of such critical importance to people's lives as housing, I am totally dismayed at the prospect of them having control of my children's education. What happened when housing benefit was transferred? Some boroughs are still dealing with the vast backlog of several years ago, with what was a fairly simple procedure compared with transferring the whole of an eduction service. The prospects of inefficiency, bureaucracy and politicisation are frightening. There is no evidence that children will receive a better standard of education within the control of the London boroughs than they would within a unitary authority. If anyone thinks that children might, they should spend some time in the boroughs and see what happens.
I am not the only one who has reservations about the London boroughs. One of the Minister's closest colleagues, the Secretary of State for the Environment, recently said:
"Labour's loony left Council leaders are behaving like Eastern Bloc Commissars, ruling people by fear."
Mr. Holland: Do not spoil it. It was a good speech.
Mrs. Barnes: I shall put this straight. The right hon. Gentleman said:
"Town Halls founded on civic dignity have become an arena for aggressive political posing, disruption, wild accusations, threats and fear".
If a Government have in their inner echelons someone with those beliefs, how can that same Government think that those boroughs can improve education standards?
Let us take a more impartial view, from the Audit Commission's document "The Management of London Authorities: Preventing the Breakdown of Services", in January 1987:
"large parts of London appear set on precisely the course which will lead to financial and management breakdown."
The Government have gone to extraordinary lengths to eliminate what they see as the profligacy and irresponsibility of ILEA, yet by their own arguments they are handing education straight to the local authorities which the Government have so readily and so consistently condemned. Giving control of education to those councils which are already mishandling and mismanaging housing and social services is an absurd triumph of myopic dogmatism over the consumers' interests. They are the people with whom we must be concerned—the children, the young people and the adults who are in receipt of education provided by London.
Education will not be improved by being kicked around from one authority to another. The Government should look at how the management of a London unitary education authority can be improved, and how it should
1036
be made more representative. There is ultimately only one way to make local authorities more representative—proportional representation. The case for it is, if anything, stronger at local level than at national level. It would end extremism at a stroke.
Mr. Simon Hughes: Does my hon. Friend and political neighbour accept that, if the Government and ILEA had adopted proportional representation before, ILEA would not be facing abolition now?
Mrs. Barnes: I agree with that absolutely. If standards and quality are what the debate is about—and I applaud that—let us consider what the London branch of the National Association of Head Teachers recommends. It recommends an expert task force under an independent chairman to decide on the format of a unitary body. The association defends the idea of a unitary body in its document, not ILEA as it is now. There is a strong suggestion that the 58-person committee of politicians has been inept and indecisive, and perhaps, in some ways, that is not a bad thing. Had they been able to make decisions, we might have been in an even worse mess.
Let us also consider the idea floated in The Economist, which is not usually a bastion of Left-wing thought. It suggests a I2-member board, with each member being elected for four years on a staggered basis so that there is some continuity. I am making suggestions about how a unitary body, quite different from ILEA, could be conceived. All I ask is that we give proper thought to what will improve standards and quality of education, and that we do not jump, as we are doing now, from the frying pan into the fire.
7.21 pm
Mr. William Shelton: I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mrs. Barnes). I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would have the power to do as she suggested, if he so wished, under the 1944 Act. He could appoint a committee comprising a non-political group of people—including most of his friends, I hope—to run education. However, I do not think that is likely.
Either ILEA must stay or it must go. I want to refute the notion that we keep hearing to the effect that this is a political attack. I was the chief whip of ILEA 20 years ago. Then I moved across the river to the House, and even then, in 1970, my first machinations and discussions were directed to seeing how we could get rid of ILEA. It was a far better organisation in those days than it is today, but I wanted to get rid of it then because I thought that it was too big and remote. The William Tyndale school would never have come about if it had been run by local councils. Indeed, hon. Members may recall some discussion about breaking ILEA into four.
I shall not conceal from the House the fact that, in the run-up to the 1983 election, when there was some discussion about including the break-up of ILEA in the manifesto, my valour was tempered by the thought of facing my Streatham constituents and telling them that Mr. Ted Knight would be controlling the education of their children.
Mr. Holland: What did the hon. Gentleman decide to do?
Mr. Shelton: The question did not arise, as it was not included in the election manifesto, as the hon. Gentleman well knows.
How is it that I can now support my right hon. Friend's proposals wholeheartedly?
Mr. Simon Hughes: Just to ensure that the hon. Gentleman is fair when comparing his views in 1983 with his views now, can he tell his constituents now that he is happy that education in Lambeth will be run by Miss Linda Bellos and her colleagues, which is what the Government propose?
Mr. Shelton: That is going to be the burden of part of my speech.
I shall give four reasons why I am now perfectly happy that ILEA should be abolished. The first will be understood by men of good sense, and by the Opposition. It is clear that at least three, and probably four or five or more, boroughs would have opted out of ILEA, so there is no way in which ILEA could have proceeded. That must be common sense to anyone who lives in London and knows ILEA's education service. From that point of view, there is no choice. So this is a sensible decision.
Secondly, as I said a moment ago, ILEA is a far worse organisation now than it was when I was its chief whip. I do not want to go through all the figures on spending again, but ILEA spends considerably more per capita than places such as Bradford, Manchester and Sheffield. Some hon. Members asked about private schools. ILEA spends considerably more than Putney high school and James Allen's school for girls, which are both good schools. Hon. Members can take it from me that ILEA has been letting down London's children, who are at risk under ILEA. It has also been ripping off London's ratepayers—
Mr. Tony Banks rose—
Mr. Shelton: If I may proceed a moment longer, the hon. Gentleman may be fortunate later.
The hon. Member for Greenwich mentioned administration. I understand that ILEA spends £55 per pupil on administration, while Bradford spends only £15.
Mr. Holland: Bradford has only one-sixth of the density.
Mr. Shelton: Two years ago I was reading through CIPFA, which makes excellent reading for anyone interested in education. I have always had a fondness for ILEA, and I was delighted to see that it spent more than any other authority in the country on school meals. I thought, "At least, they get a jolly good lunch." In the small print I discovered that ILEA spent almost the least in the country on food and by far the most on administration. So perhaps ILEA's pupils are being well served, but they are not getting much to eat.
Mr. Corbyn rose—
Mr. Shelton: I shall not go through the exam results figures again, except to say that, even after they have been massaged, ILEA, which spends the most, comes out only halfway up the academic list, so something is wrong somewhere.
As for ILEA's loony policies, that business about non-competitive sport was nonsense— a fact that has now been recognised. But how long did it continue before it was recognised?
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) asked about Lambeth. The Education
1038
Reform Bill has certain safeguards that did not exist in 1983, and they have been listed already. They include a national curriculum, more open enrolment, financial delegation and opting out if it becomes necessary, and if the parents vote so to do; and Lambeth will give the local service that I wanted 20 years ago for London's education. It will have local councillors, for many of whom I have a high regard. I have a high regard for officials in division 9. I know them well. That acquaintance, together with the safeguards in the Bill, reassures me.
It is true that one must be wary of Lambeth—especially of its leadership. Lambeth was described in an editorial in The Times a week or two ago as being—among other boroughs—a by-word
"for political extremism, bloody-mindedness, incompetence."
That may well be true. Three Lambeth councillors were elected to ILEA, all of whom were disqualified and surcharged under the reign of Mr. Knight for making an illegal rate. So the differences between ILEA and Lambeth are very small.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Maples), with whose speech I agreed, I want to make a few pleas to my right hon. Friend. First, I ask that the boroughs in 1990 should not inherit any of the vast overhead costs of ILEA, because, if they have to accept responsibility for the redundancies, or the rent for county hall, they will do badly. They must start with a clean sheet, and the residuary body must have enough funding to take care of the backlog of expenses.
Secondly, my right hon. Friend should give continuing thought to the fact that certain Labour boroughs may not co-operate much. I do not know to what extent he can seek some sort of compulsory timetable and specify particular positions in local authorities and place responsibilities on them. I fear that, unless he does that, he may not get the co-operation that is so much needed.
Thirdly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West said, the cross-borough boundary traffic—adult and further education, youth, career and special needs—is vital. I have little concern about primary education, and secondary education can only be improved; but ILEA does well for the non-statutory bodies. We must look after them carefully, because it is essential to maintain and foster them.
There has been a campaign, which I strongly support, to regularise the position of Morley college. That must be done. Lambeth has three excellent special schools which feed a large area, including outer London, and adult education is shifting more and more into job training, which is important. I hope that my right hon. Friend will use his powers, should it become necessary, to set up joint education committees to look after such cross-borough traffic and to avoid duplication, maintain the organisations and soothe ruffled feelings in the various boroughs involved. It will be difficult for a borough to run only one further education college without cross-borough help.
Mr. Spearing: This is something on which the hon. Gentleman and I wholly agree. Did he notice that, in respect of the 500,000 London citizens who go to further education colleges and the many pupils who go to special schools, whereas in the first statement the Secretary of State said that he would do just what the hon. Gentleman is asking for, and which I would like, today he carefully avoided any such reference?
Mr. Shelton: My right hon. Friend is a sensible and farseeing man. I am sure that he will accept both my advice and that given by the hon. Gentleman.
My next point is technical, but important. It concerns recoupment of these non-statutory bodies. It is now done on national average costs. It would be better if this were done on actual costs, but it would not be possible because so many people are involved and there would have to be massive computers working it out, which would waste time and money. I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider establishing an inner London average cost on which recoupment can be based when there is cross-borough boundary trade on adult, special or any other provisions. The inner London average would avoid certain boroughs planning to build walls against that trade because they are not receiving sufficient to cover the costs of the services that they are giving. I am thinking especially of Wandsworth which provides services for adult education in Lambeth. I would hate Wandsworth to discriminate against Lambeth residents because they did not carry with them adequate costs when they used a service in Wandsworth.
After 20 years of mixed feelings about ILEA, although I have always liked and had regard for it, I am glad that it will soon be abolished.
7.34 pm
Ms. Diane Abbott: If the terms of this motion are implemented in the Education Reform Bill, they will put the educational future of over 250,000 of London's children into limbo, and limbo is possibly the most positive thing that I can foresee. We do not know what will happen to the infant schools, to the secondary schools, to the non-statutory services such as evening classes, access classes or polytechnics, nursery classes, discretionary grants, career services or youth work, as a result of the Government's move.
Why are we being asked to put the future of so many children at risk? First, there is no doubt that abolishing ILEA will save money for businesses, because 73 per cent. of ILEA's funding comes from business ratepayers, over half of them in the City.
Mr. John Marshall: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Ms. Abbott: With the greatest of respect to the hon. Gentleman, I would point out that I have only just begun. Perhaps he will allow me to develop my argument.
If one cuts through all the cant from the Secretary of State and Conservative Members, one sees that abolishing ILEA will save their friends in the City money. For over 118 years, London businesses have helped to fund a unified education service in London. That honourable tradition, whereby business and wealthy areas provide a decent education for all our children, is being broken.
Secondly, the abolition of ILEA is of a piece with the holy war that the Government are conducting against any democratic institution which happens to be controlled by the Labour party. Their claims of principle and about parental choice, the consumer and the interests of children go out the window when they are presented with the opportunity to smash an institution whose electors vote in a Labour majority time after time.
The third reason for this extraordinary gamble is a sordid reason, so I will mention it only briefly. It is that
1040
the future of Hackney's children and over 250,000 children in inner London has become caught up in a nasty, squalid battle for political success in the Conservative party. It is a disgrace that, because of some temporary manoeuvring, shuffling, alliances and misalliances between the right hon. Members for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) and for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) and the Secretary of State, the educational future of children in London is put in jeopardy.
Conservative Members have referred to ILEA's flaws and problems. However, I put this to the Secretary of State. If his ministerial car developed a fault, would he take a sledgehammer to it and smash it up? The answer to the problems in ILEA is not to dismantle it in this way, which runs contrary to professional, educational and parental opinion and to the interests of the children.
We have heard, and no doubt will hear all evening, about the costs of ILEA to London. Conservative Members refuse to accept that everything in London is more expensive. The Metropolitan police force costs twice as much as comparative police forces. That is because London is sui generis. One cannot compare the costs of running a London institution, whether it is education, the police, or social services, to costs in areas outside London. There are the costs of living, housing and transport. Those financial comparisons are fundamentally tendentious and dishonest, and they do a great disservice to Conservative Members.
Hackney parents are asking me questions which I shall now put to the Secretary of State. They are asking when they will be asked for their view. They say, "We heard in the election campaign and we hear week in and week out about parental choice, but when will we be asked about our choice?" They do not believe that their children's future should rest on the whim of the right hon. Members for Chingford and for Henley; they want a say. This measure was never in the manifesto. The Tories could not have won seats in inner London with this in the manifesto. The hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Maples) is just one Conservative Member who will lose his seat —[Interruption.] I will see only some hon. Gentlemen in four years' time. Hackney parents ask me, "What is all this about parental choice? When will we have a say?"
Hackney parents are also saying, "We understand that Hackney pays £33 million into ILEA and that it receives £93 million from ILEA. Where will the missing £60 million come from?" It is one thing to talk about parental choice, giving power to parents and ILEA failing children, but how will my borough manage with a £60 million shortfall? Will the Secretary of State give a commitment that poor boroughs such as mine will not be a penny worse off as a result of abolition? We in Hackney want to know where our £60 million will come from. Is the Secretary of State content to see Hackney's children's future go down the drain because of intra-party manoeuvring between himself, the right hon. Member for Chingford and the right hon. Member for Henley?
I have listened to the debate with great interest. and two things are clear. My borough is one of the poorest in London and will be one of the worst hit by abolition. It also has a high proportion of young people. Conservative Members tell us about the value of accountancy. We hear about unit costs, cost-effectiveness, cash flows, and balancing books, but we hear little about the values that should underlie a decent national education service, about keeping faith with parents, about the historic role of ILEA

1041
as an engine of social equality and about giving poor children like mine in Hackney a chance. We hear all about the values of accountancy and ledger books, and nothing about social and community values, continuity, and keeping faith with parents and children. First and foremost, it is clear that this measure is all about the value of accountancy.
The second thing that has been made clear this afternoon from speeches and remarks of Conservative Members and the Secretary of State—and it was clear when the Secretary of State made his original statement—is the fathomless contempt that they have for the people of inner London and their children. That is based on ignorance. The Secretary of State has never been to an inner-London school, he will not visit them, he does not send his children there and nor do his friends. Theirs is fathomless contempt based on ignorance.
I put it to the House that the Government will pay dearly for playing ducks and drakes with the future of the children of inner London. Unless the Government give an absolute commitment that the poor boroughs will not lose financially, the hollowness of their talk about parental choice, standards and caring for children will be made clear. Without the money which time out of mind has been redistributed from the wealthy to the poor in inner London, what are my children in Hackney to look forward to and what are boroughs such as Hackney to do? I urge the House to oppose this motion.
7.45 pm
Sir Rhodes Boyson: I shall be brief, which is more than some other hon. Members have been, so that as many hon. Members as possible can speak.
I worked for 13 years as a headmaster in ILEA. The old London school board was well respected throughout the world and the old LCC education committee was well respected throughout England. Indeed, when I started teaching, if one got a London first appointment, which was called an LF A— —[Interruption.] If hon. Gentlemen will listen, they might learn something to their advantage. The LCC education committee gave LFAs, which meant that one could come from the length and breadth of the country. At that time, people from all over the world came to see, not just the schools, but the standard of education in London. I worked for four years under the old LCC education committee with no political interference and in high standard schools, until we came under ILEA.
It must be said that ILEA has never won the reputation that the LCC education committee had. —[Interruption.] It has not. It is clear from seeing it, from what people say and from where applications come from.
Mr. Clive Soley rose—
Mr. Tony Banks rose—
Sir Rhodes Boyson: No, I am not giving way, not even to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) for whom I have great respect. I sometimes wonder why, but I always finish up with the same respect for him. I am answering some of the questions that have been raised.
At that time, applications to the old LCC came from all over the country, but since ILEA there has been a
1042
shortage of teachers, despite good conditions and pay. [Interruption.] Obviously, what I am saying is hurting, but the truth always hurts. [Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order.
Sir Rhodes Boyson: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I felt chastened under the attack.
There are three reasons why ILEA has fallen apart and why this measure can pass today, ILEA will disappear and in five years' time people will see it as the remnants of history.
The first reason is the teacher militancy which swept in from 1968. Even last week, despite the desire of the chairman of ILEA's education committee, there was another day's strike. The rank and file—or what we call rank and rile in many cases in London—took over the NUT in 1968, to the horror of the rest of the country. Since then we have had continued militancy. I served on two committees of the NUT before that and I resigned from it because we were striking at the drop of a hat. I would not strike, but others were brought out in that way. That did untold harm.
The second reason is that many of the appointments in ILEA were not for good teaching but because people served on committees and were union officers, and so became known at county hall. Teachers were not coming in from outside; there were many incestuous appointments from inside of people who sat on committees dealing with the length of chair-legs and such great educational portents as that. Those who met regularly were appointed, not the teachers working in the schools.
The third reason is the results. Whatever Labour Members say, if they sent their children to schools where the results were 40 per cent. lower than the average in the rest of the country, they would be worried. Parents are worried because the standards of schools depend on the standards of results that can be expected. Without doctoring or massaging the results, we are aware that, in comparison with the average for the country, 40 per cent. fewer pupils in ILEA get five 0-levels or grade 1 CSEs. Such poor results are despite the fact that 40 per cent. more is spent in ILEA as opposed to the rest of the country.
I believe that there are three reasons for such poor results. First, when children are tested at the age of 11, the results are basically average. Therefore, there is a decline in pupils' educational standards in ILEA's secondary schools between the ages of 11 and 16. We should explore that failure. At the age of 11, only 1 per cent. of ILEA's pupils have an education standard lower than the general average. However, by the time those children reach the age of 16, their results are 40 per cent. lower than those for the country as a whole. Secondly, it is clear that only 1 per cent. of girls at school in ILEA are below standard, so it is the boys who do not perform well. That demonstrates that there is a lack of discipline in the schools. Girls are individualists and they work in schools where discipline is poor. However, boys run with the pack and if a school lacks discipline it affects the boys. Undoubtedly there are poor discipline standards within ILEA.
Mr. Harry Greenway rose—
Sir Rhodes Boyson: I can see my hon. Friend moving to give me, as always, some of his wisdom and advice. Before I allow him to do so, to the benefit of everyone—including Opposition Members—let us consider the third reason.

1043
The poor results of ILEA cannot be blamed upon immigration. Indeed, I must pay tribute to ILEA for publishing its results and carrying out research on those results. It is clear that the average results of Indian immigrants are twice as high as those of the host community. Second to them come the Pakistanis, and African children are also above average. It is no good saying that the poor results may be blamed, in some way, on immigration. The results in London would be lower but for those immigrant groups. Therefore, there is no means for turning upon that argument.
Mr. Greenway: In common with my right hon. Friend, I was a member of ILEA and the LCC education committee for some 23 years. From his experience and knowledge of London schools, does my right hon. Friend agree that there are schools today, not far from this House, where packs of children trot around completely out of control —[HON. MEMBERS: "Name them".] That is one reason why the examination results are poor and child attainment so low. Opposition Members need to visit those schools to see what is happening. The other reason for low achievement is that little is expected of the children. Since its inception, ILEA has taken the view that children from a poor or disadvantaged background cannot be expected to achieve much. Therefore, children who formerly achieved a great deal no longer do so.
Sir Rhodes Boyson: I believe that it is important to return to smaller boroughs. I believe that, the smaller the borough, the more likely we are to achieve community involvement. It is clear from the percentage of votes recorded at elections that the bigger the borough the fewer the votes cast. If ILEA is translated into smaller boroughs, parents can be influential and there is every likelihood of an improvement in education standards. I believe that that would be a good thing.
Some of my hon. Friends, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), have referred to local government issues. I believe that, the smaller the boroughs, the nearer the people and therefore the better the government. I believe that the 1964 local government reorganisation in London was, in many cases, a disaster, and that the 1972 local government reorganisation—carried out by the Conservative party—in the rest of the country was a similar disaster. The sooner we get back to smaller units the better. We have got rid of the GLC and the metropolitan counties. Now let us get rid of ILEA. In that way, we could transform London, including my area of Brent, into smaller areas because the big units do not work.
Mr. Tony Banks rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman has concluded his speech.
Sir Rhodes Boyson: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I sat down too soon. I intended to give way.
Mr. Banks: My feelings for the right hon. Gentleman have increased immeasurably, not merely because he happens to bear a strong resemblance to Wackford Squeers. As the right hon. Gentleman was just about to tell us about how small is beautiful, does he also believe that the shire counties should also be abolished and power given to the district councils?
Sir Rhodes Boyson: I sometimes think that some of the London schools would be better if they had some Wackford Squeerses in charge—at least the children would pass some examinations.
I do not share the hon. Gentleman's expertise on the shires. Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I do not regularly read Country Life. I do not ride and I do not know what happens in the country. I am sure that he knows more than I do, and perhaps he could give me a private lesson about what to do with the shires so that they, in common with inner London, could be improved.
7.55 pm
Mr. Tom Cox: The Secretary of State has told us that it is the Government's desire to give more freedom of choice to parents, but, as a result of the decision that he is now forcing upon parents in inner London, they are to be denied the right to make such a decision on the future of education in inner London.
Not one school in my constituency—the Tooting area of the London borough of Wandsworth—supports the Government's proposals. I believe that the same could equally apply to schools in Battersea and Putney. I could name all the schools in my constituency that are totally opposed to the break-up of ILEA, but I will give just one example of a meeting that took place at Allfarthing school in the borough of Wandsworth. On 28 January a motion was put before a meeting of that school. That meeting was prior to the announcement by the Secretary of State regarding abolition, and we were then talking about opting out. The motion before the meeting read:
"That this meeting approves in principle of Wandsworth opting out of the Inner London Education Authority".
The result of the parents' vote on that motion was six in favour, 94 against and 16 abstentions. Such an example could be quoted not only elsewhere in the London borough of Wandsworth, but in any division of ILEA where meetings have taken place with the people who matter—the parents of the youngsters.
Mr. John Marshall rose—
Mr. Cox: No, I do not intend to give way.
One of the revealing disgraces of this debate is that we now know that the Secretary of State has visited just one school in inner London during his period of office. Yet he can tell us what is wrong with London's provision of education. Where are all the letters of complaint? Where are all the letters that the Secretary of State and his Department have received from dissatisfied parents? If parents are so dissatisfied, why are they opting, in such numbers, to seek to defend the retention of ILEA? Those parents know whether or not their children are doing well at school—they see the evidence—and they want ILEA to remain.
If there is any honesty and any true democracy left, it is about time that the Secretary of State sought to get the views of London parents as to his proposals. He most certainly does not know their views at the present time.
Many of us who represent inner-London constituencies live in our constituencies. We know the schools. We know many of the parents whose children go to schools in our constituencies. We also know about the problems.
Let me quote a report about the London borough of Wandsworth, which goes back to October 1987, four months ago. It states that more than 40 per cent. of the children who go to school in Wandsworth come from families

1045
"who have incomes so low that they are able to claim free school meals;
—about one in five have unemployed parents;
—27 per cent. come from one-parent families;
—one in five speaks a language other than English at home".
The Minister of State represents a constituency that borders mine, so she cannot claim that she is unaware of what happens in inner London. She must also have some of the problems that we have in the borough where her constituency is. When we are told about how ILEA spends its money, many of us in the Opposition applaud it. We say that at least ILEA's policies bring some hope into the lives of many of the youngsters who go to schools within ILEA.
There is now a great fear that we shall see a division between schools where there are facilities and schools where there are not. Some parents who are in employment and earning a reasonable salary will have the opportunity to contribute towards the facilities that schools need; but in other schools parents will not be in that position. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) referred to equalisation. We did not fully understand what the Secretary of State was saying because he never fully spelt out what he meant. However, other hon. Members have commented. In the London borough of Wandsworth, there will be a difference of £60 million. Few people in Wandsworth believe that, under the present administration, there would be any attempt to insist that present standards were maintained or, indeed, improved.
In Wandsworth we have already been told that if the borough can take over the running of education, one of the priorities will be to put education in the market place. That is the terminology that is used, and we in Wandsworth know what it means. The borough will privatise as quickly as possible as many of the present services in our schools as it can. If any hon. Member believes that that will meet with the approval of parents and that it will help to improve the morale of teaching staff, he lives in a dream world.
Mr. Tracey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Cox: I do not intend to give way.
We have fears, and we have ample reason to fear. The leader of Wandsworth council goes around speaking at meetings. When he is challenged about what he will do about the opposition at those meetings, he dismisses it and says, "They're a bunch of troublemakers. They are not parents." That is how much notice he takes of parents who go to those meetings out of interest to hear what the council is seeking to do.
There should be proper consultation by referendum, organised by a body such as the Electoral Reform Society. Such a referendum is not impossible because we know that the names and addresses of the parents of all the youngsters who go to our schools are available. Until there is a referendum, the Minister of State and the Secretary of State will be fooling themselves if they think that they are acting with the authority of the people of London, because they certainly do not speak for the people of London on this vital issue.
Under the leadership of London county council and then of ILEA there have been improvements. Not one of us has said that ILEA could not be improved. The tragedy
1046
is, as with the rates debates, that when the elected members of ILEA at county hall sought discussions with Ministers, they were always turned down or they were available only on Ministers' terms. There was never free discussion or the willingness to listen to some of the problems suffered in inner London education.
Neither the Minister of State, the Secretary of State nor this Tory Government speak for the people of London on this issue. If they do not listen to what people are saying, there will be utter turmoil in our education sytem. If that is what they want, heaven help London and the children of London.
8.6 pm
Mr. Matthew Carrington: The hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) has given us an excellent rendition of the emotional case against the abolition of ILEA. However, I am afraid that he forgets that there was a recent by-election in Southfields, in Wandsworth. He may have forgotten—he certainly did not tell the House—that the by-election was fought largely upon the opting-out of Wandsworth council, which is similar to the provisions introduced by the Secretary of State. I do not need to remind the House that the Conservatives in Wandsworth council retained the seat handsomely.
Mr. Tracey: And with an increased majority.
Mr. Carrington: I thank my hon. Friend for reminding me. That gives the lie to what the hon. Member for Tooting was saying about the attitude of those in the borough.
Mr. Tracey: My hon. Friend has missed one other critical factor about that by-election. It was fought by the Labour party on the specific slogan, "Keep Wandsworth in ILEA by voting Labour."
Mr. Carrington: Indeed.
I think that it is fair to say that few tears are shed by anybody in London about the demise of ILEA. However, there are many fears about its demise, which I know many of my hon. Friends will share. They come largely from parents who have children in schools in boroughs that are run by somewhat Left-wing authorities, which, for deliberate political purposes, may go out of their way to disrupt this major change in education and try to make it not work in the efficient way in which it could work.
I believe that we shall see a campaign by certain councils. I trust that Hammersmith and Fulham council, which, unfortunately, and however temporarily, has control of my constituency, will not put the block in the way of the administrative reforms that will have to be introduced. But I am afraid that my optimism may be misplaced. My fears are shared not only by my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Shelton) but by certain other hon. Members. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will bear that in mind when he draws up the necessary proposals.
The reforms that are contained in the Education Reform Bill, combined with the reforms in local authority finance, in the form of the community charge and the uniform business rate, will make the danger of that disruption and that political control of schools by somewhat extreme Left-wing boroughs much less. Nevertheless, it is a danger that we must watch out for.
Mr. Holland: When the hon. Gentleman first raised that point, I thought that I would let it pass, but as he has

1047
come back to it, I draw it to his attention. I do not know whether he will consider the London borough of Lambeth being excluded from that category that he has suggested. I put it to him, as an hon. Member in such a borough, that I have received no such letter from any such constituent—no such representation from any such constituent.
Mr. Carrington: I cannot answer for the hon. Gentleman's postbag. The London borough of Lambeth has a reputation along the lines that I have described. I am talking specifically about my own council's attitudes and expected reactions. I suspect that the cap will fit in certain other parts of London.
It has been made clear that ILEA's problem relates to secondary education. The low standard of ILEA secondary schools is criticised by parents, teachers, head teachers, and people who pay for education in London. However we measure it, the standard is mediocre to bad. The Sheffield university report, which has frequently been quoted, made the point that if one wants high standards from secondary schools, one does not go to ILEA schools. Their performance is based on the low standard measurements in the report.
According to statistics, secondary schools are bad. Some secondary headmasters will blame poor performance at primary schools, the standards at which children are sent to secondary schools, and their inability to be able to cope. But we are not talking about statistics. Education is not about statistics. We are talking about the standard of teaching and the qualifications that pupils—boys and girls—get from schools.
Some ILEA schools are excellent. Some schools in my constituency are excellent. The tragedy is that if one takes out the excellent schools, those that are left are even worse than those that are shown in the statistics. The interesting thing about division 1 schools—that is, Kensington, Chelsea, Hammersmith and Fulham —is that the ones that perform well are almost exclusively voluntary aided schools. I have talked to the head teachers and teachers of voluntary aided schools that are doing well. They attribute their good results to the fact that they fight ILEA. They do not do what ILEA tells them to do. Indeed, they are extensively criticised by ILEA for their teaching methods and for the standards that they insist that their pupils achieve.
If hon. Members want more than statistics for a condemnation of ILEA secondary schools, it is apparent that all over central London—it is particularly true in Fulham and generally where people have a choice in education—if people can possibly afford to send their children to schools other than ILEA schools, they choose to do so. They have been choosing to do so in increasing numbers. It is not a matter of class or socio-economic divisions. It is a matter of scrimping, saving and struggling to get a standard of education that they know they cannot achieve by sending their children to ILEA schools. Indeed, they would rather pay twice as much and get the type of education that they think will equip their children to be able to face the world after leaving school.
The solution is obvious. It must be the abolition of ILEA. It must be the removal of all the wrongs that go with ILEA. We have heard of many tonight, and I shall add one more.
For many years, I have been a governor of the polytechnic of central London. Until the passing of the Education Reform Bill, ILEA controls the polytechnic of
1048
central London. About two or three years ago, a senior ILEA education officer was present at a court of governors meeting. I shall not name him. He has gone on to bigger and better things. I am sure that he does not wish to be reminded of the pressures that he was under when he worked out of county hall. We were being pressured by the Labour group in control of ILEA to pass a political motion about a certain aspect of Government legislation, which was only tangentially related to education. [Interruption.] It was to do with overseas students and funding. It was tangential to the control that was exercised by the governors of the polytechnic of central London. [Interruption.] Opposition Members are making remarks from a sedentary position. I shall answer them. The reason I said that was that, as a court of governors of a polytechnic, we were forced to make political resolutions about something relating to Government policy and which only slightly affected the polytechnic, in the sense that it affected only a small proportion of students.
The court was not minded to pass the resolution. The senior officer said, "Unless you pass the resolution, it will have a bad effect on the block grant settlement that you will get from ILEA." He confirmed it when I challenged him. Needless to say, the court took the coward's way out and decided to pass the resolution. That shows the degree of politicisation that was forced upon ILEA officers even three or four years ago. That situation is considerably worse now, and it justifies a major shake-up of ILEA.
Mr. Spearing: Without going into the rights or wrongs of what he said, does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a risk of what he calls politicisation in any authority, and from the Right or the Left? As he is a business man and a representative of business, will he assure the House that the general level of support for education will not be reduced if the Bill is passed, as was stated by himself and his hon. Friends?
Mr. Carrington: I have not mentioned the financing of education in London.
Politicians on the court of governors of schools or polytechnic have a perfect right to try to get any political resolution passed. It is wrong for an officer who is there to advise and to be politically impartial to threaten the court of governors.
I am glad that the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) mentioned financing. I was fascinated to hear some statements about the financing of education after the change to the uniform business rate and the community charge, which will coincide with the introduction of the Education Reform Bill and, therefore, the abolition of ILEA. Of course, the uniform business rate will completely change all the numbers that the hon. Gentleman talked about.
Mr. Spearing: Not the needs.
Mr. Carrington: The need-related element that will go into the financing of local education authorities will be covered by the central Government grant element, not the business rate. That is much better. High business rates destroy jobs. The hon. Gentleman would know that, as he lives in a high-rated area.
Mr. Corbyn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Carrington: No, I shall not give way. I must go on.
Mr. Corbyn: On the point about funding?
Mr. Carrington: No. The point about funding is secondary to my argument. I must get on. The hon. Gentleman may refer to that matter later. The sooner I conclude my remarks, the more rapidly the hon. Gentleman will be called.
The abolition of ILEA is essential. The imposition of the correct controls, which will come about through the Education Reform Bill, is the right solution. It will mean that our schools will be controlled by parents and teachers for the benefit of the local community, with a local education authority in the borough that will be much more attuned to the particular needs of that borough and able, therefore, to give to its schools the assistance, resources and support which at the moment they often lack.
I have given examples of voluntary schools and, indeed, the competition between the good schools and ILEA will no longer exist once we have local education authorities within our boroughs.
I should like to echo some of the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friends about those services that ILEA provides well. Although its secondary schools are a disaster, ILEA runs certain areas well. My hon. Friends have mentioned special schools and adult education and I echo their comments. There are special schools and a special hearing unit in Fulham and I echo the view that they need to be protected and supported.
I should like to mention another type of provision, which has not been mentioned so often—nursery provision. I am a great supporter of nursery schools because I think that they lay the foundations that enable a child to develop much more rapidly. ILEA has a good provision of nursery schools which must be protected in the transition to boroughs. The boroughs should be encouraged to develop that nursery provision and to build upon what ILEA leaves behind.
ILEA will not be mourned. It has failed the children of London and it must go. Indeed, the sooner that it goes the better. My only regret about this reform is that it will take two years, not one year.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I remind the House of Mr. Speaker's plea for brief speeches.
8.21 pm
Ms. Joan Ruddock: The abolition of the Inner London education authority means the abolition of the promise of equal opportunities for inner-London's children. It means the abolition of the hopes of every parent in my constituency who wants his or her child to get a fair share of the capital's education resources. It means the abolition of the rights of the overwhelming majority of parents—simply to satisfy Tory spite. Nothing can justify robbing a generation of children of educational opportunity in this way. I speak not from a basis of prejudice or partisanship, as do many Conservative Members, but from my own observations and experiences, both previously as a governor of a school in a shire county and now as a Member of Parliament for an inner-London constituency.
For historical reasons, the constituency of Lewisham, Deptford is faced with some of the worst problems of urban decay. We all live, travel, work and try to find some leisure in a small area of land which consequently looks, and is, over-exploited and polluted. Almost one in five of my constituents is unable to find work. Within the borough of Lewisham, 25,000 people are on a housing list
1050
for a decreasing chance of better housing. A disproportionate number of people fall sick under the mental and physical strain of living in the inner city. Therefore, it is not surprising that my mailbag and my advice surgeries are filled to overflowing with people's individual problems, and that all too many of them are tragically similar.
However, hon. Members may be surprised to know that, when it comes to education, I can remember every single case that has come to me, and the reason that I can do so is that there have been so few. There have been three out of 1,000 constituency cases and not even those parents wanted ILEA to be abolished.
The schools in my constituency are proof of the value of a unitary authority and are a vindication of ILEA's overall philosophy and performance. Through its priority area assessment, ILEA has been able to provide between one and three extra members of staff to each Deptford primary school, giving us a teacher-pupil ratio greater than 1:20. That is of benefit, judged not in monetary terms, but proportional to the needs of the area. It is a shifting of resources from the richest to the poorest. Obviously, that is a Socialist philosophy, but it is one which is approved by Londoners in general and especially by employers, who know that London is a single job market, which needs common education standards.
ILEA policy recognises that children do not all enter schools with the same potential. That is not just a matter of innate intelligence, but a function of the home, the wider environment, health, culture and language. Only a London-wide authority can possibly provide the resourcing and the development of teaching skills to deal with that diversity.
ILEA has provided Lewisham with a multi-purpose teacher centre and a maths centre, both of which have contributed enormously to improving teaching standards, pupil development and pupil performance. No one involved—teacher, parent or governor—doubts that those facilities are of great value. But equally no one expects that such resources could be provided by a single inner-city borough such as Lewisham.
As the most prestigious public schools have always claimed, education is about developing the whole person. Once again, it is ILEA that has made such a philosophy possible for the inner-city schools and that has provided the resources to ensure that every child's imagination is extended in the pursuit of art, drama and music.
Under pressure today, the Secretary of State has flatly refused to make any promises that the present levels of resourcing will be maintained. Indeed, as we know, he has already decided to cut further the funding to ILEA at the same time as his colleagues are crushing still further the rate-capped authorities such as my own. We can but assume that he intends to remove every extra resource that is aimed at greater equalisation in London's education.
That will threaten two further facilities that are available to my constituents, but that are not located in my constituency. The hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Maples) has already mentioned the Horniman museum. Three ILEA teachers are employed there, enabling schools in Deptford to send parties of children, from nursery to sixth form level, to a place of excellence for the study of history. Even more remarkable is the rural centre at Horton Kirby, where again the employment of ILEA staff allows my inner-city schools to make up to eight study visits per year to the Kent countryside.

1051
The value of such facilities in extending children's experience would be taken for granted in any fee-paying school by Conservative Members, but those facilities are bitterly resented when made available to all through the ratepayers' purse.
Earlier this week, I visited an inner-city school in my constituency, as I frequently do. It is one of the less popular secondary schools, named Hatcham Wood, and is much maligned by Conservative Members. I met there, as in so many schools in Deptford, an enthusiastic and committed staff with high expectations of their pupils. I saw diligent pupils hard at work in small classes. The corridors were lined with pupils' work, as were the teachers' room and the parents' room. The school heavily involves parents, as do most ILEA schools. I also saw the school's bookshop, which sell books, to both parents and children, in 10 languages. This school takes mainly band 2 and 3 ability children, but its English results, despite the 10 languages of its children, had exceeded those of a neighbouring voluntary school with a mainly band 1 intake.
Many of the children in my constituency enter school disadvantaged. Many come from families struggling against the burdens of poverty. Many live in overcrowded conditions and one third face society's discrimination because they are black. Yet when they enter our ILEA schools, they enter an environment which does not have those disadvantages. When they enter ILEA schools, they have every expectation of access to the resources that they need for their education. When they enter ILEA schools, they are treated as equals.
No one denies that improvements could and should be made. However, no one has shown—least of all the Secretary of State—that the abolition of ILEA offers any benefits to the majority of ILEA users or its employees. I want to quote from the governors of a school in my constituency, Deptford Park primary:
"No case is made that a more efficient education system will result. 'Efficient' seems to mean cheap.
Special Needs provision will deteriorate.
Music, science and history centres will be unable to survive. The inspectorate and other Londonwide support services will he split.
We care about the future of our children in Deptford. We do not feel that these proposals will work for our children now or in the future."
I am confident that, in speaking in this way and opposing the motion, my colleagues and I know that we speak for the vast majority of London's parents.
8.31 pm
Mr. Timothy Raison: The hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) made an attractive speech. Obviously she has got to know her constituency very well in the time that she has represented it, but I cannot help thinking that she has glossed over the extent of some of the problems that exist within ILEA today. However, I agree with her on one point about her part of London. I have been asked by a member of the Horniman family to stress that the Horniman museum was provided for the children and people of London. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to confirm that the outcome of reorganisation will ensure that the admirable facilities of the museum will be available to the children of London, as they always have been. I will not tell my hon. Friend the Minister how to achieve that, but it is important that that objective is achieved.
1052
My links with ILEA date back to the time when I was a co-opted member of the education committee of the Inner London education authority. I believe that I was a member at the only time that ILEA was controlled by the Tory party. We were led by Christopher Chataway. I thought that we were rather good, and we had quite a good opposition as well. Like other hon. Members who have spoken in the debate, I have developed an affection and concern for ILEA that has stayed with me, although it has nothing to do with my constituency.
At the time to which I am referring a number of my right hon. and hon. Friends served on ILEA. They included my right hon. Friends the Members for Chertsey and Walton (Sir G. Pattie) and for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) and my hon. Friends the Members for Reading, East (Sir G. Vaughan) and for Streatham (Mr. Shelton). Over the years we have all watched anxiously what has happened to ILEA.
In those days ILEA was quite a new authority. It had not long changed from being the London county council. It had inherited some of the very distinguished traditions of the London county council. There was a real dedication among those who worked for ILEA towards the children and students of London. There was also a width of resources that gave ILEA certain advantages.
On the other hand, I am bound to say that, as I served on ILEA, two things began to worry me. First, I believe that there was an over-confidence that ILEA was the greatest. It was not very good at asking searching questions of itself. In a sense, parents were always a little down-graded. There was something a little too paternalistic about ILEA's ethos, admirable though it was in some respects. Secondly, there was an over-commitment on the part of the Labour party and the officers to the very big, all-through comprehensive. We began to question and rethink that while we were in office, although we did not get very far. History will clearly show that the notion of the very big comprehensive was flawed. When we talk about what is recognised as being the main weakness in London's schools today—namely, the secondary stage—to some extent the origins of that problem lie in the time to which I am referring. Since then I have not had any direct concern in ILEA, but two of my children have attended ILEA schools and I have close family connections with ILEA teachers.
I believe that over the years a decline has taken place, and that is sad. I believe that the reputation and morale of ILEA have fallen. I do not want to paint a completely black picture today. There are still many people in ILEA who are totally dedicated to the task of teaching. Much good work is being done. Hon. Members have said that adult education is exceptionally good. Special education has always had a high reputation. Good work is being done in higher and further education and good work is being carried out in the schools. Indeed, good work is being carried out in difficult circumstances, which have been described by many hon. Members during the debate.
It would be unfair to give the impression that London education is a shambles. However, I think that things have gone wrong. I do not believe that ILEA has been able to cope, as it should, with the admittedly very difficult pressures and circumstances under which it has operated. We must state that ILEA's record on secondary education, on the basis of the leaked HMI reports to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, as well as other evidence, is unsatisfactory. To have 40 per cent. of secondary schools

1053
classed as unsatisfactory or poor is something that we cannot simply shrug off. Something must be done about it.
We understand the problems. Bigness is a problem. When I was a member of ILEA there was a feeling that big was the right thing to be and that we could do big things. At the same time, I was, rather unusually, a member of the education authority of a small outer-London borough. Therefore, I had the chance to compare big and small directly. Over the years, the attractions of smallness have loomed larger. Of course, smallness involves a more intimate way of running an education system.
The task of assimilating children from an enormous variety of cultures has proved to be enormously difficult. I am not sure that ILEA has handled that as well as it should have. My right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) was right to state that the record shows that often children from ethnic minorities do very well judged by formal results. I am delighted at that. However, it is not simply a question of classroom results. There have been great difficulties assimilating the large number of people who come to London with different languages. Because ILEA has pursued too many red herrings and has not concentrated enough on the basic, simple task of teaching all children the three R's, and so providing the basic education which the national curriculum is designed to restore, to some extent it has failed to deal with the problem.
ILEA has played its part in what we can only regard overall as a deterioration in attitudes towards standards and discipline. Of course, the background includes a great deal of family breakdown. We cannot blame the education authority for that. However, I believe that at the heart of ILEA's philosophy—if I can generalise in these terms—there has been a failure to get to grips with what I would call the moral imperatives which must accompany education if it is to be successful.
I also believe that ILEA has not, by and large, been well served by the Inner London Teachers Association or by many of the younger and more militant teachers who have had far too much influence in inner London education. They have been egged on and backed by the other great weakness in ILEA—the excessive or irresponsible politicisation that has been shown—
Mr. Corbyn: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Raison: I will not give way, as I want to be brief.
In London and elsewhere there has been excessive meddling by elected representatives in what I regard to be the true domain of the professional in running education. I know that that is an unpopular thing to say in a House of elected representatives. However, that has been a serious problem to which ILEA has succumbed. All those factors have led to a loss in the intrinsic authority of the Inner London education authority. What should we do about that?
I have to confess, as does every hon. Member who describes his own part in government—if he has been in government—that in the period around 1980 I was one of those who at that time fought successfully to maintain ILEA. I thought at the time that it was the right answer, but I find it much harder to summon up enthusiasm for keeping it today. There is, in any event, a stronger case for change in certain regards. In particular, the removal of the
1054
polytechnics of higher education, as laid down in the Bill, will certainly make it easier to hand over the powers to the boroughs, because they are a major part of what might be called all-London provision.
Another point concerns our experience of the dismantling of the GLC. The enormous forebodings expressed about the impact of that abolition have not been borne out. For example, I well remember how the arts lobby, in its usual splendid, stirring, theatrical terms, said that the arts in London would be clobbered by the demise of the GLC. Nevertheless, spending on the arts in London has risen by 40 per cent. People are creating alarmist stories which are not justified by the facts.
Mr. Corbyn: Where is the evidence for that?
Mr. Raison: Of course, I acknowledge that there is bound to be a period of uncertainty. The one fact of which I am certain is that it is right to make a clean break, as these new amendments propose, rather than the slow demise that was implicit in the Education Reform Bill mark 1. That would have been the worst of all worlds, and I think that the Government have taken the right step in providing for a complete end to ILEA.
Let me say a word about the whole business of the transfer. It is, of course, essential that the good aspects of London education, which have been referred to, should not be vitiated during the transfer process. That is the particular responsibility of my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Minister.
As for the mechanisms, I am sure that the residuary body will do a good job with the nuts and bolts. It has shown its capabilities already, and no doubt it will continue to do so. But the crucial decisions will be about the allocation of the major educational systems and institutions. As I understand it, the Government have decided to operate the arrangements—or, it could be said, co-ordinate them—through a unit in the Department of Education and Science. The alternative suggestion is that the task should be performed by an extension of the residuary body, led by a leading educationist. That argument proposes that the power should remain with the residuary body until it is satisfied that the different boroughs are capable of taking over or are in a position to do so.
It is possible to argue about which is the better way of doing that, and perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will comment on that aspect when she winds-up the debate. It is, however, crucial that the operation is carried out with tremendous sensitivity. I hope that my right hon. Friend—who is, after all, generous-spirited—will see the need, during a period in which there are bound to be all sorts of anxieties, to acknowledge the good being done by so many people. I hope that he will do so by telling London teachers—who are teaching in incredibly difficult circumstances—that he understands how difficult it is.
I know of classes in London where it is the exception for children to come from stable homes, and very unusual for a child to have two parents—certainly, two married parents. I know of classes where virtually every child—perhaps every child—receives free meals; where there are cases of incest and, occasionally, murder in the children's family background.
I hope that my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Minister will show that they understand the enormous burdens carried by the teachers who must deal with such

1055
problems, and will therefore do all that they can to deal with the difficulties of transition in as sympathetic and constructive a way as possible. I am sure that they will do so, because they are generous people. Moreover, I feel that they can turn this into the chance of achieving something better, by stressing over and over again that the merit of the borough approach is that is brings decision-making closer to the people.
It will sometimes be dotty decision-making, just as it has been in the past. We must recognise that. It is the risk that we run. However, the aim to bring education closer to the people should remedy to some extent what I feel has been one of the weaknesses of the ILEA regime: the failure to involve parents as they should be involved. I believe that the borough pattern offers some chance of that, and I hope that, provided that that kind of sensitivity is shown by my right hon. Friend, we can look forward to the day when London education ends its long decline and begins an upturn.
8.45 pm
Mr. Paddy Ashdown: I am not a London Member, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I am therefore grateful to have caught your eye. [Interruption.] Hon. Members may well find that I can make a shorter speech without their interventions. I was about to say that, in deference to them and to hon. Members who wish to speak, I shall attempt to make my speech fairly short, but if they persist in interrupting me they will find that I can speak for far longer.
I have a few comments to make on behalf of my party, and, in particular, on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes).
Mr. Corbyn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Ashdown: Yes, if the hon. Gentleman insists.
Mr. Corbyn: I do insist. I find it very strange that, having heard a lengthy speech earlier from the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mrs. Barnes), who purported to represent the views of the alliance on education matters, we now have a speech from the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), a constituency which, as far as I am aware, is not part of ILEA. There are not even any ILEA establishments in Yeovil. Apparently, the hon. Gentleman represents some other part of the alliance. Will he tell us what is going on, and how long he will take to tell us about it?
Mr. Ashdown: The hon. Gentleman will discover that it will take considerably less time for me to say what I have to say if I am not burdened by such ludicrous and ridiculous interventions. I am representing not only my own constituents, but my own view, and, moreover, I am the spokesman for a party with 17 Members of Parliament. I do not think that inconsiderable. I shall confine myself to a relatively short speech, if the hon. Gentleman will allow me to do so.
We have heard some interesting speeches from Conservative Members. The right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) mentioned the size of ILEA; indeed, one of the arguments frequently put forward by the Government is that ILEA is one of the largest education authorities in Europe, if not the largest. For the record, that is not the case: Strathclyde has 135 more schools, and many more pupils.
1056
However, the most remarkable speech that we have heard came from the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine). I suppose that the only explanation for that rather extraordinary speech was that it was intended to contribute not to this debate, but rather to a debate with a somewhat wider circle. His most remarkable comment, after a long disquisition about how ILEA had suffered from a lack of teachers, was the presumption that handing it over to such boroughs as Southwark and Camden would cause a flood of teachers to come in.
There is no doubt that I LEA needs reform; I suspect that Opposition Members would agree with that. In some areas, there has been inefficiency and political interference. I am told that not a single ILEA building has been sold for at least 10 years, despite depopulation. However, what strikes me as extraordinary is that, if in isolated instances ILEA is as bad as the Government claim, a Government who have had the power under the Local Government Act 1985 to intervene and to make amendments have never used those powers that they now use as a political pretext to bring about the abolition of ILEA.
Although the excellent speech by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) put the case extremely well, I do not take his view that there has been a substantial U-turn. I do not think that the long-term conclusion of the Government's original proposals—killing off ILEA by stealth—and what they are now doing in a single brutal act of dismemberment are significantly different in outcome, although I recognise that they were not broadcast, as the Secretary of State would suggest, in the manifesto. I suggest that the reasons have nothing to do with the future of 250,000 schoolchildren in London. They have everything to do with the internal squabbles and the personal ambitions in the Conservative party. That seems to have been proved beyond contradiction.
If we need changes in ILEA—and I think that we do—we should have a long-term in-depth review. The recommendations from that could deal with the question whether ILEA should be abolished. That is the way to go about these matters. Instead of a decent, measured, in-depth review we are to get a brutal hastily conducted, politically motivated and inevitably bloody and disruptive dismemberment of London's strategic body.
Ms. Harriet Harman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Ashdown: I hope that the hon. Lady will forgive me if I do not give way. I wish to keep my speech brief because other hon. Members would like to speak.
The reasons for abolishing ILEA feature prominently in the motion which talks about
"profligate overspending with a persistent failure to raise standards".
The matter of overspending seems to have been coped with adequately. The reality is that, whereas ILEA spends about 1.5 times the national average, the Health Service—which is controlled not by elected representatives but by politically appointed representatives of the Government—spends about twice the national average. The police, again under Government control, spends about 3.5 times the national average.
The hon. Member for Blackburn spoke about standards. Persistently, reports from Her Majesty's inspectorate say that if we take into account the social and economic factors, ILEA comes out at about the national average in most cases. That is perfectly clearly said. 1f we

1057
look at the undoctored figures, which I looked at today, the Department of Education and Science figures for the increase in the number of pupils who gained five or more 0-levels or the equivalent between 1978 and 1985—quite an important category—we find that in that period ILEA's improvement was 15 per cent. whereas, the national average was 13 per cent. That area touches precisely ILEA's greatest weakness—the secondary sector.
If the problem is standards, how will the Government's suggestions and proposals improve them? As we have had clearly demonstrated, if anything, the poorer boroughs, where one would expect standards to be lower, where the areas of deprivation are highest and the problems greatest, will get not more resources, but massively fewer. Although the Government say that they will compensate for that, the level of compensation required will be massive. I have heard the figure of £10 million quoted by an Opposition Member. Greenwich contributes 2–68 per cent. to the ILEA budget and takes out of it 10.3 per cent. The Minister of State is to reply to this debate. If she tells the House that the Government will make good that shortfall, perhaps she has an argument. I am willing to bet anything that the hon. Lady will make no such commitment and I would bet even more that the Government will carry out no such action. Of course, the consequence of that is that the poorer, more deprived boroughs will have less money and standards will not go up; they will drop.
Evidence from the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy published by Mrs. Rita Hale shows that not only will that be the case, but that the higher incidence of families with more children and fewer adults—single parents and so on—may well mean that `poorer boroughs will have to pay a significantly higher poll tax than the richer boroughs because of the costs involved. CIPFA calculates that in a borough such as Hackney that could be £50 more per annum in poll tax. Not only will the poorer boroughs suffer from having fewer education resources, but the poor people living in them will have to pay a higher poll tax.
I shall finish with the most telling point of all. The Government complain that they are doing this because of Left-wing profligacy and extremism. What do the Government do? They take the children in these boroughs, lock, stock and barrel, and commit them to the tender mercies of councils such as Southwark, Camden and Lambeth.
Ms. Harman: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the future education of children in boroughs such as Southwark cannot be safeguarded when such boroughs are already struggling with growing demands for housing and social services, at a time when the resources for those services are limited? Does he not think that it is quite impossible for those boroughs to take on the task of improving education in London, which is what we want to see?
Mr. Ashdown: I am grateful to the hon. Lady. Her point is powerfully made in the Audit Commission's report which says precisely that Conservatives should realise that the Audit Commission predicts that if this should happen the burden on the already inadequate administration in many London boroughs could lead to a situation where some areas in London will become like the Bronx or the
1058
east of Chicago. Those are not the precise words, but that is what the Audit Commission said. That is the consequence that the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) is talking about. I shall give a quotation for the House to think about:
"Money spent in many areas is wasted. The services are demonstrably poor … it is far from being a well-run organisation. In many respects, it is on the verge of collapse".
Is that a comment on ILEA? It is not. It is a comment on Southwark borough council by its leader, Mrs. Anne Matthews. The Government want to give to that borough, not only the capacity to make a mess of the other things that it now organises, but to make a mess of education as well.
When the Secretary of State introduced the Bill, he said that the Government want to improve standards and to bring costs under control. What will they do? They will hand over education lock, stock and barrel to a council such as Southwark which in October had a deficit of £45 million. The Secretary of State has said what the Government want to achieve. That is the way they will set about achieving it.
The hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) said that Camden borough was not fit to take over Hampstead Heath. How can he now be in favour of handing over to that borough the management of its entire education system? It does not make sense. This legislation is not only dangerous but politically motivated. It will make 250,000 children the subject of the ambitions and clashes in the Conservative party. This may well have a cynical outcome. What the Government may well wish to seek by the Bill is not only the handing over of education to Conservative boroughs, but the creation of a situation in the poorer boroughs where many schools will have no alternative but to opt out and come under the direct control of the Secretary of State. So it will be that the Conservatives will take over much of London's education, whether or not they were elected to do that job. A more cynical or corrupt act cannot have been in prospect since the days of the rotten boroughs.
To take a decision to disband ILEA without any sort of review is the height of irresponsibility. To do it hard on the heels of a wholly different commitment in the Government's manifesto is unconstitutional. To do that without setting out clearly what alternative arrangements are to be made is a betrayal of the Secretary of State's office and of the future of this city's children.
8.57 pm
Mr. Gerald Bowden: At the time of my birth, my mother was a teacher in the London county council education service and in one way or another I have been involved in education in inner London ever since. During that time I have been conscious of a decline in almost every aspect of the provision in our secondary schools. There has been a fall in academic standards, examination results and standards of discipline. We have seen an increasing lack of motivation among teachers. A lack of dedication has crept in because of politicisation and political interference. The saddest scandal of all is that after 10 or 11 years many children who leave school in London are unemployable. They do not have the skills to take up the jobs that are waiting to be done in inner London.

1059
ILEA is over-ripe for reform. It would be the duty of any Government to carry out that reformation. It is right that the Government should regard it as one of their greatest priorities in trying to regenerate the inner city.
I fear that I must tell my right hon. Friend that the solution that he is proposing is not the right one. While it may improve matters for children in some boroughs, it will worsen them for children in boroughs such as Southwark. I look with horror at some of the things that I see going on in secondary schools, but that pales into insignificance when I consider the horrors that will arise from a Southwark education authority.
The borough of Southwark has many problems. It is a poor borough and there is much deprivation. Its history of tackling those problems has been one of abject failure. It has done nothing to improve housing, although there have been more than adequate resources to solve that problem. Its social service provision has been indifferent at best and at worst scandalous when one remembers incidents such as those at Nye Bevan lodge and the three other local authority homes for the elderly that are at present under investigation. I feel nothing but trepidation about the future of children of Southwark, who will have no choice other than to go to a Southwark education authority school. On that basis, I cannot give support to this proposition.
I was happy to support my right hon. Friend's first suggestion. It was, no doubt, to the advantage—and good luck to them—of boroughs such as Wandsworth, Westminster or Kensington and Chelsea, who are capable of providing a better education service than that being provided by ILEA. It was right that they should be able to back their judgment, attract children and give parents a choice of school. In so doing provision should have been made for boroughs which remained but which did not have the will or competence and which deliberately avoided providing educational necessities. By allowing those in competent boroughs to opt out, there would have been an opportunity to restructure the provision for the boroughs that were left. It would have made good sense for boroughs such as Lambeth, Southwark or Greenwich and Lewisham to have formed a small unitary authority. On their own they might not have been sufficiently competent or had the expertise and professionalism necessary to run an education service, but as a small unitary authority in south-east London it could have provided a service better than that provided at present by ILEA. That possibility is not now open to the parents of Southwark. Their only choice will be to look outside the borough for a school for their children if they wish to avoid the horrors of a Southwark education service.
I fear that that is a negative reason for giving my support to this proposal. There is, however, a positive reason for my wanting a unitary authority for London to deal with certain aspects of education. I, like many Conservative Members, have focused on the defects of ILEA, but it has many good points. Those good points were not created by ILEA; they have grown up over the years. The adult education service is such an example. It was not created by ILEA; it was in place many years before that. If anything, it has been the one service that ILEA has undervalued. If ever there has been an immediate need to make a cut, ILEA has made a cut in the adult education service as the first and easiest way out.
The adult education service has been one of those interesting strategic services. It has delivered education at
1060
the point of greatest necessity and it has been adaptable in moving from building to building when required. It has adapted to social and changing needs. During the war it provided comfort and support to those who felt that there was something productive to be done together.
We have watched the adult education service develop over the years until we see it as it is today where it provides skill, occupation and hope for many who are unemployed. It offers them a second chance. For the elderly it provides social contact, productive activity and a feeling that there is still something to be learnt even though one may have retired and be over 70 or 80 years of age. I was talking to the principal of an adult education institute the other day and I asked, "What is the age range of your students?" I was told that the average age was about 46. The youngest was two months—brought by her mother to the creche—and the oldest was over 90.
The adult education provision is special and unique to London. It cannot be recreated or transplanted. My right hon. Friend has recognised the importance of AEIs and their London-wide provision. Sometimes people go not to the places which are nearest their homes but to those nearest their work. My right hon. Friend has recognised the expertise and specialism of AEIs. He has recognised the importance of such institutes as the "City Lit", the Mary Ward centre, the working men's institute and Morley college. He has recognised that they provide a London-wide service which could never be taken on by an individual borough. He has to carry out the delicate but difficult act of surgery of trying to separate the bad parts of ILEA from the good parts which may wither if they are not sustained. I welcome the fact that a unit is to he set up in the Department to ensure that the AEIs continue.
As to the importance of special education, we all know that many parents of children with learning difficulties find it hard to get assessments from ILEA. The delays are unconscionable but expertise exists to deal with them. I dread to think what would happen if it were left to the bureaucracy of Southwark council to make the necessary reference for assessment.
I am sorry that I cannot give my right hon. Friend my support for his proposals. I hope that he will be able to reassure me that some of my misgivings about the future are understood by him and can be allayed.
9.7 pm
Mr. Stuart Holland: I am glad that the Secretary of State has joined us again, especially in view of much of his misrepresentation concerning the leader of the Inner London education authority, Mr. Neil Fletcher. I have a copy of a letter sent to him today by Mr. Fletcher to which I hope he will be able to respond. I hope that he will respond especially on the matter of the quotations, which the Secretary of State has taken out of context. The first concerns a Socialist Education Association fringe meeting on 30 September. The full quotation of what Neil Fletcher said was:
"Let me make it absolutely clear that I have always been and remain a fervent believer in comprehensive education. I want to see a service which provides the best quality of education for all the children regardless of their class, their race, or their sex."
In his letter to the Secretary of State Mr. Fletcher has said:
"Since I sent a copy of the speech concerned to you, I am surprised that you have allowed your colleague to indulge in such gross misrepresentation. You are perfectly well aware that my speech cannot be construed in any way as supporting any of the proposals in the Education Reform Bill."

1061
There is also the matter of selective quotations from the reports of Her Majesty's inspectorate. On 4 February the Secretary of State referred in the House to Her Majesty's inspectorate reports on ILEA which "express real concern". There are other quotations from the reports which are relevant to the debate regarding ILEA's provision such as:
"ILEA's provision for under-fives is among the best in the country";
and
"Overall ILEA's adult education provision is a first-rate service in every respect".
On its research and statistics provision Her Majesty's inspectorate's finding is that it
"has now, and has always had, a high national and international reputation. Some of its work over the years has been seminal and had an influence and importance far beyond ILEA".
Again,
"When (exam) results are adjusted for socio-economic factors the ILEA appears to perform up to expectations."
Several Conservative Members have criticised the London borough of Lambeth. It is the second most deprived borough in London. It has the highest proportion of single-parent families and a very high proportion of children with special needs. It is a multilingual borough. One fifth of all schoolchildren speak a language other than English at home—mainly Bengali, Chinese or Urdu. Thirteen ILEA schools in Lambeth are special schools catering for children with a wide range of disabilities — including visual and hearing impairment and motor disability — as well as emotionally and behaviourally disturbed children. Children from all over London attend those schools. In addition, children with special needs are now being supported in mainstream primary and secondary schools.
A further problem facing Lambeth is that, while secondary school rolls are falling, primary school rolls are increasing, with a 12 per cent. rise projected by 1992 demonstrating the need for additional resources to meet the increasing demand for primary places.
I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) is not with us. He said earlier that he could not think of a single way in which the abolition of the GLC had made anything worse. I put it to him that the abolition of the strategic housing role of the GLC has meant that thousands of families and individuals who would have been moved to outer London have not been moved there. As a result, since 1982 the birth rate has risen in inner London, placing increased pressure on the schools. I regret to note that the Secretary of State is involved in conversation and is not paying attention to the argument. No doubt his officials will draw my remarks to his attention when they appear in Hansard.
Inner-London boroughs have a higher proportion of older school buildings than outer-London boroughs. They have not been the beneficiaries of modern building programmes to the same extent as outer London boroughs.
Some 5,000 Lambeth children cross borough boundaries to attend secondary schools elsewhere — for example, in Pimlico. How is that cross-borough transfer to be funded? Perhaps the Minister of State will reply to
1062
that question. Will it stop? Do the Government intend to slam the door on the inner-city in education as they have in housing?
Other centres of excellence, such as Morley college, have been referred to by Conservative Members. Morley college is a centre of excellence for music classes and unique foreign language classes. Lambeth and Southwark together—there are facilities in both boroughs—could not possibly afford such funding.
I come to nursery education and stress once more that the birth rate is now rising in inner London boroughs such as Lambeth. The Lambeth nursery education group advises me that only 23 per cent. of three and four-year-olds enjoy nursery education, as compared with 100 per cent. in France and Belgium. ILEA has the best record in the United Kingdom, with provision for up to 40 per cent. Nursery education is non-statutory. [Interruption.] I have just been made an offer that I shall refuse reluctantly as representations were made to me on a range of issues at a special meeting last Saturday lasting more than four hours. I urge Conservative Members to address those issues. There is a nursery school within walking distance—a few hundred yards—of the House. Ninety-three per cent. of the children who attend that school live in council housing and more than 50 per cent. are from one-parent families. The children in that school alone speak 14 different languages. As the headmaster of that school made plain to me, the house will fall if the foundations are inadequate. It is clear from Scandinavian evidence that primary and infant teaching greatly facilitate the achievement of literacy.
Another point, which has not been raised in the debate, has been put to me by the chair of the governors of Heathbrook primary school. A unanimous resolution was passed by those governers saying that the abolition of ILEA would destroy the balance between the boroughs and their facilities and learning resources. More than that, the governors want to be concerned with education. School governors do not wish to have to take over ILEA's administrative functions. They do not want the responsibility of hiring and firing ancillary staff. They do not want to be concerned with executive management. Heads of schools do not want to become executive managers. They want to be able to teach.
On adult education, it was reported directly to me that, of the 30,000 students in the London borough of Wandsworth attending three institutes, 12,700 filled in answers to a referendum within a week, and 92 per cent. said, "Leave us alone."
I submit that on a range of grounds the Education Reform Bill is an abomination. It should not have been introduced. It will not only decimate resources and demoralise staff but do damage to the education of our children.
9.15 pm
Mr. David Evennett: I have been amazed at the Opposition's speeches during the four hours for which I have sat here and listened with great interest. The rosy pictures which they painted bore no relation to the position in inner-London schools. One would never believe from listening to them that good schools have been destroyed over the past 20 years, that subjects have been removed from the curriculum in many schools, that lack

1063
of discipline and truancy are problems and that examination results, especially in secondary schools, are so poor.
Of course ILEA has some good points. It has been innovative in many ways and especially good in nursery provision and further education, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden) told us. It will not do to hear half-truths and half the story. All of us who have been involved in education in London over many years know the true position — the deterioration in schools and standards in inner London. ILEA should have been abolished when the late and unlamented Greater London council was finally laid to rest. Just like the GLC in its day, ILEA is remote and bureaucratic. It performs functions that could he dealt with by boroughs, just as many other functions are.
I have a twofold involvement in ILEA. First, I was a governor and manager in Hackney schools in the late 1970s. I was appalled by what I found in my many visits to schools there. I have continued to keep in contact with people in Hackney, and I believe that the position is far worse now in 1988 than it was in 1979. Children in Hackney used to have good grammar schools, which gave them a passport to the future, to a good career and a better life. Unfortunately, today they do not have that opportunity.
Secondly, because my constituency is in the outer London borough of Bexley, it borders the Greenwich boundary of ILEA. The Opposition may tell us that parents do not object to the continuation of ILEA and that they want to continue to be part of it, but my postbag is heavy with mail from people from Thamesmead on the Greenwich side who want their children to go to schools in Bexley because the standards there are far better and the opportunities greater, and they want the best for their children. In the past few months, many parents have written to me in connection with the borough boundary review.
Mr. Ashdown: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Evennett: I am sorry, but I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman, who would not give way earlier to me. Time is short.
Many parents from both sides of the border boundary have written to me fearful that a change in the boundary will put them into ILEA, with all the consequences that that will have for their children's education.
We do not need the opinion polls. We have letters from parents who are worried about being in ILEA. Parents may not take this matter up with all their representatives on the Opposition Benches, because they know that they will not get sympathy. They know that dogma will rule in these cases.
In places such as Thamesmead, there is real concern on the part of parents for their children's education. They want better standards and welcome the provisions of the Government's Education Reform Bill which will raise standards and set a curriculum for the schools. We must look forward to the future of the children of London—a future that has been regrettably neglected by large areas of ILEA in the past decade or so. We cannot sit back and allow that to happen. It is not acceptable for the parents, the children, the ratepayers or the taxpayers. We must never forget that the standards we want from those who educate our children will be such as to provide them with
1064
a passport for the future. They have not been offered that in the recent past in inner London. The only way forward must be reform. I welcome the abolition of ILEA; the sooner it comes the better.
9.20 pm
Mr. Derek Fatchett: We have had a lively and interesting debate — interesting in the sense that every Conservative Member representing a constituency in inner London who has spoken has expressed reservations about the Secretary of State's proposals. We may not see that reflected in the Division Lobby tonight, but we shall hear their fears echoed in every house in inner London. The views expressed by Conservative Members will, I am sure, be reproduced by many other people. The Secretary of State does not have the support of his inner-London colleagues who have deigned to turn up and participate in the debate.
We have witnessed a couple of sideshows, too. There was the sideshow about who represents the militant centre of British politics. I congratulate the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mrs. Barnes) on winning that battle. I do not know whether it was a precursor of other events, but I understand that she recently refused to share a platform with the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown). If so, she has at least had the opportunity tonight to speak first, rather than looking for an alternative platform, as she did on that occasion. It is lovely to see the forces of moderation working so closely together.
The other sideshow has been the battle for the leadership of the Conservative party. Some were offering odds before tonight's debate — I notice that the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) has walked in on cue—on who would succeed the right hon. Lady the Prime Minister as the next leader of the Conservative party. Two of the three contestants have spoken in tonight's debate. The right hon. Member for Henley and the Secretary of State are now offered odds that are much more favourable than before; and the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) is now regarded by the bookmakers as more of a potential favourite, merely because he had the good sense—unlike the other two—not to utter a word tonight and to be happy that he got the outcome that he wanted. If I may offer a word of advice to the Secretary of State—
Mr. Straw: Do that.
Mr. Fatchett: As my hon. Friend knows, I take a keen interest in the right hon. Gentleman's career. I notice that, recently, he has had to make one or two concessions first to his right hon. Friends, and then yesterday to my hon. Friends in the Committee on the subject of higher education. Perhaps those concessions were also made to the world of higher education outside. I suspect that, if the right hon. Gentleman's campaign for the Conservative leadership continues in this way, he will become the political equivalent of Eddie Edwards in the winter Olympics: he will not take off, but he will get considerable publicity in the process.
Conservative hon. Members have advanced two main arguments this evening. First, they have said that ILEA has failed to provide a good education service; and, secondly, that it has failed to provide it at an acceptable cost. My hon. Friends have already discussed those arguments, and I want to examine them in detail. They

1065
may be viewed in general terms, but it is crucial that we also examine them in an historical context that goes back a number of years. It goes back particularly to 1985, when the noble Lord Joseph decided that we should have an elected Inner London education authority. The right hon. Members for Chingford and for Henley were members of that Cabinet and supported that decision, so we have to ask whether ILEA, against those two criteria, has deteriorated substantially during the past three years.
One could come even closer than April 1985, to 1 December 1987, when the Secretary of State and the Minister of State, in the Second Reading debate on the Education Reform Bill, did not argue for the abolition of ILEA. In one of the flourishes of rhetoric for which the Minister has become so well known, she described ILEA as a model authority. She clearly believes in model building but also, eight weeks later, in model destruction. It might be useful to hear what has happened to the Minister of State to cause such a substantial change of mind. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) said that the Secretary of State could not be accused of consistency, but nor can the Minister of State when she shifts her ground so noticeably in such a short time.
We have to look at the general facts, and at the changes. Virtually every Conservative Member used examination results in ILEA as the only criterion against which to judge a good education service. There was no reference to primary education, nursery education, special needs or adult education, and on all those services ILEA does well, or better than average. However, let us look at the examination results figures. If those figures are weighted for socio-economic factors, ILEA does not come 86th out of 94 or, as the Secretary of State cheaply tried to say earlier, bottom. It comes higher.
The Sheffield university figures produced in 1987 show ILEA alongside average performing local education authorities. It compares with Oxfordshire and Hampshire and, although we do not have the Under-Secretary—the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) — here, it compares with Kent. We have not heard an argument for the abolition of those authorities. ILEA also compares favourably with Bromley and Bexley. I understand why the Conservative party might argue for certain parts of the Bexley borough to be abolished, but I have never heard an argument for the abolition of Bexley local education authority. In later Sheffield figures, a third of the authorities are deemed to be efficient in examination terms, and that third includes ILEA.
These further figures have not been referred to, so I shall go into them in some detail. Since 1964, ILEA has been testing 11-year-olds in maths, English and verbal reasoning. Those results have been calculated by the National Foundation of Educational Research. They show that in the mid-1960s ILEA achieved a rating of 102, which is well above the national average. In 1970, that figure had fallen to 95. By 1980, it had again increased to 100 and it has stayed above that figure ever since. There has been no change or deterioration since the decision was taken in April 1985 to continue with ILEA. On the statistics, ILEA is not an under-performing authority. When that is taken alongside the provision in primary, nursery, adult and youth services, ILEA has a record of which it can be proud.
1066
The other argument used by the Secretary of State and his hon. Friends is that ILEA is expensive. But they do not say and cannot argue that the overall costs have become more expensive since the Joseph decision to maintain ILEA. The figures from the beginning of this decade show that expenditure on ILEA has increased less than that on the metropolitan districts and shire counties. If the Government base their case on the figures from the early 1980s, it is not only ILEA but the shire counties and metropolitan districts that should be abolished. But one must be careful when using that sort of logic with this Government because the next Bill will abolish those districts and shire counties.
Figures also show that provision in London — a capital city with its attendant problems—will be much more expensive. We have seen that in terms of social services and the police, and we know it to be true for educational provision because of demographic reasons.
The Government give figures of costs per child. I am not surprised by the cost per child in inner London, nor am I embarrassed by it. We believe in investing in education and in our children. With all the social disadvantages that exist in a large capital city, the social policy that provides equality of opportunity is one which invests in the education of those youngsters. We are not embarrassed about that; we are proud. If we have opened up opportunities for youngsters in London, we can say, "We have achieved that and Conservative Members have resisted it."
When Conservative Members talk to us about the cost per child and say that it is too much, many London parents recognise that for the humbug that it is. That comes from a party which, almost without exception, decided on the opt-out principle in practice many years ago. Conservative Members opted out of the state system and sent their children to private schools. The sums that they spend on their children's education are much greater than those spent in inner London.
Mr. Martin Flannery: What about assisted places?
Mr. Fatchett: My hon. Friend mentions the assisted places scheme, and the figures prove his point. We are not embarrassed by the cost of inner-London education. If it has provided greater opportunities, we applaud and welcome it, and we will continue to fight for it.
With those two arguments, the Government's case has been threadbare. There could have been a third argument. There could have been a queue of people going to Elizabeth house, knocking on the door and saying to the Secretary of State, "We want ILEA abolished." Parents would have to do it that way because the Secretary of State does not visit inner-London schools. He has three junior Ministers and they have visited six inner-London schools in the period when he has visited one. Ministers have visited six out of 1,000 schools, so parents would have to trek to Elizabeth house to see the Secretary of State and put their argument. But there is no demand from parents that ILEA should be abolished.
Individual parents were the largest single group to respond to the consultative process, accounting for 41 per cent. of the total. How many parents objected to the Government's plans to change educational provision in inner London? The answer is 99·8 per cent. Even this Government could not rig a ballot and say that that is not

1067
a substantial majority. There are, of course, other figures. An opinion poll from Wandsworth shows that 76 per cent. of parents are satisfied with the educational provision.
Last week we debated the rate capping of ILEA. I always believe that there is a great deal of hypocrisy on the part of Conservative Members when they talk about the costs of inner-London education to the taxpayers. They have stopped the taxpayer from contributing to children's education in London.
In the course of that debate, the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) said:
"the Government will have a political problem on their hands in trying to convince some London parents." —[Official Report, 10 February 1988; Vol. 127, c. 469.]
I believe that that is something of an understatement, but it is a move in the right direction. The Government will have a political problem on their hands when they try to convince a majority of parents in London that they should favour the abolition of ILEA. In this context, some equals most.
The Government talk about parent power. When are they going to consult inner London parents and when are they going to give those parents a right to a ballot on this decision? I hope that the fears of the hon. Member for Buckingham will be confirmed by such a ballot and that he will support such a confirmation.
Mr. George Walden: I think that it is a little unfair of the hon. Gentleman to quote my conclusion without quoting my premises. I said that there was educational apathy in inner London and my premise was that that apathy had been encouraged by the Labour party and by ILEA. My other premise was that the low expectations of ILEA are, unfortunately, reflected in the socially low expectations among the parents. For those reasons, plus the fact that ILEA is used as a gigantic propaganda machine, I believe that it is possible that the Government will have political problems. Let us stick to the premises as well as the conclusion.
Mr. Fatchett: The hon. Gentleman is demonstrating an arrogance towards inner-London parents. If he is fearful of apathy, why does he not allow apathy the opportunity to show itself in the ballot box? If that opportunity is provided, the hon. Gentleman knows that inner-London parents will vote for ILEA.
Mr. John Marshall rose—
Mr. Fatchett: No, time is short and I must allow the Minister time to reply.
London parents are worried that there will not be a strategic authority to provide and plan for education in inner London. There is also the fear in all the poorer boroughs of inner London about the redistributive impact of abolishing ILEA. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbott) expressed that fear earlier and also convincingly argued that the Secretary of State only talked about a formula for future grant allocation. The Secretary of State did not give a commitment — the Minister of State must give that commitment tonight—on whether the poorer boroughs will be made poorer as a result of the abolition of ILEA. The Government's record leads to one conclusion: they will take further money out of Hackney and the other poorer inner-London boroughs.
If all else fails — all else has failed in the Government's intellectual argument — the Government
1068
fall back on the simple arrogance of mandate. They say, "We have a majority and we are going to drive it through." They may try to drive it through, but they have no moral authority for the decision that they are taking. That authority is not contained in their manifesto because it contained no reference to the total abolition of ILEA. Indeed, there was no reference in the consultative document or in the Bill to total abolition. Thai absence was noted by the right hon. Members for Henley and for Chingford, who launched a campaign for the total abolition of ILEA. If the Bill had allowed for total abolition in the simple form, their campaign would have been unnecessary.
It is totally hypocritical and misleading of the Government to argue that they had a mandate for abolition in the first place. They have no such mandate and they have no popular support for the decision that they are taking.
There is no mandate for abolition. There are no sound educational arguments. There is certainly no blueprint for future provision at borough level— parents are being forced, without any say whatever, to accept a leap in the dark. When The Economist said on 30 January that
"the plan to emasculate ILEA smacks more of political spite than educational strategy",
it was right. The measure represents yet another defeat for the Secretary of State—about that we shed no tears—but, more importantly, the measure represents a defeat for the orderly provision of education in inner London. It is those children and their parents who will be the losers. To protect their interests, I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against the Government's proposal.
9.40 pm
The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mrs. Angela Rumbold): My hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Shelton) congratulated my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on his farsightedness and reliability, and his consistent view that education should be devolved to the boroughs in inner London. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham and my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison), I am a convert to that view. Like them, I believed that ILEA, in the face of a Government who could so successfully return the powers of the Greater London council to the boroughs, would take heed and mend its ways, but sadly it did not. Seven years later, we have exactly the same failings in the Inner London education authority that we had in the years when some of us thought that it could mend its ways.
I should like to read two quotations. Mr. Steven Cowan, now the ILEA member for Westminster, North but a prospective member at the time, said, according to London Labour Briefing of May 1986:
"The ILEA is the most bureaucratic LEA in the country because of its double layer of officials at County Hall and at Divisional Offices … all too often it leads to the erection of a professional barrier between the community and elected politicians".
Those are the words of a current member of I LEA. I should also like to quote, as many other hon. Members have done, the leader of ILEA, Mr. Neil Fletcher, who told the Socialist Education Association on 30 September 1987:
"Does our system let down these children? For too many of them, if we are honest, the answer is yes. Why are working

1069
class children still not doing as well as their middle class peers? I am doubtful as to how far we should take socio-economic background as a determinant excuse".
Those are the words of the people who are currently running ILEA.
Mr. Straw: As the Minister is quoting various people, will she quote her own words in the House on 1 December? She said:
"The Government's aim is to improve both the quality and the cost-effectiveness of education in inner london. That would not be achieved at this stage by imposing educational responsibilities on unwilling boroughs."—[Official Report, 1 December 1987; Vol. 123, c. 856.]
What change was there between 1 December and 4 February?
Mrs. Rumbold: A clear sign that other boroughs such as Wandsworth, Westminster and Kensington and Chelsea were making plans to become independent education authorities, so they would destabilise the current ILEA. I had serious concerns about the effect of that upon the remaining authorities. I should like to refer —[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. Give the hon. Lady a chance.
Mrs. Rumbold: I should like to refer—
Mr. Fatchett: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Rumbold: No. I should like to answer the debate. I do not have much time.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) made the point that we need to ensure efficiency of borough administration and administrative structures. The development plans that boroughs will be required to publish will have to set out the proposed administrative organisation. We share my right hon. Friend's view of the importance of the matter. I assure him that we shall devote carefull attention to that aspect of boroughs' plans.
The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) stated that 44 per cent. of pupils in Tower Hamlets are from Bangladeshi families. We accept that boroughs will need to continue to make provision for children whose first language is not English. That is one of the subjects that we shall discuss with the boroughs concerned.
I remind hon. Members that much of the Inner London education authority's existing provision is funded by the section 11 grant. Of course, that grant will continue to be available to boroughs.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Maples) mentioned his concern about the Horniman museum. Obviously, we recognise the quality of that museum and of the Geffrye museum, which the Inner London education authority also maintained. We shall most certainly consider the arrangements that will be most appropriate for securing the future of those museums.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury said, in relation to the unit that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has mentioned that he will set up, that the London residuary body would need to have some additional education experts seconded to it. We have established a special unit within our Department to take forward the necessary discussions and arrangements as quickly as possible. In doing that, we wish to seek the views of all those with experience in the range of education provision. We certainly look to local professionals, above
1070
all the head teachers and other teachers in the boroughs, to contribute to and to comment on the development plans that boroughs will be required to produce.
The Inner London education authority's difficulties are not of a wholly different order from those of other inner-city areas, but it still continues to spend 45 per cent. more per pupil than Manchester spends, and 83 per cent. more per pupil than Birmingham spends. Is all that money going on education in the classroom? Eased by the extent to which ILEA can achieve economies of scale that are not possible in smaller authorities, of course it is not.
Why else does ILEA have to employ two and a half administrators for every one administrator employed by the average local education authority? The quotation that I gave from Mr. Steven Cowan goes some way towards explaining that. As for devolution of education to boroughs, many educational divisions of the Inner London education authority are mirrored by boroughs. Of course, there are 10 divisions, and only three share more than two boroughs. Most of them are equal and conterminous with the divisions of the Inner London education authority.
The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) talked about the Metropolitan police. He said that, because of the capital city's difficulties, it is impossible to compare the costs of the Inner London education authority. He prayed in aid the argument that the Metropolitan police are much more expensive. Hon. Members should note that London's policing problems are different from those in the rest of the country. The London area has about 45 per cent. of all registered drug addicts, about 50 per cent. of robberies, and 75 per cent. of all armed robberies. On 1985–86 estimates, costs per police officer are about 38 per cent. more than the England average. The Inner London education authority is spending about 50 per cent. more per secondary pupil than the outer-London borough average. The Inner London education authority is still failing disastrously.
If overspending had been the only charge against ILEA, it would have been grave enough, but, above all, that extravagance pays no significant dividends in the classroom. That means that a better way must be found.
Opposition Members have had a great deal of fun adducing all sorts of things from the advice provided by Her Majesty's inspectorate. They appear to rely more for their judgments on the newspapers than on the hard evidence of published HMI reports. Certain phrases toll like a bell through HMI reports on ILEA's schools—for example,
"despite a generous staffing establishment"
and
"no apparent shortages of suitable apparatus and equipment",
Or
"in spite of good provision in terms of staffing, accommodation, ancillary support and equipment, materials and books, and of the offer of an extensive in-service programme".
All too frequently the reports go on to reveal serious shortcomings about what goes on both inside and outside the classroom. Only last summer, there was a report of an absolute fiasco that took place because of the poor organisation of a recent Ramayana Asian festival in Battersea park. It was set up—
Mr. Fatchett: The Minister has quoted selectively from an HMI report. Will she now publish that report and allow

1071
the country to see what it said about primary education, the youth service, special needs provision and adult education — indeed, what it said about all that ILEA does well in relation to research and provision? Will she publish that report and allow the full picture to come out, or will she continue to quote selectively as she has done already?
Mrs. Rumbold: Everything that I have quoted from HMI reports has been published. However, the hon. Gentleman quoted from a confidential summary of a selection of reports sent to my right hon. Friend. Therefore, I do not choose to quote from that. I choose to quote from the recent experience of the children—
Mr. John Maxton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: No—this is an ILEA debate, not a Scottish debate.
Mr. Maxton rose—
Mr. George Foulkes rose—
Mr. Allan Rogers rose—
Mr. Bernie Grant rose—
Mr. John Home Robertson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members are interrupting from a sedentary position and it is difficult to hear.
Mr. Foulkes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Maxton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: What is the point of order?
Mr. Maxton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. First, may I remind you that you constantly remind us at Scottish Question Time that this is a British Parliament —[Interruption.] We rather resent being told that this is an ILEA debate and not a Scottish debate.
Secondly, for the Minister to say that the report is confidential, but then to quote from it is surely—
Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order. I ask the hon. Gentleman to look at the Order Paper, which says that this is an ILEA debate.
Mrs. Rumbold: I am sure that Scottish Members will enjoy the—
Mr. Home Robertson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker —[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. It has been a good-natured debate so far.
Mrs. Rumbold: I shall continue with my story — [HON. MEMBERS: "Fairy story"] It is not a fairy story; it is a fact. I am talking about what happened at the Ramayana Asian festival in Battersea, where it is reported:
"Children were left sitting around for hours and could not see the displays. Aimed at stimulating multi-cultural awareness, it may have had the reverse effect, leaving youngsters dispirited and bored, the authority has been told.
`It seemed to us that the only well-organised part of the festival was the tent dispensing free wine and food to invited guests,' teachers, parents, and other staff from one school, Cardwell primary, Woolwich, have protested to the ILEA.
`Children worked hard for several weeks preparing their puppets and rehearsing for what should have been the exciting climax to their labours.'"
1072
I do not deny that there is much good provision within the Inner London education authority's vast empire. Hon. Members have talked about adult education, and further education. The hon. Member for Greenwich (Mrs. Barnes) talked about her experiences as a parent of a child with special education needs. Of course, we shall look at that provision. Every local education authority is under a duty to secure adequate provision for children with special education needs. Every local education authority in the country meets that duty by co-operating with other authorities, as the hon. Member for Greenwich said.
Even the Inner London education authority does not and cannot make every form of specialised provision for every form of handicap. The practice in inner-London boroughs will reflect what happens in outer London. We regard that as a particularly important matter which we will discuss with all the boroughs and which we will expect to see dealt with in some detail in the boroughs' development plans.
I must tell Opposition Members that, in the area of crucial concern to employers and parents — the secondary age group — ILEA's provision is admittedly generally poor. The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney said that examination results are not everything and must be interpreted with great care. However, they are an important indicator for parents and employers. I can tell the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland) that not long ago, when Lambeth council considered the provisions that ILEA was planning for Lambeth, a report to council members stated:
"Over one third of Lambeth's children are educated outside the Borough. The Council believes that these proposals could perpetuate the denial of accessible secondary education to large sections of Lambeth's community if steps are not taken to improve local education."
Mr. Ashdown: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mr. Holland: Will the Minister give way?
Mrs. Rumbold: That authority is clearly looking after the interests of its children. I have more sympathy with my hon. Friends who are concerned about authorities that may be too irresponsible to be entrusted with children's education. However, I can tell my hon. Friends that they should remember that some powerful safeguards are included in the Education Reform Bill. It includes the national curriculum and wider parental choice.
Mr. Ashdown: Will the Minister give way?
Mrs. Rumbold: No. The hon. Gentleman continually comes into the Chamber in the middle of debates and always wants to intervene. I am glad to say that the lion. Member for Greenwich took advantage of his gallantry and spoke first—and about time, too.
The delegation of powers to governing bodies, heads and the right to opt out are also included in the Bill.
I want to quote again from that wonderful Mr. Steven Cowan, member of ILEA. Indeed, this is even more important, as it appears in London Labour Briefing. He said:
"Progress needs to be made to reduce the proportion of school places under the control of the Church. Their presence and practices are racist and segregationist. We should aim to achieve a secular comprehensive and community-based education in this country."
[HON. MEMBERS: "We cannot hear."] If you cannot hear, it is because you are not listening—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. I should like to be able to hear.
Mrs. Rumbold: I apologise. Obviously you were listening, Mr. Speaker, but the hon. Members to whom I was referring were not.
I want to address a few words to my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden). I understand his concern that some boroughs may not be capable of providing an effective education service. My hon. Friend said that he remained in favour of opting out as the basis for a transfer of educational responsibilities. However, where opting out proposals are likely to receive support from a significant number of boroughs, the case for a single, clean break must become unanswerable. A rump ILEA or my hon. Friend's suggestion of some form of mini-ILEA would leave matters in a state of uncertainty and would not provide the basis for improvement that he agrees is needed. In the development plans that we are expecting, we will want to consider management structure and the nature of some of the senior appointments.
Opposition Members referred to parent power and parents' wishes. The hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) said that we should ask the parents and take their views on board. I must tell the hon. Gentleman that, in the fortnight since my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced the Government's proposals, we have received about 200 letters.
Mr. Holland rose—
Mrs. Rumbold: We received 200 letters objecting to my right hon. Friend's proposals. The Southfields by-election in Wandsworth not long ago was fought entirely on the matter of education in London. At the time, the slogans were "Labour for education". What happened? The Conservatives won, and we doubled our majority.
The crucial point is that action should be taken as swiftly as possible to establish clear responsibilities for inner London's education service among the boroughs. That is why the Government's proposals are right, and why I ask the House to support them.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The original Question was the motion on the Inner London education authority—
9.59 pm
Mr. Tony Banks: This has nothing to do with the educational interests of the people of London. It is all to do with a couple of political shysters.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. David Waddington)rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
Question put accordingly, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 219, Noes 339.

Division No. 185]

[10 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

Battle, John

Allen, Graham

Beckett, Margaret

Alton, David

Beith, A. J.

Anderson, Donald

Bell, Stuart

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Armstrong, Hilary

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

Ashdown, Paddy

Bermingham, Gerald

Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

Bidwell, Sydney

Ashton, Joe

Blair, Tony

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Boyes, Roland

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Bradley, Keith

1074

Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

Hood, Jimmy

Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

Howells, Geraint

Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

Hoyle, Doug

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Buchan, Norman

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Buckley, George J.

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Caborn, Richard

Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

Callaghan, Jim

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Ingram, Adam

Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

Janner, Greville

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

John, Brynmor

Canavan, Dennis

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

Cartwright, John

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Kirkwood, Archy

Clay, Bob

Lambie, David

Clelland, David

Lamond, James

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Leadbitter, Ted

Cohen, Harry

Leighton, Ron

Coleman, Donald

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Lewis, Terry

Corbyn, Jeremy

Litherland, Robert

Cousins, Jim

Livingstone, Ken

Cox, Tom

Livsey, Richard

Crowther, Stan

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Cryer, Bob

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Cummings, John

McAllion, John

Cunlitfe, Lawrence

McAvoy, Thomas

Cunningham, Dr John

McCartney, Ian

Dalyell, Tarn

Macdonald, Calum A.

Darling, Alistair

McFall, John

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

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

McKelvey, William

Dewar, Donald

McLeish, Henry

Dixon, Don

McNamara, Kevin

Dobson, Frank

McTaggart, Bob

Doran, Frank

McWilliam, John

Douglas, Dick

Madden, Max

Duffy, A. E. P.

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Marek, Dr John

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Eadie, Alexander

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Eastham, Ken

Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Maxton, John

Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

Meale, Alan

Fatchett, Derek

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Fearn, Ronald

Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

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

Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

Fisher, Mark

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Flannery, Martin

Morgan, Rhodri

Flynn, Paul

Morley, Elliott

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Foster, Derek

Mowlam, Marjorie

Foulkes, George

Mullin, Chris

Fraser, John

Murphy, Paul

Fyfe, Maria

Nellist, Dave

Galbraith, Sam

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Galloway, George

O'Neill, Martin

Garrett, John (Norwich South)

Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

Parry, Robert

George, Bruce

Patchett, Terry

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Pendry, Tom

Golding, Mrs Llin

Pike, Peter L.

Gordon, Mildred

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Graham, Thomas

Prescott, John

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Primarolo, Dawn

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Quin, Ms Joyce

Grocott, Bruce

Radice, Giles

Harman, Ms Harriet

Randall, Stuart

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

Haynes, Frank

Reid, Dr John

Healey, Rt Hon Denis

Richardson, Jo

Heffer, Eric S.

Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

Henderson, Doug

Robertson, George

Hinchliffe, David

Robinson, Geoffrey

Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

Rogers, Allan

Holland, Stuart

Rooker, Jeff

Home Robertson, John

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

1075

Rowlands, Ted

Turner, Dennis

Ruddock, Joan

Vaz, Keith

Sedgemore, Brian

Wall, Pat

Sheerman, Barry

Walley, Joan

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Wareing, Robert N.

Skinner, Dennis

Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Wigley, Dafydd

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

Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

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

Wilson, Brian

Snape, Peter

Winnick, David

Soley, Clive

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Spearing, Nigel

Worthington, Tony

Steinberg, Gerry

Wray, Jimmy

Stott, Roger

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Straw, Jack

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Mr. Alun Michael and

Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

Mr. Frank Cook.

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

NOES

Adley, Robert

Chope, Christopher

Aitken, Jonathan

Churchill, Mr

Alexander, Richard

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

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Amery, Rt Hon Julian

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Amess, David

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Amos, Alan

Colvin, Michael

Arbuthnot, James

Conway, Derek

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Ashby, David

Cope, John

Aspinwall, Jack

Cormack, Patrick

Atkins, Robert

Couchman, James

Atkinson, David

Cran, James

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

Critchley, Julian

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Baldry, Tony

Curry, David

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

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

Batiste, Spencer

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Day, Stephen

Bellingham, Henry

Devlin, Tim

Bendall, Vivian

Dicks, Terry

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Dorrell, Stephen

Benyon, W.

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Bevan, David Gilroy

Dover, Den

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Dunn, Bob

Biggs-Davison, Sir John

Durant, Tony

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Dykes, Hugh

Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Emery, Sir Peter

Body, Sir Richard

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Evennett, David

Boswell, Tim

Fairbairn, Nicholas

Bottomley, Peter

Fallon, Michael

Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

Farr, Sir John

Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

Favell, Tony

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Brazier, Julian

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Bright, Graham

Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

Forman, Nigel

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

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

Forth, Eric

Browne, John (Winchester)

Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

Fox, Sir Marcus

Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

Franks, Cecil

Buck, Sir Antony

Freeman, Roger

Budgen, Nicholas

French, Douglas

Burt, Alistair

Fry, Peter

Butcher, John

Gale, Roger

Butler, Chris

Gardiner, George

Butterfill, John

Gill, Christopher

Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Glyn, Dr Alan

Carrington, Matthew

Goodhart, Sir Philip

Carttiss, Michael

Goodlad, Alastair

Cash, William

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Gorst, John

Chapman, Sydney

Gow, Ian

1076

Gower, Sir Raymond

MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

Maclean, David

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

McLoughlin, Patrick

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

Gregory, Conal

McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

Madel, David

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Major, Rt Hon John

Grist, Ian

Malins, Humfrey

Ground, Patrick

Mans, Keith

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Maples, John

Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

Marland, Paul

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Marlow, Tony

Hampson, Dr Keith

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Hanley, Jeremy

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Hannam, John

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

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

Mates, Michael

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Maude, Hon Francis

Harris, David

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Haselhurst, Alan

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Hawkins, Christopher

Mellor, David

Hayes, Jerry

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

Miller, Hal

Hayward, Robert

Mills, Iain

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Miscampbell, Norman

Heddle, John

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

Moate, Roger

Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

Monro, Sir Hector

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Hill, James

Moore, Rt Hon John

Hind, Kenneth

Morris, M (N'hampton S)

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Morrison, Hon Sir Charles

Holt, Richard

Moss, Malcolm

Hordern, Sir Peter

Mudd, David

Howard, Michael

Neale, Gerrard

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

Neubert, Michael

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Nicholls, Patrick

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

Oppenheim, Phillip

Hunter, Andrew

Page, Richard

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Paice, James

Irvine, Michael

Patnick, Irvine

Irving, Charles

Patten, John (Oxford W)

Jack, Michael

Pawsey, James

Jackson, Robert

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Janman, Tim

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Jessel, Toby

Porter, David (Waveney)

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Portillo, Michael

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Price, Sir David

Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Rathbone, Tim

Key, Robert

Redwood, John

Kilfedder, James

Renton, Tim

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Rhodes James, Robert

Kirkhope, Timothy

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Knapman, Roger

Riddick, Graham

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Knowles, Michael

Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

Knox, David

Roe, Mrs Marion

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Rossi, Sir Hugh

Lang, Ian

Rost, Peter

Latham, Michael

Rowe, Andrew

Lawrence, Ivan

Rumbold, Mrs Angela

Lee, John (Pendle)

Ryder, Richard

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Sainsbury, Hon Tim

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Sayeed, Jonathan

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Scott, Nicholas

Lightbown, David

Shaw, David (Dover)

Lilley, Peter

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Shelton, William (Streatham)

Lord, Michael

Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

Luce, Rt Hon Richard

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

McCrindle, Robert

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Macfarlane, Sir Neil

Shersby, Michael

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Sims, Roger

1077

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Twinn, Dr Ian

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Waddington, Rt Hon David

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Speller, Tony

Waldegrave, Hon William

Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

Walden, George

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Walker, Bill (T'side North)

Squire, Robin

Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

Stanbrook, Ivor

Waller, Gary

Stanley, Rt Hon John

Walters, Dennis

Steen, Anthony

Ward, John

Stern, Michael

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Stevens, Lewis

Warren, Kenneth

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Watts, John

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

Wells, Bowen

Stokes, John

Wheeler, John

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Whitney, Ray

Sumberg, David

Widdecombe, Ann

Summerson, Hugo

Wiggin, Jerry

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Wilkinson, John

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Wilshire, David

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Winterton, Nicholas

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Wolfson, Mark

Temple-Morris, Peter

Wood, Timothy

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

Woodcock, Mike

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Yeo, Tim

Thorne, Neil

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Thornton, Malcolm

Younger, Rt Hon George

Thurnham, Peter

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Tellers for the Noes:

Tracey, Richard

Mr. Robert Boscawen and

Trippier, David

Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.

Trotter, Neville

Question accordingly negatived.
Main Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 339, Noes 220.

Division No. 186]

[10.15 pm

AYES

Adley, Robert

Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

Aitken, Jonathan

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Alexander, Richard

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

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Browne, John (Winchester)

Amery, Rt Hon Julian

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

Amess, David

Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

Amos, Alan

Buck, Sir Antony

Arbuthnot, James

Budgen, Nicholas

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Burt, Alistair

Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

Butcher, John

Ashby, David

Butler, Chris

Aspinwall, Jack

Butterfill, John

Atkins, Robert

Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

Atkinson, David

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

Carrington, Matthew

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Carttiss, Michael

Baldry, Tony

Cash, William

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

Batiste, Spencer

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Chapman, Sydney

Bellingham, Henry

Chope, Christopher

Bendall, Vivian

Churchill, Mr

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

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

Benyon, W.

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Bevan, David Gilroy

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Biggs-Davison, Sir John

Colvin, Michael

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Conway, Derek

Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Body, Sir Richard

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Cope,John

Boswell, Tim

Cormack, Patrick

Bottomley, Peter

Couchman, James

Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

Cran, James

Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

Critchley, Julian

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Brazier, Julian

Curry, David

Bright, Graham

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

1078

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Day, Stephen

Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

Devlin, Tim

Hunter, Andrew

Dicks, Terry

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Dorrell, Stephen

Irvine, Michael

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Irving, Charles

Dover, Den

Jack, Michael

Dunn, Bob

Jackson, Robert

Durant, Tony

Janman, Tim

Dykes, Hugh

Jessel, Toby

Emery, Sir Peter

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Evennett, David

Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

Fairbairn, Nicholas

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Fallon, Michael

Key, Robert

Farr, Sir John

Kilfedder, James

Favell, Tony

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Kirkhope, Timothy

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Knapman, Roger

Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Forman, Nigel

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Knowles, Michael

Forth, Eric

Knox, David

Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Fox, Sir Marcus

Lang, Ian

Franks, Cecil

Latham, Michael

Freeman, Roger

Lawrence, Ivan

French, Douglas

Lee, John (Pendle)

Fry, Peter

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Gale, Roger

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Gardiner, George

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Gill, Christopher

Lightbown, David

Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Lilley, Peter

Glyn, Dr Alan

Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

Goodhart, Sir Philip

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Goodlad, Alastair

Lord, Michael

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Luce, Rt Hon Richard

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

McCrindle, Robert

Gorst, John

Macfarlane, Sir Neil

Gow, Ian

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Gower, Sir Raymond

MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

Maclean, David

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

McLoughlin, Patrick

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

Gregory, Conal

McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

Madel, David

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Major, Rt Hon John

Grist, Ian

Malins, Humfrey

Ground, Patrick

Mans, Keith

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Maples, John

Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

Marland, Paul

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Marlow, Tony

Hampson, Dr Keith

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Hanley, Jeremy

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Hannam, John

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

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

Mates, Michael

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Maude, Hon Francis

Harris, David

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Haselhurst, Alan

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Hawkins, Christopher

Mellor, David

Hayes, Jerry

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

Miller, Hal

Hayward, Robert

Mills, Iain

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Miscampbell, Norman

Heddle, John

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

Moate, Roger

Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

Monro, Sir Hector

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Hill, James

Moore, Rt Hon John

Hind, Kenneth

Morris, M (N'hampton S)

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Morrison, Hon Sir Charles

Holt, Richard

Moss, Malcolm

Hordern, Sir Peter

Mudd, David

Howard, Michael

Neale, Gerrard

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

Neubert, Michael

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Nicholls, Patrick

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

1079

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

Oppenheim, Phillip

Stokes, John

Page, Richard

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Paice, James

Sumberg, David

Patnick, Irvine

Summerson, Hugo

Patten, John (Oxford W)

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Pawsey, James

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Porter, David (Waveney)

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Portillo, Michael

Temple-Morris, Peter

Price, Sir David

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Rathbone, Tim

Thorne, Neil

Redwood, John

Thornton, Malcolm

Renton, Tim

Thurnham, Peter

Rhodes James, Robert

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Tracey, Richard

Riddick, Graham

Trippier, David

Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

Trotter, Neville

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Twinn, Dr Ian

Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Roe, Mrs Marion

Waddington, Rt Hon David

Rossi, Sir Hugh

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Rost, Peter

Waldegrave, Hon William

Rowe, Andrew

Walden, George

Rumbold, Mrs Angela

Walker, Bill (T'side North)

Ryder, Richard

Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

Sainsbury, Hon Tim

Waller, Gary

Sayeed, Jonathan

Walters, Dennis

Scott, Nicholas

Ward, John

Shaw, David (Dover)

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Warren, Kenneth

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

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

Speller, Tony

Wood, Timothy

Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

Woodcock, Mike

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Yeo, Tim

Squire, Robin

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Stanbrook, Ivor

Younger, Rt Hon George

Stanley, Rt Hon John

Steen, Anthony

Tellers for the Ayes:

Stern, Michael

Mr. Robert Boscawen and

Stevens, Lewis

Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

Allen, Graham

Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

Alton, David

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Anderson, Donald

Buchan, Norman

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Buckley, George J.

Armstrong, Hilary

Caborn, Richard

Ashdown, Paddy

Callaghan, Jim

Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Ashton, Joe

Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Canavan, Dennis

Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

Battle, John

Cartwright, John

Beckett, Margaret

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Beith, A. J.

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Bell, Stuart

Clay, Bob

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Clelland, David

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

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Bermingham, Gerald

Cohen, Harry

Bidwell, Sydney

Coleman, Donald

Blair, Tony

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Boyes, Roland

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Bradley, Keith

Corbyn, Jeremy

1080

Cousins, Jim

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Cox, Tom

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Crowther, Stan

McAllion, John

Cryer, Bob

McAvoy, Thomas

Cummings, John

McCartney, Ian

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Macdonald, Calum A.

Cunningham, Dr John

McFall, John

Dalyell, Tam

McKelvey, William

Darling, Alistair

McLeish, Henry

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

McNamara, Kevin

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

McTaggart, Bob

Dewar, Donald

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)

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

Maxton, John

Eadie, Alexander

Meacher, Michael

Eastham, Ken

Meale, Alan

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute

Fatchett, Derek

Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

Fearn, Ronald

Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Moonie, Dr Lewis

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

Morgan, Rhodri

Fisher, Mark

Morley, Elliott

Flannery, Martin

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

Flynn, Paul

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Mowlam, Marjorie

Foster, Derek

Mullin, Chris

Foulkes, George

Murphy, Paul

Fraser, John

Nellist, Dave

Fyfe, Maria

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Galbraith, Sam

O'Neill, Martin

Galloway, George

Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

Garrett, John (Norwich South)

Parry, Robert

Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

Patchett, Terry

George, Bruce

Pendry, Tom

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Pike, Peter L.

Golding, Mrs Llin

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Gordon, Mildred

Prescott, John

Graham, Thomas

Primarolo, Dawn

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Quin, Ms Joyce

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Radice, Giles

Grocott, Bruce

Randall, Stuart

Harman, Ms Harriet

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Reid, Dr John

Haynes, Frank

Richardson, Jo

Heffer, Eric S.

Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

Henderson, Doug

Robertson, George

Hinchliffe, David

Robinson, Geoffrey

Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

Rogers, Allan

Holland, Stuart

Rooker, Jeff

Home Robertson, John

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Hood, Jimmy

Rowlands, Ted

Howells, Geraint

Ruddock, Joan

Hoyle, Doug

Sedgemore, Brian

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Sheerman, Barry

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

Skinner, Dennis

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Ingram, Adam

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

Janner, Greville

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

John, Brynmor

Snape, Peter

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Soley, Clive

Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

Spearing, Nigel

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

Steinberg, Gerry

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Stott, Roger

Kirkwood, Archy

Straw, Jack

Lambie, David

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Lamond, James

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Leadbitter, Ted

Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

Leighton, Ron

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Turner, Dennis

Lewis, Terry

Vaz, Keith

Litherland, Robert

Wall, Pat

Livsey, Richard

Walley, Joan

1081

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Worthington, Tony

Wareing, Robert N.

Wray, Jimmy

Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Wigley, Dafydd

Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

Tellers for the Noes:

Wilson, Brian

Mr. Allen McKay and

Winnick, David

Mr. Alun Michael.

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House notes that the Inner London Education Authority has combined profligate overspending with a persistent failure to raise standards of education in its schools; recognises the urgent need for improvements; welcomes the Government's proposals for the transfer of educational functions to the inner London councils in 1990 as the best means of building an education service of high quality for the people of inner London; and approves the decision to table amendments to the Education Reform Bill for this purpose.

Education Reform Bill (Allocation of Time)
10.28 pm
The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Kenneth Baker): I beg to move,
That the Order of 1st February be varied by substituting, for paragraphs 1 and 2(1), the following:—
`Committee
1. — (1) The Standing Committee to which the Bill is allocated shall report the Bill to the House on or before 8th March 1988.
(2) Proceedings on the Bill at a sitting of the Standing Committee on the said 8th March may continue until Ten p.m., whether or not the House is adjourned before that time, and if the House is adjourned before those proceedings have been brought to a conclusion the Standing Committee shall report the Bill to the House on 9th March.
Report and Third Reading
2. — (1) The proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed in four alloted days and shall be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock on the last of those days; and for the purposes of Standing Order No. 80 (Business Committee) this Order shall be taken to allot to the proceedings on Consideration such part of those days as the Resolution of the Business Committee may determine.'
I shall not detain the House long. We have already had a vigorous debate on the principles of the Government's proposals for ILEA, which have just been approved by a majority of almost 120.
As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House made clear on 1 February, the main timetable motion for the Education Reform Bill was exceptionally generous. It allowed for a total of over 200 hours to be spent discussing the Bill on the Floor of the House and in Standing Committee.
The Government recognise that the amendments that we have tabled to part III of the Bill are substantial. They amount to 25 new clauses, replacing nine existing clauses, with amendments to a further three clauses. We are therefore continuing our generous approach to allocation of time for the Bill by proposing two additional days in Committee and an additional day on Report—which is in addition to the day on the Floor of the House which we have just had—to add to the three on Report which the House has already approved.
The Opposition cannot reasonably complain —although no doubt they will—about the additional time that we are allocating. Before they try to argue that we should be pushing the reform of inner London's education into the distant future by introducing a separate Bill next Session—which I understand some would like—or the one after that, let me remind them that all Governments from time to time have found it necessary to introduce significant amendments to legislation already before the House.
There is, of course, a good Labour precedent for that—the Industry Bill of 1975. I referred to it in moving terms earlier this afternoon, only to discover that, as a civil servant, the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland) had drafted the Bill. He must have done that with tremendous enthusiasm, as the Bill was a major measure and there was a major change to it while it was under the guillotine.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: When will the Secretary of State sing a new tune? He keeps telling
1084
us how expensive ILEA has been. Will he now tell us what savings he expects to make as a result of the introduction of this piece of legislation?
Mr. Baker: When one has a good tune, one should stick to it. There is, as I say, a good precedent in what the Labour Government did in 1975. As always, we have improved on their practice, because on that occasion they did not table the amendments and new clauses before they moved the guillotine motion. We have done better, by tabling them yesterday.
As a result of the motion, the amount of time that will now be provided for debate on the legislation, on the Floor of the House and in Committee, will exceed 250 hours, which is probably the most generous timetable for 20 or 30 years. I need to take advice from the Clerks on whether it is 20 or 30 years, but this is certainly one of the most generous timetables that the House has ever been given on a major Bill.
Mr. James Pawsey: Can my right hon. Friend say how that amount of time compares with that allocated for the 1944 Act?
Mr. Baker: The amount of time spent debating the 1944 Act was 50 to 60 hours. We shall debate this Bill for four or five times as long as that. The time spent in Committee on all the education legislation introduced since 1979 does not amount to 250 hours, so the House cannot complain that the measure is not being debated fully, either in Committee or on the Floor of the House. We shall also have four days to discuss it on Report.
It is appropriate that the time allocated should be generous, because the Bill contains a major set of reforms that the education service desperately needs. That is why it should get on to the statute book as quickly as possible.
10.32 pm
Mr. Frank Dobson: The Secretary of State has explained the extension of time—[Interruption.]—that is to be given to the consideration of the abolition of ILEA by the guillotine motion. It is better than nothing—
Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Would it be possible to ask those who do not want to listen to this part of the debate to clear the Chamber?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): I do not think it is right to ask hon. Members to clear the Chamber, but is is right for me to ask them to carry on their conversations in a lower tone of voice so that we can hear the Front Bench.
Mr. Dobson: The arrangement that has been agreed with the Government is certainly an improvement on what was originally intended. But what was originally intended was to introduce a limited number of amendments relating to ILEA—not the proposition to abolish it altogether.
As one of those Members elected to represent people in inner London, I do not believe that the people of inner London, or their children, have got what they deserve from the motion.
The people of inner London and their children were entitled to a separate Bill to consider the abolition of the 118-year-old education authority. They should have been consulted about whether it should be abolished, about the Government's proposals, and about the details of the

1085
clauses. They were entitled to advise the Government, if they were prepared to listen, or anyone else, of the likely impact of those proposals and to seek changes. The motion will not give them the opportunity to do that.
The electorates of inner London have not had the chance to vote on the proposition that ILEA should be abolished. No one has a mandate to abolish ILEA. No Tory Member of Parliament put this proposition in his election address. No Tory ILEA member put it to his electorate. No Tory borough council has put it to the borough council electorate. It has never been put to the people of inner London. When the question of the future of ILEA and of its record have been put to the electors, they have always voted to maintain the authority as it is, under the control of the Labour party.
When that fact was put before the House earlier, it provoked the comment from the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) — made from a sedentary position—that they must be mad. That is the basis on which the Government are going forward — that the people of inner London are unfit to decide for themselves the nature and arrangements for education in inner London.
Mr. Harry Greenway: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Dobson: No, I shall not give way.
Mr. Greenway rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) has made it clear that he will not give way.
Mr. Greenway: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it not a convention of the House that if one hon. Member attacks another, he gives way to enable that Member to defend himself?
Madam Deputy Speaker: It is a convention, but it is not obligatory for the hon. Member who makes the attack to give way.
Mr. Greenway: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) has misquoted me. I did not say that the people of inner London were mad, full stop. I said that they were mad to vote Labour.
Madam Deputy Speaker: I think that the point has been made.
Mr. Dobson: I will try to get on with my speech because there are a number of hon. Members who represent people in London and who want to take part in the debate. They were kept out of the previous debate by Tories, half of whom represent seats outside inner London, and in some cases outside London altogether. The Tories cannot muster anyone from inner London who is prepared to support the proposition.
The Secretary of State said that he is introducing measures which will remove nine of the Bill's clauses, amend three others, and introduce 25 new clauses, eight of which relate to staff. That latter point is one of the reasons why people in inner London are so perturbed about this proposition. If we had a Conservative Government, they would subscribe to the traditional Conservative proposition that change is always dubious
1086
and one should proceed with change only if one can guarantee that, at the other end of the process of change, there will be substantial improvements. That is the bedrock of Conservative philosophy.
The fact is that the Government cannot guarantee any improvement whatever in educational provision in inner London. Indeed, we can almost guarantee that it will worsen. A reason why it is likely to worsen, certainly during the transitional period between now and 1992—two years after the boroughs will take over if the measure is passed—is that the vast proportion of the staff will have to devote most of their time and effort to protecting their jobs and ensuring that those jobs continue to exist.
If what has happened in the Tory reorganisation of the Health Service is anything to go by, the staff will go through a ludicrous stage of having to reapply for the jobs that they are already doing. The education of our children in inner London depends on having staff who are skilled, well trained and enthusiastic and who have a high morale. This process of change is bound to reduce staff morale, so education is bound to suffer as an automatic consequence of the process of change.
We were privileged tonight to listen to the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), who made his latest prepared speech in his continuing campaign to be the next leader of the Tory party, but he seems to have sloped off home. We heard all sorts of theories about local government and the problems of the inner cities, but I should like to hear from him, the Secretary of State or any Tory present what improvements they think this measure will bring about for the children, for example, at Argyle junior mixed and infant school in the King's Cross part of my constituency.
The school has 324 children, many of whom come from poor homes, which is shown by the fact that no fewer than 274 of them are entitled to free school meals. Two hundred and fifty-nine of them come from homes where the mother tongue is not English and 63 do not come from anything that any hon. Member would recognise as a home because they live in hotels, bed-and-breakfast accommodation or other hostel accommodation at night. What improvement in the education of those children is likely to result from a period of chaos and change in the education system in inner London?
That is not an isolated case. There are more than 10,000 children living in temporary accommodation and attending ILEA schools.
Mr. Harry Greenway: Who put them there?
Mr. Dobson: I shall tell the hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Member for Henley. He is responsible because his housing measures, when he was Secretary of State for the Environment, created homelessness in London in the first place. If the hon. Gentleman is not satisfied with that, what about the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker) who also served in that post and continued to perpetrate the housing policies which have left so many of the people whom I represent homeless? Unless the Government address themselves to the genuine problems of the real children of inner London, not mythical ones invented by themselves and a few Tory protagonists, the parents, children and teachers will treat the Government with contempt.
It is certain that the Government will carry any Division tonight, just as they carried the earlier Division

1087
and just as they will manage it in Committee. They have the majority to do so. However, the Government should remember that, even within the best traditions of the Tory party, powerful people have tempered the way in which they have dealt with the poor and the helpless.
Mr. Tony Banks: Not this bunch.
Mr. Dobson: My hon. Friend is correct.
We seek the abandonment of the Government's proposals. If the Government intend to go ahead with a Bill to abolish ILEA, they should at least consult the people of inner London. They should then come forward with a well-argued, properly thought-out Bill, instead of this lousy, botched job, put together in a fortnight.
The creation of 117 years of effort by the teachers, parents and educationists of London deserves better than to be shoved aside as a result of a fortnight's botching by the Department of Education and Science under the leadership—if that is the right word—of the right hon. Member for Mole Valley.
10.45 pm
Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: Perhaps we can now get back to reality.
The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) spoke about a large number of pupils of the Argyle school who live in hotels. I should remind him that, according to the latest figures, the London borough of Camden has more than 500 dwellings that have been empty for more than six months. Before the Opposition say that that borough has no money to repair them, I would point out that Camden has rent arrears of more than £5 million. Moreover, Camden has paid out more than £1 million to hotel owners for rooms that were never occupied.
I believe that my right hon. Friend is being too generous in the amount of time that he is allocating for the ILEA abolition clauses. We are dealing with a local education authority and not the 159th member of the United Nations. However, frankly, looking at many of the proceedings of ILEA it would appear that it is a world power instead of an education authority.
It is true that, for more than 50 years, the children of London had a good education authority in the form of the London county council. In those days, it was run by men and women who were dedicated to looking after the interests of children and not flying away with strange theories. The chairman of the county council was wholly non-political and behaved in a respectable manner. It had an outstanding succession of leaders. One of those was the man who was a political opponent of mine for many years, Ike Hayward. Ike Hayward would not have allowed half the present members of ILEA through the back door of county hall, let alone to occupy chairmanships.
Let us hear no more nonsense about the education of London's children. Since the creation of ILEA, those children have had a set of people determined to put their own partisan theories before the children's needs. Most independent experts will acknowledge that. I could not care less whether the politics of ILEA was Tory or Labour. Indeed, I remind the House that it did have a period of Conservative leadership.
I have never believed that there was a need for ILEA. If I have a slight grumble about my colleagues on the Front Bench, it is that they did not get rid of ILEA at the
1088
same time as they got rid of the Greater London council. People have said that everyone will be rising up in anger about the Government's decision and that it will be remembered at the next election. In the public meetings in my marginal constituency during the last election campaign, no one even mentioned the defunct GLC. I believe that it is absolutely right that my right hon. Friends have decided to get rid of ILEA by using—
Mr. Dobson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: In a second. I shall be more courteous than the hon. Gentleman was to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway).
Mr. Dobson: The hon. Gentleman says that no one raised the matter of the defunct GLC during the election. At any of the public meetings at the election, unique among all Tories in London, did he suggest to his electorate that he wanted to abolish the GLC?
Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: As I have heard others say, "Get it right, Frank." I say firmly that, unlike a large number of my colleagues, I have been on record from the beginning as saying that ILEA should never have been created. I said that when I was in local government, and when I gave evidence to the Herbert commission, and I have never changed my mind on that issue. My constituents know full well where I stood on the GLC and ILEA. They might also wish to know where I stand on the future of Hampstead heath. The sooner it goes to the City of London, the better.
Mr. Paddy Ashdown: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: I should like to continue.
I say firmly that the real problem that we now must face is what the children will go through if demonstrations and strikes take place. Let me not hear from the Labour party that the education of London's children will be damaged by the Bill. The damage has been done over the years by the attitude of the London branch of the National Union of Teachers, the record of which has been abysmal. Those who go out on strike, participate in demonstrations and so on are harming the education of London's children. It is not the Government or the House of Commons—it is those who put their political views ahead of the needs of the children.
Mr. Ashdown: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to speak. He has spoken once already. I think that we have heard quite enough from him for the moment. I believe that —[Interruption.] I was delighted to give way to a Front-Bench London Member, the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). I do not think that we want to hear any more about London's education from the west country.
Those of my colleagues who have put this set of clauses through the House must remember one thing — that there will be a campaign of lying, hypocrisy and double dealing aimed at the people of London. I simply ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State this: what steps will he take to stop ILEA spending the ratepayers' money, as the GLC did, on political campaigns against the measure? He has a responsibility, which I know he will accept, to keep the limited amount of money that is there

1089
for London's education, limited because of the extravagance of ILEA. That money should be used on education, not on falsehoods in pamphlets. My right hon. Friend must make it clear that the stories now being put about that adult education, music education and special schools are under threat are a complete—
Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: In a moment.
Mr. Bruce: It is important.
Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: I know it is important, but occasionally one must try to help hon. Members understand things.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State must try to get over the point that we must be certain that the truth is heard by the parents of London. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that he makes it clear beyond peradventure that those three subjects above all else—what I call the non-primary and secondary subjects—will not suffer as a result of the proposals? I do not believe that they will suffer, and my right hon. Friend does not, but the other parties in the House will try to spread those stories. I hope that my right hon. Friend will take that point on board.
10.54 pm
Mr. Chris Smith: In introducing his timetable the Secretary of State told us that he is being exceptionally generous in allowing additional time for debate. I beg to differ. The time that he is allocating for major consideration of a major change to a major Bill is grossly insufficient for two reasons. First, it faiis to give parents and other people of inner London sufficient time in which to make their views known and to have their views and opinions taken while the Government draw up the details of the measure.
The Government have no democratic mandate for the proposal. The proposal was announced in public only two weeks ago. We are told that it will pass through all its stages in the course of the next four or five weeks. That is totally insufficient time properly to consult and canvass the views and opinions of parents in my constituency and in all other constituencies in inner London, to make sure that what the Government are doing, or are not doing, is in accordance with their wishes.
Secondly, the advocated timetable is grossly insufficient for consideration of the detailed and complex issues that arise out of the Government's decision to abolish the Inner London education authority. I shall give one or two examples of such considerations, because they affect my constituents and their children. They are weighty matters that should form part of the House's consideration. The next four or five weeks are not sufficient time in which to get them right. Some of them have been touched on, but not in detail, in the course of our earlier discussions today.
First, how will the financing of education in schools in my area be organised after abolition? As my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbott) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) mentioned, many boroughs — mine included — gain from the present redistributive mechanism of ILEA funding. Quite rightly and totally justifiably, ILEA has always been a mechanism
1090
whereby richer boroughs in the centre of London subsidise education in poorer boroughs. My borough benefits considerably. Its contribution to the ILEA budget is £44 million a year. However, it derives £73 million of benefit from the ILEA budget. That is a £29 million gain for the parents, children and students of Islington from the existence of ILEA.
The Secretary of State told us that there will be an assessment of the social and educational needs of each borough when an assessment is made of what sort of financial mechanism shall be established to redistribute funds among boroughs after abolition. But if the present Government's record of making assessments of need, and their record in relation to local government, with grant-related expenditure assessments are anything to go by, even Conservative-controlled boroughs in London find the grant-related expenditure assessments grossly insufficient to meet people's needs. Will the Government use the same sort of bases for establishing educational need when the Inner London education authority is abolished? We need the answers to those questions before we can properly decide on measures for abolition. So far, the Secretary of State has given us no confidence that such proper mechanisms will be in place.
Secondly, we have to ask the Secretary of State where the secondary school children will go. There has been much talk from Conservative Members about secondary school children. There are insufficient secondary school places within the borough boundaries of Islington to accommodate the needs of all the secondary schoolchildren of Islington. That means that secondary school pupils from Islington will have to be placed in schools outside the Islington area. What mechanisms will be established to enable that to happen? What guarantee do the parents of children in Islington have that they will be able to find a school place of their choice? The Government are in favour of open enrolment and I should like to know how that will operate across borough boundaries once the boroughs, rather than ILEA, will be the education authorities.
The third question to which we need an answer before we can make a final assessment of the package of measures in the Bill is, what will happen to further education establishments? I take as an example the north London college, which is based in my constituency. It provides an extremely good service to the 4,041 students who attend it, of whom only 1,615 come from the borough of Islington. The remaining 2,400 come from a variety of boroughs, mainly from other inner-London education boroughs but some from Barnet, Brent, Enfield and even from Hertfordshire.
Therefore, students at the north London college come from a wide catchment area. Who will finance the north London college? What sort of joint arrangements will be made between the boroughs to ensure the pooling of resources to provide a good quality further education service in each of the 24 further education establishments that exist in the ILEA area? What sort of pooling arrangements will there be for students to ensure that proper choice can be available to them so that they can choose the courses that are most suited to their needs?
The principal of north London college wrote only two days ago to the leader of ILEA expressing her concern about the Government's proposals and stating:
"Currently there is much co-operation between the 24 FE colleges on curricular and other levels—rationalisation and

1091
effective allocation of resources is relatively easy. The tertiary submissions, amended, need to be re-presented on a wider than borough basis."
The importance of looking at further education on a cross-borough basis is absolutely crucial. However, at the moment there are no firm proposals from the Government to take account of that point.
The same applies to special education. I have a particular concern with special education, having been for 10 years a governor of Colebrooke school for maladjusted children in my constituency. It is one of the finest special schools — not only in London, but anywhere in the world. It has an outstandingly high reputation, as do the other two special schools that are in my constituency. All three draw pupils from a wide range of areas, not just from within the borough of Islington.
It is not good enough for the Minister of State to say as she did in a passing remark in her summing-up of the debate on the earlier motion, "We shall be looking at the question of special education." Well, I should hope so. However, before we make concrete decisions on what will be in the Bill, we need concrete proposals about safeguarding the future of special education for inner-London children on a cross-borough basis. We have no such concrete proposal from the Government at present. So long as that is the case and so long as we have only another four or five weeks of consideration ahead of us, we can have no confidence that proper arrangements will be made when the Bill leaves the House.
Doubtless the Government will reiterate, as they have done today, as they draw up plans for improvements for schools, for funding the 24 further education colleges properly and for being a world leader in standards for special education, that the Inner London education authority is being profligate and must therefore be disbanded. I beg to differ. Indeed, parents and students in my constituency also beg to differ.
Whenever my constituents have written to me, spoken to me, visited my surgery or attended public meetings on this issue, they have said that they want the Inner London education authority to stay. Of course they have criticisms of ILEA. Every education authority can be criticised on some grounds. However, my constituents see the need for ILEA's strategic cross-borough role and the need for substantial levels of spending in inner London. They recognise the need to preserve the standards that the authority achieves at the moment.
The Government's attitude reminds me of a passage in a Berthold Brecht play:
"The Government have decided that the people are wrong, and the people must therefore be disbanded."
That is precisely the Government's attitude towards the Inner London education authority. The people of inner London, and the people in my constituency do not want ILEA to be disbanded. They do not want the Government's proposals to go forward and they certainly do not want the proposals to be carried out in the unseemly rush of the next four or five weeks, which is all that the motion allows us.
11.6 pm
Mr. John Marshall: The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) asked what benefits the Education Reform Bill would bring to the children in a particular school in his constituency. It will result in a more successful and cost-effective education
1092
system. We have heard about ILEA expenditure. Opposition Members told us that education expenditure in inner London had to be higher because of the problems of London. However, the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy figures show that ILEA is a financial juggernaut running out of all control, with a record of profligacy that is unprecedented in the history of local government in this country.
If we examine ILEA expenditure, we find that in every respect it is far greater than the expenditure in outer London boroughs. What justification can ILEA have for energy costs in primary schools that are 50 per cent. higher than those in similar schools in outer London? What justification is there for administrative costs in primary schools in ILEA being 89 per cent. greater than those in similar schools in outer-London boroughs? What justification is there for costs for premises-related staff—whoever they may be—being 95 per cent. greater in ILEA than in outer-London boroughs? What justification is there for the costs for educational support staff in secondary schools in ILEA being 250 per cent. greater than in outer-London boroughs? ILEA's whole record shows that it spends far more money than other education authorities in London.
Some Opposition Members will claim that ILEA's higher expenditure reflects in part inner-London weighting. I have examined the expenditure of the authorities that also pay inner-London weighting, such as Haringey, with which the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) was once associated, and Brent. ILEA's costs are 31 per cent. higher than Brent's, and no one has ever put Brent forward as an example of financial rectitude. ILEA's costs are also 22 per cent. higher than those in Haringey, whose high expenditure is only too well known.
The results are quite appalling. We are being told that ILEA results cannot be compared with those enjoyed by the London borough of Barnet. Of course, supporters of ILEA would not want that comparison, because our results in Barnet are so much better. But shall we compare the results of ILEA with those of areas that might be described as socially deprived, such as Sunderland, Wigan or St. Helen's? Why did only 16·2 per cent. of children leave ILEA schools with five or more O-levels, while in St. Helen's the figure is 22 per cent. and in Wigan it is 29·9 per cent.?
We were told by the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), who has now left the Chamber, that Strathclyde, not ILEA, is the largest education authority in the country. What he could have told us was that Strathclyde produced even worse results than ILEA: 25 per cent. of pupils leave Strathclyde schools with no passes at all.
It is plain that the larger education authorities are not at all successful. In the 16 years in which I was a London borough councillor, I discovered that the borough council was responsive to the needs of the ratepayers and the consumers of its services, and county hall was not. The previous Conservative Government got rid of county hall, and I believe that by getting rid of ILEA the present Government are doing a great deal for education in inner London.
Let us look at ILEA's record with its headmasters. Many left because they became tired of its constant interference with their work. Between 1981 and 1985. 137 head teachers left the service of ILEA, preferring premature retirement to the constant interference of Ms.

1093
Frances Morrell. When Lawrie Norcross, one of ILEA's most distinguished headmasters, chose early retirement, he did so simply because he was fed up with the constant interference by its bureaucrats and politicians. He wanted an authority that put results and standards first, but he was working for an authority that put questions of racism and sexism before the results of its children.
During the general election, we heard many Opposition Members talk about the plight of the inner cities. That plight is caused by bad education. If the children of inner London are to have the future that we all want for them, they must have the basis of a decent education. ILEA has failed them. It has failed all the people who live in inner London. We want it abolished so that the children of inner London may have a chance to succeed where they have failed historically.
Labour Members tell us that the inner-London boroughs are not suitable to be education authorities. I have heard the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) make the odd interjection from a sedentary position today, but I have never heard him say that Newham should not be an education authority. I have never heard any London Labour Member say that Barking or Dagenham — which have all the social problems of Tower Hamlets and Hackney—should not be education authorities. If it is right for Newham, if it is right for Barking, if it is—
Mr. Tony Banks: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the London borough of Newham wanted to opt into ILEA?
Mr. Marshall: That shows how misguided it can be. But we have not heard much from Labour spokesmen historically about how Barking or Newham should opt into ILEA.
We have seen other small London boroughs—such as Kingston, which is well known to my hon. Friend the Minister of State—provide a first-rate education service. I believe that the inner-London boroughs as a whole will do jolly well when they provide their own education service and get rid of the constant and unnecessary interference from county hall.
11.14 pm
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Rarely has a Bill been less well thought out, had less consultation and had more of an attempt by the Government to rush it to the statute book. As the Bill has gone through the House, Ministers have learnt much more about education. It is sad that they have been such slow learners. Their learning curve does not fit either the guillotined time or the extra time found by way of the motion.
Anyone who has followed the proceedings in Committee will have seen clear evidence that the Government have chopped and changed and have discovered only as the Bill has proceeded what they are actually proposing. It emerged in Committee just how long it would take for the national curriculum to be in place. It will take at least 10 years, and it will not be until 2010 that pupils will be following the national curriculum for the whole of their time through school.
As for testing, the Secretary of State admitted how much he had learnt about testing in the six months since the general election. The report of the task group on assessment and testing, which I think the Secretary of State
1094
accepts, made it quite clear that it will not be possible to have Baker merit awards for seven-year-olds who do well, and it certainly will not be possible for the Boyson detention camps to be used in the summer holidays for those who do badly.
Financial devolution is laudable, but the Secretary of State has not really thought about the need to give staff a reassurance that, when financial devolution comes to schools, their conditions of service will be guaranteed. On the whole question of opted-out schools, the Minister was muddled and confused about whether schools would be able to have collections to pay for extra teachers. Even yesterday, when higher education was discussed in Committee, the Secretary of State seemed considerably confused when trying to reconcile his press handout and his careful weasel words about the concessions that he was making.
Over ILEA, the confusion has been massive. The thrust of the Government's cause is that ILEA is far too expensive. However, we had no information at all from the Government about how much money they will save as a result of the abolition of ILEA. The Secretary of State must tell us on what his financial considerations are based. How much money does he expect to save, and what will he do about the present cross-borough subsidisation? Until he can give some indication of the financial implications of the proposals, it is totally unreasonable to proceed with the legislation. A case built on the argument that the proposals will save money and in which no figures are provided is totally dishonest.
Neither the Secretary of State nor his colleagues have given any answers about what will happen over money transferred from the rich to the poor boroughs. He has not addressed himself to the chaos that will face schools in areas such as Hackney and Lambeth and in other parts of London.
Let us first consider the Education Act 1986. It will change governing bodies so that next autumn there will be new governing bodies. The staff in the schools will have to consider the implications of the national curriculum and of testing. They must start to grapple with the financial management of schools. There might even be a referendum in their schools about opting out.
Imposed on all those matters is the abolition of ILEA. The advisers that schools might turn to for guidance on the national curriculum, testing, financial management or opting out will all be uncertain about their future. For two years the Government will guarantee total upheaval in the schools, yet the whole thrust of the Bill is to improve standards in our schools. I cannot see one jot of evidence that over the next four years any of the promises to improve standards in inner-London schools can be kept. There will be administrative chaos, and parents, staff and pupils will be disillusioned.
The timetable gives no indication of how much time we will need for the Government's proposals on charges. They keep promising that the new clauses on charges will be given to the House, but so far we have not seen them. The Secretary of State says that the Opposition will be pleased with the clauses about charges. I shall be surprised if we are pleased. That is yet one further piece of evidence that the Government have not thought out this legislation before they brought it to the House.
The Government should address themselves to the problems in education, such as the need for youngsters to get off to a good start with good nursery education, which

1095
is available to many children in ILEA but not in many other parts of the country. They should have addressed themselves to the problems facing 16 to 19-year-olds, for whom it is financially more attractive to leave school and go on to a YTS course than it is to stay at school to obtain good examination results and benefit from education. Those are the problems that should have been addressed by this legislation.
It is not adequate to offer the House two further days to debate ILEA, and two more days to sort out the mess and muddle in the Bill. It is not only time in the House that is required but time in the country. More important, it is a question of the Government having time to sort out their ideas so that they can come forward with credible proposals. At this stage, the Government should take the Bill away, delete large chunks of it and come back next year with a modest measure that would genuinely improve education standards and not produce chaos in ILEA in the short term and chaos in many of our schools for the next 10 years.
11.20 pm
The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mrs. Angela Rumbold): I would contest the suggestion that we do not give a generous allocation of time to Opposition Members. In addition to the other debates, we propose a further 16 hours of debate in Committee on the clauses relating to ILEA and a full day on the Floor of the House on Report. We have tabled our amendments in good time to allow full consideration of these matters.
The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) talked about ILEA's staff fighting to retain their jobs in the next two years. This afternoon, my right hon. Friend made it quite plain that over 80 per cent. of those employed by ILEA will be transferred by order to the employment of borough local education authorities. Many of the remainder will find posts with the new authorities. We are setting up a staff commission to help with this process. It is quite irresponsible of the Opposition to suggest otherwise. Sadly, that has been typical of their unwillingness to face facts.
The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) seems to be completely unaware of the way in which many pupils cross borough boundaries every day in outer London, as do many students attending further education colleges. Nothing will hamper that happening within inner London when the new education authorities are set up. There have been no difficulties in outer London. If anything, it gives greater choice to parents in outer-London boroughs, and I suspect it will have the same effect in inner London.
Mr. Derek Fatchett: As the Bill was first drafted, parents' rights on open enrolment would have applied to all the inner-London education area. Will those rights now simply be limited to the borough in which parents live?
Mrs. Rumbold: It will depend entirely on the locality of the school and whether the criteria that apply to those schools are different from those that exist at present. ILEA uses artificial boundaries and limits on its schools and bands children. That is something that few authorities do. Parents within ILEA will have better choice through open enrolment and there will be less discrimination against
1096
parental wishes than at present. Further education colleges will continue to cater for students from all the other boroughs in the same way as further education colleges in outer London and other metropolitan areas. They operate on a system of recruitment from various different boroughs.
The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) asked about the expense of ILEA. He asked how the Government could expect a reduction in expense if ILEA is disbanded and education is run by borough authorities. I should explain that the Conservative boroughs of Wandsworth, Westminster and Kensington and Chelsea all provide personal social services to their residents within the grant-related expenditure allocated to them by the Government. They also manage to reflect the extra needs of their inner-London areas. I see no reason why, when the boroughs acquire education as a service, they should not be able to provide efficient and effective education. The boroughs will certainly be much more responsible locally to the needs of the children and to the requirements of the parents. If properly managed, I suggest that the education service could be provided at considerably less expense than currently under the two-tier system operated by ILEA.
It is a very odd argument for Opposition Members to say that it is all right for boroughs in outer London to run education, and it matters not whether those boroughs are Conservative or Labour-controlled, but it would not be suitable for boroughs in inner London to run education. I fail to see the logic of that, in the same way as I fail to see the logic expressed by Liberal and alliance Members who seem to think that people in Richmond are competent to run education but people in Tower Hamlets are not, in spite of the fact that both boroughs are Liberal-controlled.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) was right to point out that a campaign is likely to be mounted against the Government's plans for the disbandment of ILEA and the return of education to the boroughs. Such a campaign would affect all the people who live within inner London. I greatly doubt whether, at the end of the day, it will be much more effective than the millions of pounds which were squandered on the scurrilous campaign run by the Greater London council—
Mr. Tony Banks: I can assure the hon. Lady that, while the campaign will be strident, it will be mounted by the parents of inner London because no parents in inner London support the Government's proposals. Of course, the hon. Lady will ignore them.
Mrs. Rumbold: It will be interesting to see what happens. If ILEA spends money on a campaign to whip up support from the parents, those who will be deprived of the benefits of that money will be the children who are being educated in the Inner London education authority area.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: While the Minister is on the subject, perhaps she will tell us exactly how much money is being spent by the Department of Education and Science on promoting the nonsense proposals to break up ILEA under the guise of so-called information. She is so good at criticising local authorities which are spending money on providing information within the terms of the Local Government Act 1985 that I think Parliament deserves to know—
It being one hour after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Order [1 February].
Question agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Order of 1st February be varied by substituting, for paragraphs 1 and 2(1), the following:—
'Committee
1. — (1) The Standing Committee to which the Bill is allocated shall report the Bill to the House on or before 8th March 1988.
(2) Proceedings on the Bill at a sitting of the Standing Committee on the said 8th March may continue until Ten p.m., whether or not the House is adjourned before that time, and if the House is adjourned before those proceedings have been brought to a conclusion the Standing Committee shall report the Bill to the House on 9th March.
Report and Third Reading
2. — (1) The proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed in four allotted days and shall be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock on the last of those days; and for the purposes of Standing Order No. 80 (Business Committee) this Order shall be taken to allot to the proceedings on Consideration such part of those days as the Resolution of the Business Committee may determine.'

Education Reform Bill [Money] (No. 2)
Queen's Recommendation having been signified
11.28 pm
The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mrs. Angela Rumbold): I beg to move,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Education Reform Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any sums required by the Secretary of State for defraying the expenses of the staff commission established by the Act.
The reason for the supplementary money resolution is simple. The new clauses which we have tabled in relation to part III of the Education Reform Bill make provision for the establishment of a staff commission to help with matters arising from the transfer of staff from ILEA to the inner London boroughs. As was the case with the staff commission established at the time of the abolition of the GLC, this body will be centrally funded.
The costs will not be large; the previous staff commission had a maximum of seven members of staff, and we would expect the new one to have no more, and possibly fewer. It is our intention that it should be set up in good time to offer guidance throughout the process of transfer. In this respect we want to draw on the lessons learnt at the time of the abolition of the GLC.
I hope that the Labour boroughs will also remember those lessons. If they adopt an ostrich-like attitude and refuse to recognise that this transfer will take place, they will be damaging their own interests, and those of the staff, parents and children concerned. I urge them to join the Government in early discussions about the transfer process, so that we can work together to make as effective a new start as possible for London's education service.
11.29 pm
Mr. Tony Banks: I wish to ask the Minister a number of questions about the setting up of the staff commission. I have had a sense of déjà vu throughout this evening, because we had debates such as this when the Greater London council was being abolished. We asked the Government a whole series of questions about how much it would cost the ratepayers of London, how much they estimated would be saved and how many staff would lose their jobs. The Government could not tell us the exact figures at any stage.
Frankly, given the Minister's rambling wind-up speech earlier, I doubt very much whether she knows the answers; she seemed scarcely capable of reading what had been put in front of her. If I may say so, in a rather inelegant phrase, she stuck rigidly to her briefs. The fact is that she seemed to have no great knowledge of what was contained in those briefs. Can she tell us who will head the staff commission? Who will be its members? For how long will the staff commission remain in existence? How many people will work for the staff commission? Where is the staff commission to be based? Perhaps it will be based in county hall.
The Government have no clear idea of the likely economic impacts of the policy that they have enunciated on the hoof tonight. The Government clearly have no idea of the likely costs of the abolition of the Inner London education authority. They have no idea of the composition or costs of the staff commission. That comes as no great surprise to Opposition Members, because the Government had no idea in relation to the abolition of the GLC either.

1099
This proposal, coming at the end of a series of debates on the abolition of ILEA, has nothing whatever to do with the education needs of the children of inner London or of those who attend colleges in inner London. It has nothing to do with the pay and conditions and welfare of the excellent staff who work for ILEA, many of whom can expect to receive their marching orders under this policy. How many redundancies do the Government expect to arise from the abolition of ILEA? The staff commission will be charged with the responsibility to ensure that those who find themselves declared redundant are given reasonably favourable severance terms.
We asked similar questions in respect of the abolition of the GLC. We never received a satisfactory explanation. Indeed, Opposition Members could never have been satisfied because we found the abolition of the GLC totally unacceptable in political terms, just as we find the abolition of ILEA unacceptable. We knew that the abolition of the GLC and the setting up of the staff commission had nothing to do with the efficient running of local government in London and we know that the setting up of this staff commission has nothing to do with the efficient running of inner London's education services.
I realise that it has been a long evening for Conservative Members and that a large number are being forced to stay here in case the Opposition require a vote to be held later tonight. I shall not put them out of their misery. They will have to sit here and take one and a half hours—
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Three quarters of an hour.
Mr. Banks: —three quarters of an hour to debate the setting up of the staff commission. I shall not talk it out. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) has been sitting here with me throughout most of the evening, waiting to speak in the general debate on the principle of the abolition of the inner London education authority. Unfortunately, we missed the Campaign group meeting to hear this debate.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: That is the level of sacrifice.
Mr. Banks: It was not worth that level of sacrifice, because the Conservative arguments were so appalling. It was clear that, even among all the Conservative Members, they could scarcely get a clutch of GCE O-levels between them. If they had gone to ILEA schools, like me, they would have been highly academically qualified. Thanks to ILEA, I have a clutch of qualifications and degrees for which I am most grateful.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Honorary ones? Did the hon. Gentleman buy them?
Mr. Banks: Not at all. I did not buy my academic qualifications in Private Eye. I did not have to descend to that level of misrepresentation, as Conservative Members so often must. I got my education at ILEA schools. I am proud of that fact. If I had any children, they would also go to ILEA schools. Unfortunately, I have to spend so much time in the House that I have very little opportunity to propagate within my family. I intend to remedy that anon.
The Inner London education authority has been in existence for some 117 years. It is being abolished and a staff commission is being set up, according to this measure, to satisfy the internal politicking in the Conservative party.
1100
Neither the setting up of the staff commission nor the abolition of ILEA has anything to do with the interests of education in inner London.
The Secretary of State, who helped to preside over the abolition of the Greater London council, was hijacked by the right hon. Members for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) and for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit). There was a point when he had no intention of abolishing ILEA. As my hon. Friends have said, that was not included in the terms of the 1987 Conservative manifesto. The Secretary of State knows that to be a fact. He was hijacked because he is playing for big stakes within his terms — for the leadership of the Conservative party. I am sure that the staff commission plays a minor part in his campaign for the position as the next fuhrer of the Conservative party.
The right hon. Gentleman found it necessary to listen carefully to what was said by the right hon. Member for Henley, who knows nothing about education requirements in inner London. I do not suppose that the right hon. Gentleman sent his children to an ILEA school. He knows nothing about ILEA requirements, for the simple reason that he does not represent an ILEA seat. Many of the Conservative Members who contributed to the debate do not represent ILEA constituencies—
Mr. John Marshall: Neither does the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Banks: The hon. Gentleman does not represent an ILEA constituency. He is saying to me that I, too, do not represent an ILEA constituency. Of course I understood that. I did not need the hon. Gentleman to convey that information to me.
I must declare my interest. I was an elected member of ILEA from 1970, so I have some passing knowledge of its activities. I have already told Conservative Members of my experiences as a beneficiary of the excellent education provided by the Inner London education authority. Of course, I am also chairman of the London group of Labour Members, which is why I am speaking on this resolution about the setting up of the staff commission. So, although I do not represent an inner-London constituency, I am wholly qualified to speak on the subject.
I said earlier, during the speech of the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) that the outer-London borough of Newham, an education authority in its own right, wanted to opt into ILEA—something it will no longer be able to do when ILEA is abolished. Newham recognised just how good ILEA's educational provision was. Newham, the second most deprived local authority area in the whole of England, wanted to benefit from being able to tap into the enormous resources that ILEA could generate. That is why it is a scandal that the staff commission is being set up to preside over the dismantling of ILEA—
Mr. Skinner: It is a quango.
Mr. Banks: It is undoubtedly a quango, just like the London residuary body. I hope that the Secretary of State will tell us who will chair, and who will be the members of, the staff commission. What will its budget be? How long does he expect it to last? He must have some sort of time span in mind. I asked him earlier how long the London residuary body should exist. Its powers will now be extended to take account of the break-up of ILEA.
Conservative Members know that there is no mandate for setting up the staff commission, or for the break-up of

1101
ILEA. The Government held a consultation exercise about what they called the reform of education and opting out of ILEA. They did not include the setting up of the staff commission in that consultation exercise. I understand that. They probably had not even thought about the need to set up a staff-commission, because so much of this idea is being spatchcocked together as the Government work out what to do on the hoof.
As I have said time and again, this proposal has nothing to do with the education needs of the children of inner London. There was a consultation exercise over opting out. The Government have never seen fit to publish its results, for the simple reason that the great majority of those who were consulted and who submitted their views said that they were not in favour of the Government's proposals. If the Government were prepared to consult over the setting up of the staff commission, they would receive precisely the same response. There is no support for the Government's proposals to disband the Inner London education authority. There is no support for it in the schools, the divisions within ILEA or the boroughs. If the Government could quote a measure of support for their proposals to set up the staff commission or to abolish ILEA, they would be on their feet doing so.
The Secretary of State knows that there is no support anywhere in London, apart from within the rabid ranks of the Conservative party and in a few Conservative boroughs, for the abolition of ILEA. The setting up of the staff commission, and the abolition of ILEA have nothing to do with the interests of educational needs of children in inner London, and everything to do with the boxing and coxing going on in the Conservative party to see who will take over from Mama Doc at No. 10 when she eventually decides to stand down. In the abolition of ILEA and the setting up of the staff commission, we are seeing cobbled together a mish-mash of joint boards, shabby compromises and Whitehall control over local services which no one outside the ranks of today's neo-Fascist Tory party wanted to change in the first instance.
If the Secretary of State thinks that I am wrong, why does he not have a referendum in inner London on the setting up of the staff commission and the abolition of ILEA? If he were to do that, and the vote went against us because there was a majority in support of the Government's proposals, we would—I say this without reference to my estimable colleagues — drop our opposition to the Government's legislative proposals immediately. The Government will not have that referendum because they know that they will never get the support that they claim they have.
Why do not the Government say that there will be one last election in ILEA on the single issue of dismantling the authority? We should stand for its retention, and the Tories could stand for abolition. Will the Government then say that they will abide by the decision of the people of inner London, exercised through the ballot box? If they could say that tonight, we could save ourselves a lot of discussion about the various ramifications attendant on abolition, including the setting up of the staff commission.
Mr. Corbyn: Does my hon. Friend recall that, during the debates on the abolition of the GLC, four Labour members of the GLC resigned their seats so that there were
1102
by-elections to test public opinion on this matter, and the Tories refused to join in that contest because they were scared, and knew what the result would be?
Madam Deputy Chairman (Mrs. Betty Boothroyd): Order. I remind hon. Members that this is a restricted debate which concerns only a money resolution that deals with the setting up of a staff commission, and arises out of new clause 64.
Mr. Banks: I have kept myself within the bounds of the debate. I have continually referred to the staff commission and the money resolution, and I will continue to do so.
I find it difficult, even after the years that I have been here—it seems like a lifetime, but it is only five years—to accept the level of cynicism that exists among Tory Members. I still find myself being genuinely outraged by what comes from them. I wish I had the cynicism of the Secretary of State, which is such that he can stand on his head at regular intervals, and deny his principles.
Mr. Corbyn: His hair does not get ruffled.
Mr. Banks: That is because he puts half a pint of Brylcreem on it. I cannot do what the Secretary of State does, because I still have certain principles. One of those is that one does not dismantle a democratically elected body and set up a quango such as the staff commission in the face of opposition from those who will find themselves most affected by the Tory proposals. The exercise before us has been dressed up in language of democracy, to camouflage a deeply cynical and politically motivated act of educational vandalism, which the Secretary of State is perpetrating on the people of inner London.
The Secretary of State is to answer this debate on the staff commission. He touts his political principles around like a tray of cheap jewellery. He was denounced by the previous leader of the Conservative party, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) in a debate in December 1984. The Secretary of State has not one principle that he is not prepared to sell for political advantage. That is how cheap and tawdry he is. He found himself being outflanked by two political shysters—two flash Johnnies in political terms who out-tried themselves. We do not know which one tried to manoeuvre for the leadership of the party.
The Secretary of State saw that coming and decided that it would be best to cut and run, and to abolish ILEA. There is nothing in the establishment of the staff commission and—
Mr. Nicholas Soames: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Gentleman to refer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) as a political shyster?
Madam Deputy Speaker: It is not something that the Chair would request the hon. Member to withdraw, but it is certainly not the sort of parliamentary language that I would welcome or wish to hear.
Mr. Banks: I thought that I was being fairly complimentary to the right hon. Member for Chingford. That was the nicest thing that I could think to say about him. I could say much more to his face and I should like to say them across the Chamber, but if I did, Madam Deputy Speaker, you would require me to withdraw them, and I would not wish to risk your anger this evening.

1103
Cheap, tawdry and unprincipled is a fairly good description of the Secretary of State and the abolition of ILEA.
Mr. Soames rose—
11.51 pm
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Mr. Soames? [Laughter.] Mr. Corbyn.
Mr. Corbyn: We should all thank the Crawley food mountain for his speech. It is one of the best that he has ever made. If he stopped eating salmon, he might be able to grow a beard.
While introducing the guillotine motion, the Secretary of State described this Bill and the staff commission in the same way that one could imagine a hangman addressing a group of condemned prisoners about the efficiency of the rope and how it would not hurt when they had been hanged.
I have sat through this debate, the previous motion and many discussions about ILEA because I have a special interest in it. For several years I was a full-time official of NUPE, which has many members working for ILEA, and I have been involved in several campaigns to save ILEA from break-up and destruction. I should inform the Secretary of State that every one of those campaigns has been successful; the Government have not succeeded in destroying ILEA yet. The Secretary of State may smirk, but if he casts his mind back to the bellicose statements by many of his predecessors, he will remember that they have always lost because of opposition from parents, workers in the authority and teachers, and because of professional support for those campaigns.
It is significant that, although we are debating the staff commission proposal, the resolution gives no indication whatever of how much money will be involved in financing the staff commission, how many staff will be involved, how much property will be sold to pay for redundancy payments, and what the future holds for many of the 40,000 staff employed by ILEA. It is a disgrace of the highest order that the Government should force this nasty little amendment, which will curtail the livelihoods and jobs of so many ILEA staff, to a Bill which is halfway through all its stages.
There have been no consultations with the staff. The first that they heard about the proposal to break up ILEA was the early-day motion tabled by the right hon. Members for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) and for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit). Other hon. Friends have already said that that early-day motion has more to do with the leadership of the Conservative party than any possible concern that those two right hon. Gentlemen may have about ILEA.
I wonder how the right hon. Member for Henley would react if we introduced a private Member's Bill to destroy the education authority in Oxfordshire and pass it over to some local quango or district council. It is a gross impertinence and interference in the democratically elected authority of ILEA for such people to promote its abolition. It is a demonstration of the Government's weakness and the Secretary of State's weakness that one puff of wind from that pair of shysters and he is on his way.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The English language is a rich one and I believe that there is better vocabulary
1104
that we can use. I remind the hon. Gentleman that I would appreciate hearing about the money resolution, new clause 64, the staff commission and how it will function.
Mr. Corbyn: The English language is indeed rich and I could make it richer if you wish, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I intend to continue to discuss the staff commission because I have a particular interest in, and experience of, the way in which the GLC was broken up, the way in which the housing transfers took place under similar staff commission proposals some years before and the years that it took to sort out those difficulties, in spite of good will on both sides.
We should give some thought to what will happen to the staff of ILEA if it is abolished. If ILEA is broken up in the way envisaged, power will pass to the local education authorities based in each borough, and problems will be caused for the ILEA staff. Figures have been quoted by other hon. Members, but I will refer to them again briefly because they help to amplify my argument.
The borough of Islington, through its ratepayers, contributes £44·3 million per annum to ILEA and receives, in return, £72·8 million. Therefore, there is an expenditure gap of £28 million. Whatever honeyed words the Secretary of State used earlier to gloss over the problems, he failed to mention two things. First, under local government legislation, the Government have virtually complete power over the level of spending in each borough council, because they can impose the rate cap at any time they like. They can also decide what level the business rate will be across London and, in effect, decide how much money will be available for inner London.
The Government have said that they will take account of the socio-economic factors when deciding the level of expenditure for each authority and the number of staff that it employs. However, if the Government use the same criteria as those used in deciding the social fund allocations, I fear for each authority. My constituency faces 40 per cent. cut in social fund expenditure, but Bognor Regis — an area of undoubted deprivation, poverty and appalling conditions—has had an increase in expenditure. Are we to trust the Government to decide how much should be spent in inner London if they cannot decide, reasonably, the levels of expenditure under the social fund? The more one considers the funding of the education authorities, the more horrifying it becomes.
School caretakers in my constituency, having seen the figures, have come to me because they know that their jobs will be on the line. They work hard and well to ensure that the schools are open, sometimes seven days a week as youth centres, and often in the evenings for adult education and other activities. School cleaners may be a matter of trivial importance to Conservative Members. It is clear from the way that they have treated them and tried to privatise their jobs that they have nothing but contempt for cleaners. However, I believe that one cannot have a school without cleaners, school meal workers or caretakers, any more than one can have a school without teachers. They are all an essential part of an educational community. All those people will suffer, and all those jobs will be at risk.
When discussing the staff commission, the Minister of State deliberately failed to go into the problems of the non-statutory sector of education in ILEA. The Secretary of

1105
State will know that ILEA provides a good standard of statutory education. The HMI report that he suppressed demonstrates how good pre-school education and primary and some secondary schools are. It is particularly complimentary about further education and the non-statutory further education sector.
What am Ito say to part-time lecturers employed at the "City Lit" or full-time lecturers employed at Morley college or Birkbeck college and all the other places that will suffer because of the destruction of the education system of inner London?
Education should be a process for life, not just for the statutory school ages or in statutory further education establishments. I am certain that, if the proposal is passed, we shall suffer the most appalling damage in the further education sector, which gives adults who have missed out on their own further education the opportunity to study and develop new skills to enrich their lives — in some cases not even because they want to exploit those skills commercially. It might seem amazing to Conservative Members, but some people believe in learning for the sake of learning and enriching their lives rather than exploiting somebody else and making money while they are about it. That is the difference in attitude between the Opposition and the Government.
What are we to say to the pensioners who use the "City Lit" or Camden college—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have reminded the hon. Member once that we are discussing a restricted motion. I bring him back to the motion on the Order Paper.
Mr. Corbyn: Indeed. I am anxious to keep to the subject of the motion, which is the staff commission, and the future of the staff. However, the proposal is so vague that one has no idea how many staff are affected, what jobs will be affected, and what the future is for lecturers at the further education institutes or any other ILEA institution. We have no idea about the future of nursery workers, nursery teachers, nursery nurses and head teachers in nursery establishments. Once again, we are considering the non-statutory provision of education. ILEA has been complimented on its pre-school provision. Is all that to suffer on the altar of the ambition of three right hon. Members to be the leader of the Tory party? That is what it is all about.
As I mentioned, there has been no consultation whatever with the staff, be they teaching or non-teaching staff. The parents' organisations have linked with the staff on the matter because they are deeply suspicious and angry. I have had nothing but letters condemning the break-up of ILEA. I have had nothing but letters from parents expressing their concern and support for the staff in their campaign to prevent ILEA being broken up.
When the parents' poll takes place, as I hope it will, I am certain that it will show an overwhelming rejection of the Government's proposals. The Secretary of State, with the contempt that he holds for the people of inner London for having the temerity to elect a Labour authority, will no doubt seek to ignore that and use his tame sheep on the Benches behind him to take the proposals through the Division Lobby.
The staff commission proposal has effects on particular areas of ILEA. I have mentioned pre-school and further
1106
education. I shall now mention the effects on the statutory sector itself. There are problems of staffing. ILEA has had a long dispute with the teaching unions, which I believe is now resolved, about the transfer of staff between divisions and schools to compensate for the movement of children from one school to another.
Another problem will now arise immediately. If the new education authorities are set up on the basis of the boundary of one borough or the other, there will be a problem. Secondary school children in my constituency do not all attend secondary schools in my constituency. For example, they go to Acland Burghley school, which is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). It will be in a different borough, under a different education authority.
What will be the transfer arrangements for staff? What will happen to schools that are deemed to be overstaffed or understaffed? How will staff transfer not within one employer but between two employers? That is the consequence of the staff commission proposals.
I believe also that education is not just a matter of the teaching that is done in the classroom or in the lecture theatre. It is also the quality of life that the student or child can have within the school. That means things like the quality of the cleaning that is done in the establishment, the quality of the upkeep of the building, the quality of the environment in which the school is sited, the quality of the decorations of the school, and, indeed, the quality of the food that the children eat during the school lunch break.
The ILEA has a good school meals service, with a large number of dedicated staff, all of whom have suffered badly because of the removal of the basic nutritional standards in 1980—which, I am glad to say, ILEA resisted. The staff are now to suffer also because of the break-up of the authority and the implicit threat of privatisation of the school meals service. Indeed, over half the children in my constituency receive free school meals. As a result of the Social Security Bill that is going through the House at the moment, many children will suffer, and, implicitly, staff will also suffer. How will the staff commission deal with that problem?
Once again, by the break-up of the authority into at least 12 different authorities, the possibilities of transfer from one school to another, and the possibilities of career advancement from one grade to another, will be reduced. We must examine other aspects of school life, such as school cleaning staff. Exactly the same problems arise for them. At the moment, they work for one authority. They have fixed terms and conditions that are negotiated between their union and their employer.
Mr. Tony Banks: My hon. Friend has referred to a most interesting aspect of the staff commission. With regard to the abolition of the Greater London council and the setting up of the staff commission, it was claimed that there would be a great saving of jobs—in our terms, of course, that means much higher unemployment — but the figures were never actually produced by the Government.
I wonder whether my hon. Friend would care to comment on the fact that, if jobs are to be lost, they will be lost at the level of the most basic but most essential tasks within Inner London education authority schools. I refer to the cleaners, the dinner ladies, and those who provide the ancillary services. Those at the administrative level of the authority will find that ample opportunities

1107
will suddenly produce extra opportunities for advancement and enhanced salary projection. —[Interruption.] I am sorry, I did not realise that I was boring the House.
Mr. Corbyn: I thank my hon. Friend for his important intervention. I realise that Conservative Members are being kept from a restaurant, a bar or somewhere. They can either leave or listen. It is entirely up to them.
I endorse my hon. Friend's remarks, although I urge caution. I should not want to be party to dividing teaching staff from non-teaching staff, or administrative staff from manual workers. I am sure that my hon. Friend would not want to do that, either. He made a valid point. If Conservative Members think that these are minor matters of no importance, I urge them to examine authorities such as Barnet and others that have cut school meals and cleaning staff.
Mr. Banks: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I am not trying to drive wedges between different groups of staff; I was merely trying to point out that, whenever there is a reorganisation of local government, there is an increase in the number of administrators. It is always interesting that those who are required to dismantle the service find that the first impact is an increase in jobs for those with the task of running the service down. It is not a question of driving wedges, but of pointing out that what the Government are trying to achieve will be counterproductive.
Mr. Corbyn: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. Every reorganisation with which I have been involved, either of local government or of health, always results in greater administrative costs— usually a loss of manual jobs on the grounds of efficiency, and an overall increase in the cost of running the service. Ministers know that that has been the result every time that the Health Service has been reorganised. They know that that has been the result of local government amalgamation, and they know that it will be the result on this occasion. If the Ministers came clean about the real cost of the break-up of the GLC and of the staff commission that was established following its break-up and which has now apparently been given a permanent life, and included the inflated salaries of Sir Godfrey Taylor and a number of other people who are there to destroy jobs in London, we would get a bit nearer to the truth — which, of course, they do not want to come out with.
Mr. Banks: The Government do not have the foggiest idea of the savings that they claim will come from the abolition of the Inner London education authority, just as happened with the abolition of the Greater London council and the setting up of the staff commission there. It will cost the ratepayers of London more for the abolition of the Inner London education authority than for its continuation, just as happened with the abolition of the Greater London council.
Mr. Corbyn: There is a lot of evidence that abolishing ILEA will cost more than keeping it going, but the Government will not admit that tonight. The Government have never bothered to look into the way in which ILEA is run, what it actually does or the problems it faces. Contemptibly, over the past three years, nine months of detailed consultation and negotiation within ILEA have been vetoed in a 90-minute debate in this place as the Government put through the rate precept order for ILEA as they do for transport authorities and everything else — turning this place into a sort of glorified county council chamber. We are witnessing the disgraceful process of the destruction of local government.
The provisions for the staff commission are so vaguely worded and general that we do not know how it will fit into the wage and salary negotiating structure and what its relationship will be with the small number of people who come under the Whitley council, the Burnham committee, the Greater London Joint Council for Manual Workers and those affected by the craftsmen's conditions. What will its relationship be with those negotiating bodies? What guarantees will be given to staff who transfer across the local authorities? Indeed, if they were asked to—
It being three-quarters of an hour after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MADAM DEPurY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted Business).
Question agreed to.
Resolved,
That, for the purpose of any Act resulting from the Education Reform Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any sums required by the Secretary of State for defraying the expenses of the staff commission established by the Act.

Rate Support Grant (England)
12.13 am
The Minister for Local Government (Mr. Michael Howard): I beg to move,
That the Rate Support Grant Supplementary Report (England) (No. 4) 1984–85 (House of Commons Paper No. 253), a copy of which was laid before this House on 5th February, be approved.
I would ask the House to take at the same time the other motion:
That the Rate Support Grant Supplementary Report (England) (No. 3) 1986–87 (House of Commons Paper No. 254), a copy of which was laid before this House on 5th February, be approved.
Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I think that the Minister said, "No. 2," but it is No. 3.
Mr. Howard: No, I think that I said, "No. 3." If I did not, I certainly should have done, but I think that I did.
As the House will be aware, I had hoped to move the approval of a report for 1983–84 also. It has emerged, however, that a number of the figures shown in the formula for calculating grant-related expenditure assessments in that report were incorrect. Although the GREs for individual authorities were shown correctly, and hence the grant entitlements were correct, we decided that we should withdraw the report. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has made a new report which will be laid before the House as soon as it is printed, I hope by the end of the week.
The last time that I came before the House to seek its approval for a supplementary report was in July. I forecast then that there would be more to come, and this evening my prediction comes true with the supplementary reports now before us.
The two reports before us differ from the one that we discussed in July. Whereas that supplementary report and the one preceding it, which was approved shortly before the general election, were additional to the normal cycle of reports in that they were concerned with the extra grant that we provided for teachers' pay, these supplementary reports, and the one to follow later, are all part of the normal cycle of adjustment as further information is received on local authorities' expenditure.
The 1984–85 report reflects audited returns of expenditure in those years. The 1986–87 report deals in the main with provisional outturn returns sent direct to the Department by chief finance officers. It follows that, whereas there is at least one further supplementary report to make for 1986–87, the earlier report should be the last for 1984–85 and I am sure that the House will be grateful at least for that.
Not only do the reports take account of the latest expenditure information, they also bring up to date our calculations of authorities' grant-related expenditure assessments or GREs. As the House will appreciate, some components of GREs are based on actual expenditure. Precepts paid to water authorities for land drainage are one example, and mandatory grants paid to students are another. The reports reflect the latest expenditure figures in these components. Other components of GREs are revised to reflect, for example in 1984–85, the latest estimates of average interest rates paid by local authorities and the final cost of the police pay awards.
1110
Many right hon. and hon. Members will appreciate that the system now known as grant recycling applied to the years that we are considering. That means that the parameters of the block grant system are adjusted in each report to distribute the whole of a fixed total of block grant and I will say a word or two about grant abatement in a moment. Cognoscenti of the block grant system will know that, as new expenditure figures come in, changing the amount of block grant being claimed, the amount that authorities are assumed to collect from their ratepayers — the national grant-related poundage — is lowered or raised to ensure that the aggregate of grant payable does match the total available. The supplementary reports before the House tonight carry out this complex process by specifying new national grant-related poundages at GRE and the related amounts for each tier of authority.
In 1984–85 the Government issued expenditure guidance to local authorities. The then Secretary of State specified in the main report for that year a scheme for abating the block grant of authorities which exceeded their targets. Grant abated in this fashion was not recycled to other authorities: it was retained by the Treasury.
In 1984–85 the amount abated is now £15 million less than in the third supplementary report, but it is still the case that, taking 1983–84 and 1984–85 together, of the £17,350 million block grant made available by the Exchequer, £542 million, over half a billion pounds, was lost to local government because of overspending.
No expenditure guidance was issued for 1986–87. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science, when he was Secretary of State for the Environment, abolished the system for expenditure guidance and grant abatement in that year. To maintain the downward pressure on spending, he sharply increased the amounts that authorities were assumed to raise from their ratepayers as their expenditure increased. That caused most authorities in England to lose block grant if their expenditure increased. Conversely, they could increase their grant if they were able to reduce their expenditure. Any grant that was lost by authorities which increased their spending above the levels assumed in the settlement was not returned to the Treasury. It was returned, or recycled, to all other authorities by adjusting the national grant-related poundage at GRE.
I hope that I have now given the House a reasonably brief account of what these supplementary reports do. I turn now to several particular features of them which the House will wish to consider—first, the so-called deficit financing of special funds. The House will know that one of the principal characteristics of the present system is that block grant depends upon expenditure—in fact, on what is known as total expenditure, which is calculated according to certain statutory rules.
Over the whole life of the present system, many authorities have legitimately presented their total expenditure in such a way as to maximise their grant entitlement. One way of doing this has involved the use of special funds. In anticipation of a harsher block grant regime in a future year, authorities have paid sums into special funds. Such transactions increased total expenditure for block grant purposes, and some block grant was lost. They then withdrew the sums in a later year, so reducing their total expenditure for grant purposes. This increased their grant in the following year by a larger amount, thus benefiting the authority overall.

1111
This use of special funds is not illegal; nor is it necessarily in conflict with good accounting practices. It can been seen as authorities legitimately using the rules for total expenditure to their best advantage. However, during 1986 the Department became aware that some authorities had taken the practice a stage further, causing us considerable concern. They were showing in their books transfers to special funds of moneys that they did not possess: the transfers were causing deficits on the rate fund account. In theory, there was no limit to the amount of such transfers. The practice was clearly an attempt by a few authorities to manipulate their total expenditure figures, and gain an unfair grant advantage at the expense of other authorities and of the Exchequer.
Those circumstances, together with consideration of another anomaly in an authority's expenditure return, led us to conclude that we needed the provisions that have been enacted in the Local Government Finance Act 1987. These provisions, together with the specifications that we have made under the Act, have put the traditional practice for calculating total expenditure on a firm statutory basis, and have made it clear that deficit financing and other anomalies cannot be included in total expenditure. It was those measures that delayed the 1983–84 supplementary report.
In making the reports before the House tonight, we have made use of new specifications under the 1987 Act, which re-established the definitions of total and relevant expenditure and rendered ineffective the practice of deficit financing of special funds, at least in regard to the block grant system.
Secondly, there is a minor matter concerning 1984–85. One authority, Gateshead, has drawn our attention to a change in the amount of unoccupied property in its borough. Although we did not appreciate it when the report was made, it has since been made clear that it ought to be taken into account when its grant is calculated once the report has been approved by Parliament. We shall therefore do so. But, so that the total of grant to be paid out matches the amount specified in the report, we shall use the power in section 62 of the Local Government Planning and Land Act 1980 to reduce all authorities' grants very slightly—by £2 in every £100,000.
The 1986–87 report honours the undertaking made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science that we would increase provision for expenditure by local education authorities on books and equipment for GCSE courses. In fact, the report increases education GREs by £4·2 million for that purpose.
Mr. Henry Bellingham: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that our right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State for the Environment made the commitment that Norfolk — which is a prudent, low-spending authority—would have a fair deal in the years ahead?
In the last financial year, it had a very fair deal. Is my hon. and learned Friend aware, however, that the GREA for Norfolk — which, I gather, is the amount that the Government states that it is reasonable to spend to match the services that should be provided—is £312 million for 1988–89? The assumed spending level is £285 million. The budget that Norfolk has had to set is £299 million, which is a reasonable increase if, for instance, inflation and wages rises are taken into account. But Norfolk will lose £5.7 million as a result of the Government's policy.
1112
Does my hon. and learned Friend not agree that it is very unfair to treat Norfolk as a high-spending authority when it is, in fact, a prudent low-spender—indeed, the third lowest-spending shire authority in the country? Will he look at the matter again?
Mr. Howard: The grant loss to which my hon. Friend refers relates to the rate support grant settlement for 1988–89. In fact, under the two supplementary reports that are before the House tonight, and the third one that is being remade, Norfolk will gain £3 million. I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that those two reports can mean nothing but good news for Norfolk.
Finally, I should mention the "Bromley error". My right hon. and hon. Friends representing affected areas will know that it remains uncorrected in the supplementary report before the House tonight. We have consistently made it clear that we will correct the error, despite the attempt by the London borough of Greenwich, which gained from it, to prevent us from doing so. However, that cannot be done until my right hon. Friend has wider powers to change multipliers in supplementary reports. Those powers will be available when the Local Government Finance Bill reaches the statute book. He will then bring forward a further supplementary report for 1986–87, and for the other years affected by the error, to honour our promise.
In asking the House to approve the supplementary reports, I am particularly conscious of the shortcomings of the present rate support grant system. The supplementary reports alter local authorities' grants for financial years which will have long been closed. The 1986–87 supplementary report causes significant movements of grants away from many authorities in England because of spending decisions in other authorities over which they had no control and which they had no means of predicting.
The reports contain language of daunting complexity and legalistic and other arcane jargon. I can well appreciate that they are of limited help in understanding why in some local authorities grant entitlement may have changed. These are some of the reasons why we are scrapping the present system and replacing it with a fairer and simpler one. I commend these supplementary reports to the House.
12.25 am
Mr. Jeff Rooker: I thank the Minister for his detailed and concise explanation of the reports. I freely admit that I am not and do not want to become a cognoscente of the block grant system. However, I can assure the aficionados of parliamentary procedure that the Opposition have studied the reports in some detail, realised that they are unamendable, and checked the arithmetic, which looks satisfactory. We did not know about the Norwich problem and, what is more, we did not know about the Gateshead problem. We were unaware of the number of empty properties in Gateshead that have been drawn to the Minister's attention. This kind of procedure would be a big switch-off for television, so I am not surprised that it is put on late at night.
I do not share the Minister's view that all will be rosy under the new system. However, as we are to debate the new system proposals in Committee, I have no doubt that we shall have a few hours between now and Easter to compare the new system with the present system. The

1113
orders come before the House under the affirmative procedure, and the Minister will know that I am the last one to knock that. It is a good procedure and, when it is needed, it is vital that the scrutiny by the House of delegated legislation and ministerial decisions is fully carried out. On the other hand, there are occasions when the time at our disposal does not need to conform to Parkinson's law. Therefore, I propose to say no more.
12.27 am
Mr. Richard Holt: I took the opportunity to speak in a similar debate about three years ago. On that occasion I used the gobbledegook in the book to try to explain the difficulties that lay people have in understanding what the Minister admits is complex. No one knows the reasons that determine rate support grant in certain areas.
I want to bring to the attention of the House a simple matter that I can understand. Therefore, I am sure that the Minister can understand it. Last year, a deputation from Langbaurgh came to see the Minister's predecessor. We were promised that certain aspects of the rate support grant would be borne in mind when setting the rate for the following year. It did not happen, so we sent a deputation again this year. We were told, "Do not worry, we have taken the points on board again and we will look at it for next year." On current form, I imagine that Langbaurgh will send a deputation at about the same time next year when we have probably had another ministerial change and another set of promises that will not be kept.
Why is Langbaurgh persistent and consistent in this matter? It is because we believe that we are being cheated out of a certain element of GRE by the force of nature. In my constituency there are very large tracts of uninhabited, derelict, useless land. When the complex formula to
"GRP = GRP at GRE+ 0.6p x threshold amount +0·75p x (total expenditure-GRE/ population -threshold amount)" —
that is not surprising. That is the sort of fog behind which everyone hides.
Mr. Rooker: It is a formula.
Mr. Holt: I accept that it is a formula.
I challenge my hon. and learned Friend to answer the question that I put to his predecessor when I spoke in a similar debate three years ago: who starts with the lump sum? Is it the Treasury? Are these formulae worked out by someone playing with computers who finds, lo and behold, that every one of those X — Y over 3 — Z calculations happens to come out exactly at the Treasury figure? Or is the Treasury figure worked backwards to find the formulae to fit it? I suspect that it is the latter, but I have no confirmation one way or the other.
I wonder what would happen if somebody found that these figures and formulae did not work out to what the Treasury had said and that there was a little bit over or under? Presumably, the computing system would have to be rewritten. We do not want that in Langbaurgh. We are simple people. We want what is right and fair; we want a recalculation of the GRE to take account of land on which not even the pigeons will sit.
determine GRE is worked out, this area of land is calculated on the density available in the Langbaurgh region. It is simply not usable land. To suggest that it is on all fours with usable land in other areas is totally wrong.
To his credit, the Minister admitted to the Langbaurgh delegation that he was befuddled by this, but nothing could be done about it. If Ministers cannot do anything about it, who else can? If they leave civil servants to run everything and to write the speeches that they read so fast one cannot follow them, why do delegations bother to come down? What promise is being held out to those worthy people in local government who give up their time and energy to represent people and who travel 300 miles to meet a Minister, only to be given promises, which are then reneged upon, and are given further promises for the forthcoming year, which will also be reneged upon?
Cleveland county council's rate this year is 282p, which is the highest shire county rate. If one adds the district rates for Langbaurgh, which are worse in the half of my constituency near to Middlesbrough, and the parish rates, one need not wonder why people find it so difficult to set up business enterprises in the area. The Government could
I was interested to hear my hon. and learned Friend say that this is an adjustment order. If the Government can make an adjustment order because of the cock-ups that they have found, why cannot they make an adjustment order to put right the anomalies that have been brought to their attention by the local authority? If they were to do so, we would not have such swingeing rate increases. The local authority is not a whingeing authority. It is a hung authority in which all three parties must play their part to make the borough work at all.
There are acres of land in the area that should not be taken into account in the GRE calculation. Hardly anyone understands the calculations involved. But when one sees the gobbledegook involved—
12.34 am
Mr. Peter Pike: This is one of those very rare occasions when I find myself in agreement with the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt). One of the problems with the present system is the formula and the way in which it has been compiled. In regard to the Minister's final remarks, I do not want to debate the new system that he believes will solve the problems of local government finance. I am totally opposed to the poll tax. We have heard many times over the past eight years that the Government have got the system right, but I do not have the same confidence as the Minister that they have got the solution this time.
I have always accepted that, whatever party is in power, the Government have the right to determine the amount of money which they are prepared to contribute as their share of local government expenditure. Local government has a right to argue that the amount is insufficient. Certainly Opposition Members may argue that the Government should give more to local authorities. When the Government have determined the figure I do not accept that they should prevent local authorities from

1115
spending additional amounts if the ratepayers are prepared to provide the money. The Government should not penalise ratepayers by rate capping.
As to the formulae, I have often referred to the formula that sets the amount of money that local government is allocated for art galleries and museums. That is a good example of how stupid the present system is. I am sure the Minister will agree that if the system is based on GRE the basis must be right if it is to work. The basis for determining the amount for galleries and museums is the area of shop floors within the local authority. Therefore, a local authority with a large floor space in its shopping centre will get a bigger allocation for museums and art galleries even if it does not provide a service, whereas a local authority with a small shop floor area may provide a much better service but will not get the same allocation.
In the report there is a revised method for calculating indicator E7, which is a big factor in the GRE calculation for housing grant. I will not deal with it in detail because it covers two pages in the report and is extremely complicated. The Government have still got it wrong, because the base year of 1980–81 is crucial to the calculation. Local authorities may still be penalised because of what happened in 1980–81. That is wrong. My local authority has been heavily penalised for many years, to the detriment of the ratepayers. Many other local authorities are in a similar position. As a Member of Parliament, as leader of the council before I was elected to the House, and as chairman of the council's finance committee, I have met Ministers and civil servants, but none of them could justify the formula.
I hope that, in any further changes, the Government will recognise that different parts of the country cannot be judged on a standard base. We need a system that takes into account local needs and many other factors on a better basis than we have achieved so far—even with the present revision. Even with the latest supplementary report for 1984–85, local authorities have been penalised and the costs have had to be borne by rent and ratepayers because the Government's system has been wrongly based. If the foundation is wrong, the system cannot possibly work.
12.40 pm
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: I shall not detain the House. I take great comfort in the Minister's remarks. We hope, pray and trust that the new system of grants for local authorities will not be as complicated and difficult to comprehend as the present system. I do not want to talk about the formulae set out in the document. On one occasion I heard my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State say that he was the only person in England to understand the system.
I wish to draw attention to the arrangements as they affect Derbyshire and its district councils. In 1984–85, the GRE for Derbyshire county council was £316,420,000. In 1985–86 it rose to £354,705,000 — an increase of about £38 million. Nearly all the districts in the county of Derbyshire have witnessed increases in GRE over that period. For Amber Valley the increase was £17,000, for Bolsover it was £200,000, for Chesterfield it was £1,137,000, for Derby it was £2,537,000; for Erewash, £259,000 and for High Peak, £94,000. However, in the same period north-east Derbyshire witnessed a reduction
1116
of £67,000, south Derbyshire a reduction of £11,000 and Derbyshire Dales—the district to which I wish to refer in particular—a reduction of £111,000.
Derbyshire Dales district council has been a prudent and well-run council, yet it seems from all the figures and evidence that it is the Derbyshire council most penalised under the present system. Derbyshire Dales GRE assessment has been reduced by 4·9 per cent.—£150,000 — between 1980–81 and 1988–89. During the same period, all other Derbyshire district councils have had an increase in their GRE of between 0·03 and 58·3 per cent. During the same period, the county council's GRE has risen by 54 per cent.
I take the point made my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) about Cleveland, but at the moment Derbyshire county council levies the highest rate in the country at 262p, and we do not yet know what is in store for next year. Although Cleveland may be leading us, it will not have that pleasure—if pleasure it be—for very long.
The Audit Commission's cluster of authorities similar to Derbyshire Dales — there are 34 — shows that only three councils have lost GRE in that period. Derbyshire Dales leads the table at 4–9 per cent. My message to the Minister is that we do not like systems that seem continually to penalise good, prudent authorities while allowing spendthrift, wasteful authorities to get away with continuing to spend as though there were no tomorrow. Authorities that are prudent and look after their finances are penalised all the time.
I realise that my hon. Friend the Minister may not be able to say much in response to me, but I ask him to shout a little more about the way in which we intend to change the system so that it becomes much more fair and so that the future levels of grant to councils, without a complicated formula, are more obvious to people—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I hesitate to interrupt, but the debate is about the past. I hope that the hon. Member will not tempt the Minister into discussing the future.
Mr. McLoughlin: I take your point, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are talking about the past. We should draw lessons from the past to ensure that what has happened does not happen again in the future. What has happened in the past seems to have penalised authorities that have been prudent and that should have been able to reward their ratepayers. Instead, those ratepayers have had to bear the burden of the system.
12.45 am
Mr. Simon Hughes: I have two general questions and propositions to put to the Minister and then I want to raise some Southwark-related matters arising directly out of the two reports.
First, I should like to confirm that by these measures the definitions of "relevant" and "total" expenditure are for the first time amended, as there is power to do under the Local Government Finance Act 1987, which was passed because of the discovery of errors in calculation. I understand that it is possible for the Government to take out transfers to special funds which give rise to a deficit on the rate fund revenue account and which are not in respect of specific liabilities, or transfers back to the rate

1117
fund account of sums transferred — the "deficit financing" transfers. I did not hear the Minister address that matter.
This appears to be a retrospective change. The 1984–85 and the 1986–87 rate support grants were made on the basis of one set of terminology and definitions, and therefore calculation. This appears to be the first time that we have a retrospectively introduced redefinition which, clearly, in some cases is disadvantageous. What are the budgetary implications of the change?
Secondly, and more simply, when we debated the first supplementary report for 1986–87, the Government guaranteed that at least £500 million of grant would be recycled. However, the expenditure for 1986–87 is now seen to be lower than originally estimated. I understand, therefore, that the grant recycled is now between £400 million and £450 million. If that is right, it is at least £50 million below the undertaking. That means that there is less money around to be distributed to local authorities. I should like to be put right if I am wrong, but if I am right I should like confirmation that the original guarantee will be upheld and that we can have the £500 million through the grant recycling process.
I should now like to put a question to the Minister which has not arisen before in this debate and on which I admit ignorance, after trying to check the details through reports and figures. It has been put to me that the reports also deal with a correction of data errors in social services grant-related expenditure. Those revisions will be to the substantial detriment of a range of authorities. Newham loses £1·1 million; Wandsworth and Waltham Forest £1 million; Hammersmith and Fulham £700,000; and Kensington and Chelsea £400,000. The biggest losers of all are Lambeth, with £2 million, and my authority — Southwark—with £2·5 million.
I have heard nothing about that. I see nothing that refers to that specifically in the text accompanying the statistics in the reports, so perhaps the advice I have been given is incorrect. I should be happy to hear that it is. If it is not, however, Southwark—the area I know best—will lose £2·5 million because of a recalculation of social services grant-related expenditure, which would be a severe blow.
I want to discuss the figures for Southwark, in the knowledge that tomorrow we shall debate the rate limits under the relevant order—including one for Southwark. Southwark appears to have suffered considerably as a result of the supplementary reports and revisions in the grant-related expenditure assessment. I make a last minute plea to the Minister on the basis of the facts and figures. Southwark deserves to have its rate limit—as set out in tomorrow's order—revised if its expenditure limit is still not to be revised.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are debating the approval of reports of the past. I do not think it would be right for the House to anticipate a future debate.
Mr. Hughes: I accept that entirely, and I think I can satisfy you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by turning now to the outturn figures dealt with in the orders.
Southwark has now been rate-capped for four consecutive years. The figures for the outturn of the budget are as follows. The budget in the first two years
1118
—1984–85 and 1985–86 — was £108·437 million. Then, with the ex-GLC services added in for 1986–87 and 1987–88, and again for the coming year, the budget has been fixed at £134 million. But the reports show that for 1983–84 there has been a loss on the final report of just over £2·5 million as a result of revisions. For the 1986–87 report, there is a loss of £3·035 million. Southwark will be liable to make cash payments for those losses if the reports are approved. They amount to more than £5 million for those two years alone. In three of the past four years—1983–84, 1984–85, and 1986–87—the loss has been more than £7 million.
I accept that, to some extent, there is budgetary provision for this. However, the losses result not from Southwark having acted outside budgetary restraints, but from the reduction in grant-related expenditure assessment as a result of factors that influenced all authorities, but bit Southwark particularly hard. If, as expected, another £4 million must be paid for the financial year 1985–86, there will be massive problems.
If I am right in thinking that one of the alterations is to the social services GRE, that is a specific area in which Southwark is desperately short. it is a known fact that social workers employed by Southwark but working in the Maudsley hospital had to take out an injunction to stop their transfer to fill gaps in one of the borough's area social services teams. The imposition by these orders of what appear to be substantive additional bills will make it impossible, with any further rate-cap limit as may be imposed tomorrow, plus the budgetary constraints on expenditure limits cumulatively over the last four years, for Southwark to meet its obligations.
Last year, on behalf of and with Tower Hamlets, I asked for an increase in its expenditure limits, and that was granted. I am not saying that happened entirely as a result of my request. Southwark asked for more, and was not granted it. The evidence shows that it should have been granted. The real screw on Southwark appears to be the additional sums which these reports require Southwark to pay. Are these figures right? I am happy tomorrow to work with the Minister's officials if this request cannot be dealt with now.
There is evidence that the burden of the formula and its application in these two years bites uniquely hard on Southwark, particularly on its key services. That may mean that the Government's calculations in relation to the need for Southwark in the coming year should be looked at again, even at this late stage. There is a precedent for figures being revised at a late stage, and parts of an order can be withdrawn, debated later and put back, as the Minister accepted in relation to one of the orders originally laid before the House. The figures in the report which are uniquely prejudiced against Southwark should be revised.
12.57 am
Mr. Patrick Thompson: I am grateful for an opportunity to ask my hon. and learned Friend the Minister to clarify one or two points in connection with the supplementary reports for 1984–85 and 1986–87. In general, I support the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. McLoughlin), and I do not wish to take up time repeating those points.
Between 1984–85 and 1986–87, the grant-related expenditure for Norfolk county council has been increased from £232 million to £269 million, and total expenditure has increased from £217 million to £239 million. My

1119
understanding of those figures is that in 1986–87, Norfolk county council spent £30 million below its grant-related expenditure, which was much lower in relation to GRE than in 1984–85. In spite of that, the grant payable to Norfolk county council went down. Therefore, I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will explain why, if one spends below one's GRE, one is penalised.
I then looked at the figures for Broadland district council, and found the same situation. Its GRE has been reduced from £3·98 million to £3·9 million, rounding the figure down significantly. Total expenditure went down from £2·96 million to £2·75 million, and once again, the amount by which the council was below GRE was better in 1986–87 than it was in 1984–85, but again, the grant payable was reduced.
I hope that I am being helpful here, because I know that Ministers attack this rate support grant system, say that it is unacceptable, and that they want to get rid of it as soon as possible. I hope that they will help me by explaining those discrepancies.
For Norwich, the GRE figure between 1984–85 and 1986–87 increased from £7·8 million to £9·6 million, yet for Broadland district council the GRE decreased from £3·983 million to £3·895 million. I shall not speak at great length on that, although I could. Could the Minister address that particular discrepancy and explain it to me so that I can explain that extraordinary difference in treatment between Norwich and the lower spending shire district to my constituents in Norfolk?
I support my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West in his strictures on the treatment of low-spending councils, and I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will explain those figures.
1 am
Mr. Barry Field: I should like to end this tortuous debate on a happy note by placing on record on behalf of the people of the Isle of Wight our thanks to my hon. and learned Friend the Minister and his advisers for their solution to the rating of Crown property. It would have caused considerable difficulty if we had to find the arrears asked of us which go back for many years, some of which are referred to in these supplementary reports.
1.1 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Christopher Chope): We have had an interesting debate which hon. Members have been listening to with rapt attention.
My hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) raised many issues which are not new to me because I had the privilege of visiting Langbaurgh last year and I met a recent deputation from the council to explain the present position and the limited way in which the Government could assist. After the last deputation, I wrote to my hon. Friend and told the council that I understood its anxiety and would be happy to meet it again this spring before we start on next year's settlement.
I share my hon. Friend's anxiety that the ratepayers of Langbaurgh are faced with a proposed rate increase of 30p by Cleveland county council. Such an increase can only be an unnecessary burden on them. My hon. Friend is particularly concerned about the definitions on density. The density factor measurements are based on definitions set out by the ordnance survey and applied to all authorities. The area of an authority covers all land,
1120
mountains, towns and derelict land. This measure is reasonable for the purposes for which it is used within the grant system. As I told my hon. Friend when he brought the deputation, we are looking for a much simpler grant system under new arrangements, but that will not be in place until 1990. I am sure he will be pleased to know that as a result of the supplementary reports, Langbaurgh benefits to the tune of £670,000.
My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. McLoughlin thought that Derbyshire county council was receiving beneficial treatment at the expense of Derbyshire Dales. The dales under these supplementary reports benefit to the extent of £86,000 while the county council loses to the extent of £2·896 million. I am sure that my hon. Friend thinks that that illustrates the justice of the situation. Once again my hon. Friend has drawn attention to the gross extravagance of Derbyshire county council and the relative prudence of the Conservative district councils.
The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) raised the vexed issue of E7. I believe that it is too late to explain exactly how E7 is calculated, but the hon. Gentleman seems to have as good an understanding of it as most people. As a result of the supplementary reports that we are discussing tonight, Burnley benefits by £71,000.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) discussed a social services error, but I should point out that that error was contained in the supplementary report for 1983–84. Southwark gains more than £10 million from the reports under consideration and that for 1986–87 gives the authority £12·4 million. Those factors have been taken into account in the Secretary of State's proposals for the rate limit. I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman's figures are right, as they relate only to grant changes as a result of GRE changes. In 1986–87 Southwark gained £13 million of grant as a result of changes in its total expenditure and that gives the overall gain of £10 million from the two reports.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about recycling. It is always made clear that the guarantee of a certain amount of recycled grant would apply only to the first supplementary report. When there were subsequent supplementary reports it was inevitable that there might be a different outcome. That was no surprise to the local authorities concerned. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State for the Environment made it perfectly clear in a letter to the local authority associations that there was no intention of increasing block grant further in subsequent supplementary reports.
Mr. Simon Hughes: What about the redefinition of two terms under the Local Government Finance Act 1987?
Mr. Chope: In the welter of detail before me, I do not have an answer for the hon. Gentleman, but I will write to him about it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Broadlands—
Mr. Patrick Thompson: It is important for my constituents to realise that I cover both Norwich city and Broadlands and that, therefore, my constituency is Norwich, North.
Mr. Chope: I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson). He has frequently come to see me with councillors from Broadlands, so I mistook his constituency. In visits and in correspondence

1121
my hon. Friend has tried to explain how Broadlands suffers under the present system. Broadlands is a low-spending, prudent local authority and it has much lower rates than Norwich. If my recollection is correct, I believe that this coming year the district rate in Broadlands will be about half that of Norwich. That reflects the different spending policies of those councils. Under the existing system, it is inevitable that when a council increases expenditure it forfeits grant. That applies to Broadlands and to Norwich.
We are introducing a new grant system that will be much clearer and simpler. Certainly it will be helpful in increasing accountability in local government.
I said that I would write to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey, but perhaps it would be easier if I told him that none of the specifications are in a strict sense retrospective, as they apply only to supplementary reports made after the specifications have been made. In the light of new information, it is normal practice to make further supplementary reports for a financial year well after that year has passed. I think that that answers the hon. Gentleman's point.
I hope that the House will approve the supplementary reports.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Rate Support Grant Supplementary Report (England) (No. 4) 1984–85 (House of Commons Paper No. 253), a copy of which was laid before this House on 5th February, be approved.
Resolved,
That the Rate Support Grant Supplementary Report (England) (No. 3) 1986–87 (House of Commons Paper No. 254), a copy of which was laid before this House on 5th February, be approved.—[Mr. Maclean.]

Patent Office (Relocation)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Maclean.]
1.10 am
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I wish to raise at this late hour the proposed relocation of the Patent Office from London to south Wales, but in doing so I say to my hon. Friend the Minister, whom I welcome to the Treasury Bench at this uncivilised hour, that the present Government's policy in seeking to challenge perceived norms and accepted wisdom is one that I strongly applaud. It is right that no idea or arrangement, no matter how well-established, should go unexamined or unquestioned.
The decision in recent years to consider the relocation of Government departmental offices to regions outside London is one that I welcome, and I hope that when future relocations are considered, the marvellous facilities offered in my constituency of Macclesfield will not go unnoticed by my hon. Friend, or for that matter, the excellent opportunities provided by the north-west region as a whole.
However, I am not arguing now for the relocation of the Patent Office from its present home in central London to my constituency or the north-west. Indeed, I hope to convince my hon. Friend that he should reconsider what can only be described as a hasty, if well-intentioned, decision to move the home of the Patent Office to Newport in south Wales.
It is not that I have anything at all against Wales or the people of that excellent Principality. I am in favour, as I said, of the dispersal of Government offices from London and the south-east. The reason why I am arguing against the move to south Wales is simply that the proper home for the Patent Office is in London. During the whole of the period of more than 100 years that a modern patent system has been in existence, the Patent Office has been located in the Chancery lane area of central London. That is almost certainly because the function of the office is to grant rights — patents, trade marks and registered designs—which are enforceable at law. It is logical to locate the office close to the High Court, the Inns of Court and specialist counsel, solicitors and patent agents who are concerned with obtaining — and, I remind the House, enforcing—such rights.
The Patent Office currently comprises approximately 1,100 members of staff, headed by the Comptroller-General. Two thirds are administrative, clerical and support staff, while the remainder are highly qualified technical examiners. A patent application is accepted and granted only after a technical evaluation and search carried out by one of the examiners to determine whether the application is directed to novel and inventive subject matter. To perform that important function, an examiner must have a thorough grasp of the area of technology with which the application is concerned.
Taken as a whole, the examining corps is highly qualified and greatly experienced across a range of disciplines covering the full technical spectrum and patent law. In short, they are a highly valuable and specialised asset to our country, in enabling us to make the best use of that great British flair for invention and entrepreneurship.

1123
As my hon. Friend knows, the White Paper published just two years ago on the subject of intellectual property and innovation says:
"a nation such as the United Kingdom relies heavily on getting value from its intellectual property. We have a limited raw material base and a small home market, but we have a good education system, a tradition of world-leading inventions and of involvement in international trade."
Mr. Paul Flynn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Winterton: I shall not give way. I have much to say in a short time.
The White Paper continues:
"The ability to claim ownership of ideas is a vital step in securing a profit from them."
The same White Paper argued that the Patent Office should be made a statutory non-departmental body, to make it more responsive to the needs of innovators, free it from the traditional Civil Service framework, and ensure that it should be self-supporting from fees, and free to finance investment programmes.
I make these remarks about the White Paper to remind the House, which can all too often become too detached from such things, of the real practical value of the Patent Office to British industry and, in particular, to the small company or self-employed individual from whose invention a whole industry could ultimately grow. I make these remarks also to remind my hon. Friend the Minister of the ideas contained in the White Paper. It appears that the excellent proposals have now been shelved. I urge him once again to turn his attention to these matters, albeit that they are now not the main subject of debate.
What is of specific concern is the proposed relocation of the office to south Wales and the impact that that move could have on British inventors.
First, I shall comment briefly on the rather casual manner in which the decision was announced. The first that many of my contacts in industry and in the patent world knew of the matter was a passing reference in a speech by the Comptroller-General of Patents at the annual dinner of the Chartered Institute of Patent Agents on 30 October last — although, with all respect to my hon. Friend, I understand that reference was also made to the decision in another place on that very day. I stress that the decision was announced. It was put forward not for discussion or consultation with those concerned, but as a fait accompli.
At no time prior to the somewhat informal announcement did there appear to have been any consultation with the professional organisations that will be most affected — the Chartered Institute of Patent Agents and the Institute of Trade Mark Agents. Nor had there been any consultation with individual users of the patent and trade mark system or with organisations such as the Confederation of British Industry or the Trade Marks, Patents and Designs Federation, which represent industrial users of the systems.
Concern about the total lack of consultation was registered with my hon. Friend in a letter from the Trade Marks, Patents and Designs Federation on 3 February. The CBI wrote earlier to the Comptroller-General, endorsing the federation's concern at the decision, and the lack of consultation that went before it.
That absence of consultation is of all the more concern, bearing in mind that the standing advisory committees on patents and trade marks have been in existence for some
1124
years. Surely a proposal of this kind is clearly a natural candidate for consideration by such committees. Therefore, I urge not the abandonment of the idea of relocation—as I said, all new ideas deserve consideration—but, rather, that such consideration should be comprehensive and constructive, and should include full consultation.
Mr. Flynn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Member to refer to my constituency, when I am not allowed to speak, and refer to a matter that has nothing to do with his constituency?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): It is a matter that relates to the normal courtesies of the House. It is not a point of order.
Mr. Winterton: Therefore, I ask my hon. Friend to refer the detail of the decision to the standing advisory committee before it is ultimately implemented.
Secondly, the proposal seems to have arisen out of a report that was conducted by Price Waterhouse, a firm of considerable reputation but with no experience of patents. It is my suspicion, and certainly that of many concerned individuals and organisations who have contacted me about the matter, that the decision to move to south Wales arose simply because empty facilities exist there, due to the decision of another Government Department not to relocate in that area, as had originally been planned.
Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Winterton: I have already announced that I shall not give way. Opposition Members did not approach me before the debate to seek my permission to intervene.
Therefore, if my suspicion is true, such consideration is not the right basis upon which the Government should make commercial or policy decisions. The best interests of the British economy should be the overriding factor in a matter such as this.
Thirdly, in a letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Neubert), my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster argued that the basic reason for the relocation was to limit the anticipated increase in Government fees which would need to be charged to users if the office were retained in London, with high accommodation costs and a prospective fall in patent registrations.
I challenge that argument. The latest financial statement concerning the position of the Patent Office appears as an appendix to the annual report of the Comptroller-General. The report for 1986 clearly shows that the total accommodation costs for the fee-earning services of the Patent Office amounted to only 18 per cent. of the total expenditure of the office and that receipts over expenditure amounted to almost £4 million—that is to say, there was a profit of £4 million. Even if accommodation costs were to treble, for example, in the future, they could be met within an overall increase of fees of less than 40 per cent. in 1986 terms.
The fees would still be low compared to those in other European countries. More particularly, it should be recognised that the users of the Patent Office's services almost invariably use professional assistance and that Government fees represent a relatively small proportion of the costs incurred. Consequently, it is expected that the increase in professional fees and ancillary costs to

1125
applicants for patents which will result directly from the move out of London could substantially offset any possible savings in Government fees.
Fourthly, I urge my hon. Friend to consider once again the impact of the proposed move on the competence of the office to handle patent applications. As I said earlier, that depends crucially on the retention of the corps of technical examiners and any move that results in a diminishing of that corps through reticence to move to that most desirable area of south Wales would be detrimental to the service offered to British industry.
From the letter that my hon. Friend wrote to the Trade Marks Patents and Designs Federation on 20 December last, it is clear that the Government are not only expecting, but hoping for, a reduction in this corps, since he says:
"Central London locations not only mean high rental but also significantly increased staff costs. By relocation away from London substantial savings are possible."
In short, the Government would save money by employing local people in Wales at lower rates, but those people would clearly not have the experience or expertise of the long-serving London personnel. Therefore, that would be a false economy and could lead to a further fall in the number of patent applications because of a lack of confidence, a fall in standards and the resultant inability to enforce patents granted and registered. One reason why we have such a fine reputation in this country is because we can enforce the patents that have been granted and registered.
I should also put on record at this stage the alarm expressed by those who would be affected by the knowledge that the Government are reported to have inquired whether the European Patent Office could handle the examination of United Kingdom patent applications in apparent ignorance of the fact that that would have resulted in a sevenfold increase in fees for patent applications—a level of fees which would effectively rule out many smaller companies from taking out patents. That is strangely inconsistent with the concern that my hon. Friend and his Department have expressed for fee increases simultaneously used to justify the Patent Office move to south Wales.
I seek an assurance from my hon. Friend this evening that that approach will not be pursued now that the European Patent Office has refused to handle the business because of its own backlog of work. The British Patent Office is currently dealing with over 31,000 applications each year. Surely that is a sign of a healthy and entrepreneurial economy, and that the Patent Office is providing a valuable service, at its present location, to British industry.
I want to draw the attention of the House to one final area. I understand that the United Kingdom is currently asking the EEC to locate the Community Trade Marks Office in London. The Government's proposal to move the Patent Office to south Wales is likely to be regarded in Europe as a reflection of a lack of interest in the United Kingdom about intellectual property, and much will be made of that by the Spanish, Dutch and Germans who are the other prime contenders for the location of the Community Trade Marks Office. Such a move by the Patent Office could effectively sabotage the bid for the Community Trade Marks Office.
1126
Considerable advantages could flow from the location of the CTMO alongside the Patent Office in London. It would provide close liason and a pool of professional advisers both within and independent of the offices. The proposal to move the Patent Office out of London should be reviewed immediately and steps should be taken quickly to reassure industry of the Government's commitment to support intellectual property rights and its innovative ability, which should rightly be seen as the basis for the continued regeneration of United Kingdom industry.
A Patent Office providing industrial property services at senior level is surely of vital importance to industry and should be accessible from all parts of the country. I believe that that can be ensured only by locating the head office —albeit a residuary head office—in the capital city to which inevitably the most efficient communications are provided.
In conclusion, I want to thank my hon. Friend the Minister most sincerely for receiving me and representatives of those concerned — Mr. Ralph Walter of the CBI, an ex-employee of Unilever, Mr. Tony Gibson the president of the Trade Marks, Patents and Designs Federation, Mr. David Votier, president of the Chartered Institute of Patent Agents and Mr. David Tatham, also of the Trade Marks, Patents and Design Federation, a senior executive of ICI—in his office at the Department of Trade and Industry on Monday afternoon. We had a full and frank exchange of views and I know that those who accompanied me appreciated my hon. Friend's understanding of the problems and the sympathetic hearing that he gave us.
1.27 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. John Butcher): May I begin by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) for the manner in which he has pursued his arguments tonight and on previous occasions. I respect his sincerity and strength of feeling on this issue. In the course of my observations, I will try to deal with the very important points that he has raised.
I am grateful for the opportunity presented by the debate to explain more fully the reasons behind our proposal to relocate the Patent Office in south Wales, and — I am bound to say — to rebut some of the misunderstandings that have appeared in the press recently about our plans for the Patent Office.
To begin with, it is necessary to step back and take stock of the changes that are occurring in this area. This country and a number of other European states joined together in 1977 to establish the European Patent Office. Under the system administered by that office, a company seeking broad protection for its inventions may file a single patent application in Europe as an alternative to going to each of the member states individually. This system is very successful and the European Patent Office is now the major office in Europe. Our national office has correspondingly declined over the same period. Input is down 30 per cent. over the past five years and looks set to decline by a similar amount over the next five years. The European system is particularly attractive to large companies, with the result that applicants to the United Kingdom Patent Office are increasingly drawn from small and medium-sized enterprises.
On the other hand, the work of the trade marks registry of the Patent Office is increasing by leaps and bounds

1127
following an amendment to the trade marks legislation in 1986 permitting service industries to register their marks and logos. As a result, trade mark applicants face long delays as the registry seeks to obtain sufficient staff and train them in the necessary skills.
The patents branch also faces similar problems in obtaining and retaining staff in central London, and both branches attract frequent complaints from the professions about the level of service provided. It is worth bearing in mind that, in the general service grades, the staff turnover in the Patent Office is over five times what it is in the Companies Registration Office and the Business Statistics Office in south Wales.
I shall come to the questions of the comparative labour and salary costs, but the accommodation costs in central London are spiralling upwards and in 1988 are expected to exceed £8 million, an amount borne on the patent side by fewer and fewer applicants as the input declines. It might be thought that, as the input declines and the staff with it, the office will need less space. But that is not the whole story. The patent search files consist of over 4 million documents and grow each year, so that the office's requirements for space cannot simply be adjusted in line with input. Overheads are set to climb steeply if the office remains in London.
It is reasonable to ask ourselves whether the situation should be allowed to continue unchecked, or whether we should take positive steps to put the office on a sounder basis so that it can provide the continuity of services that its customers rightly expect, at prices they can reasonably afford. The answer is plain. We would be failing in our duty to industry and commerce if the situation was allowed to drift out of control.
The first question that must be asked is: would it be cheaper to transfer all the patent work to the European Patent Office? It is clear that the European Patent Office has not the capacity to take on extra work from the United Kingdom Patent Office. Even if it had, the charges would be higher than the cost of doing the work in our own office. Moving the office to cheaper accommodation in south Wales would move the costs of our own operations out of the range of the European Patent Office. There are therefore no plans to transfer functions of the United Kingdom Patent Office to the European Patent Office. I would like to underline that statement, because recent press reports suggesting the contrary have caused some anxiety to the staff of the office.
Nor would I like to give the impression by anything I have said that the Patent Office is declining at such a rate that it is about to disappear through lack of customers. We would not be taking so much trouble thinking about the future of the office if that were the case. Even at its lower level of activity, the office is still a major division of the Department of Trade and Industry. Currently, it receives over 30,000 patent applications a year, over 30,000 applications to register trade and service marks and over 8,000 applications to register designs.
If the office were moved to south Wales, accommodation charges would fall from £8 million per annum to under £3 million. Staff costs were, I noted, the subject of a sedentary intervention. A further £1·5 million would be saved in London weighting, which would be a genuine saving. But the salary grants are the same, and the salaries paid, London weighting excepted, would be, grade for grade, the same in south Wales as in London.
1128
In the context of a budget of £35 million, those figures cannot be ignored. South Wales is preferred, because the Department of Trade and Industry already has two large establishments in the Cardiff-Newport area, and it makes operational sense to place the Patent Office in the same region. The case for decentralising the office looks overwhelming.
While officials examine the implications of a move, talks have already started with the professions to consider what needs to be done to ensure that users would not be inconvenienced by a move away from London. I know that my hon. Friend feels strongly about that. A major part of the patent and trade mark profession is located in London within easy reach of the Patent Office in High Holborn. Plainly, its costs could rise considerably if its members had to spend their time travelling backwards and forwards between London and Wales to file their applications, or attend hearings. Likewise, members of the patents bar could be seriously disadvantaged if their time was divided between the Patents Court in London and the comptroller's court in Wales. Clearly, it would defeat the whole purpose of a move if the costs of the Patent Office were reduced at the expense of the professions, because at the end of the day it is the users who bear the costs of both.
In order to maintain a convenient service to users, the Patent Office plans to retain an office in London employing 60 to 70 people who would receive patent, trade mark and design business. This office would have on-line computer links with the relocated main office to give access to register information and would provide facilities so that ex-parte and inter-parte proceedings could be conducted in London.
We have previously debated the importance of the new data highways, the new broadband networks and telecommunications links. This is a classic case of taking advantage of such technology.
Some talks took place on 5 February with the Chartered Institute of Patent Agents, the Institute of Trade Mark Agents and the Trade Mark, Patent and Design Federation to ensure that the necessary facilities are available in London for the efficient conduct of their business should the proposd move take place. We would of course need to ensure that sufficient numbers of skilled staff needed for the proper continuity of services transfer with the office. Staff have been informed about the possibilities under consideration, and more detailed talks with staff representatives will begin in the near future. It is also important to appreciate that a move of an important office like the Patent Office would provide valuable new job opportunities in south Wales. A move would create at least 500 jobs locally.
Some agents have asked where such a decision would leave our bid to host the Community Trade Marks Office in London. The issues of the location of the national Patent Office and the Community Trade Marks Office are unconnected. The Community institution will not depend in any way on the United Kingdom Patent Office. I am determined that the United Kingdom bid stands in its own right and on its own independent merits. Our bid for the Community Trade Marks Office has always depended upon the advantages of London itself, its links with the other Community states, the United States of America, Japan and other countries, and on the wealth of trade mark expertise available. This is still the case and our claim

1129
to that office is still unrivalled on any objective basis. We shall press strongly on the Commission and others those objective critera.
My hon. Friend has spoken of the need for consultation and has expressed the view that more consultation is necessary before any proposal to relocate the Patent Office out of central London is entertained. I hope he is aware that I am sensitive to his comments not just in this debate but on previous occasions. Consultation with users about the future operation of the Patent Office is necessary. However, the overall management of the Civil Service, of which the Patent Office is a part, is a matter for the Government. We have a manifesto commitment to improve public services, to make them more effective and to reduce their costs. It is for Government to be satisfied that these goals will be achieved. For the Patent Office, the financial savings to be derived and the operational improvements that can be attained by a move to south Wales make the case conclusive.
Having made a decision on financial and operational grounds, I readily agree with my hon. Friend that there is thus a need for consultation about its implementation. We shall carefully examine the record of this debate to pick up the sensitivities about which my hon. Friend feels
1130
consultation is in order. As I have said, this process of consultation has already begun. The Comptroller-General has offered further meetings to the Chartered Institute of Patent Agents, the Trade Mark Patents and Designs Federation and the Institute of Trade Mark Agents to discuss the sort of services that they would like to see provided by the London office and the links that that office might have with the main office in south Wales. That is a very important form of consultation, but I cannot accept that Government should have consulted on the basic question of how to manage and locate the Patent Office. This is an issue of central Civil Service management and it is an issue for Government.
A transfer will enable the Patent Office to provide a better service through the greater availability and continuity of staff, a cheaper service for the benefit particularly of small and medium-sized enterprises, and a more secure future away from the high costs of London.
Mr. Winterton: Would my hon. Friend be prepared to consider the appointment of the head office in London—
The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at twenty minutes to Two o'clock.

WALES

  Job Creation
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the number of jobs he estimates will be made available in the next four years(a) in Clwyd and (b) in Wales, as a result of the new system of grants; and what was the number of jobs projected under the regional development grant system.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Under the regional development grant scheme, 22,500 jobs in Wales and 7,700 jobs in Clwyd are expected to be created as a result of projects already approved for grant. The number of jobs created under the new grants schemes will depend on the response from industry and on the number and size of individual projects for which assistance is sought. I am confident that the new schemes will have a very beneficial effect on employment in Wales as a result of the substantial increase in regional industrial expenditure planned over the next three years.

  Family Practitioner Committee Area

  1978

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Clwyd

  89

  89

  89

  89

  88

  87

  83

  83

  85

  Dyfed

  95

  96

  94

  93

  90

  90

  90

  92

  96

  Gwent

  92

  94

  93

  93

  91

  90

  90

  90

  90

  Gwynedd

  64

  64

  63

  62

  61

  60

  59

  59

  61

  Mid Glamorgan

  115

  117

  116

  115

  116

  120

  124

  126

  134

  Powys

  25

  24

  24

  22

  23

  23

  23

  23

  23

  South Glamorgan

  101

  99

  99

  97

  100

  96

  96

  98

  102

  West Glamorgan

  99

  100

  101

  99

  100

  100

  100

  105

  105

  Wales

  680

  683

  679

  670

  669

  666

  665

  676

  696

  Appointments
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list all the appointments he has made to organisations in Wales since June 1987.

  Chairman

  Deputy Chairman

  Members

  Agricultural Advisory Panel for Wales

  —

  —

  4

  Cardiff Bay Development Corporation

  —

  1

  —

  Committee on Agricultural Valuation for Wales

  —

  —

  1

  Committee for the Welsh Scheme for the Development of Health and Social Research

  —

  —

  1

  Court of University College, Bangor

  —

  —

  1

  Court of University College, Swansea

  —

  —

  1

  Community Health Council—Clwyd South

  —

  —

  1

  —Clwyd North

  —

  —

  1

  —South Gwent

  —

  —

  1

  —Ogwr

  —

  —

  1

  —Vale of Glamorgan

  —

  —

  1

  Cwmbran Development Corporation

  —

  —

  1

  District Health Authority—Mid Glamorgan

  —

  —

  1

  —Powys

  —

  —

  2

  —West Glamorgan

  —

  —

  1

  Family Practitioner Committee—Gwent

  —

  —

  2

  —Gwynedd

  —

  —

  2

  County Structure Plans
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the status of county structure plans; and what regard is given to them in deciding planning applications not in conformity with the structure plan.

  Mr. Grist
  In any area the structure plan forms part of the statutory development plan. A decision on an application for planning permission must have regard to the provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the application, and to any other material considerations. The latest central Government advice on these matters is set out in paragraphs 11 to 15 of planning policy guidance note No. 1 (PPG 1), dated January 1988, which was issued with Welsh Office circular No. 1/88, copies of which have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Pharmacies
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will supply figures for the number of pharmacies in each family practitioner committee area in Wales for each year since 1978 to the latest date for which figures are available.

  Mr. Grist
  The number of pharmaceutical chemists in family practitioner committee areas in Wales at 31 December of each year is given in the table:

  Mr. Peter Walker
  [holding answer 16 January 1988]: In the period from 13 June 1987 to 31 December 1987, I have made the following appointments to public bodies in Wales:
  599

  Chairman

  Deputy Chairman

  Members

  —Mid Glamorgan

  —

  —

  1

  —Powys

  —

  —

  2

  —West Glamorgan

  —

  —

  1

  Health Policy Board

  —

  —

  1

  Historic Buildings Council

  —

  —

  2

  Land Authority for Wales

  —

  1

  5

  Library and Information Services Council (Wales)

  —

  —

  4

  South Wales Sea Fisheries Committee

  —

  —

  1

  Wales Tourist Board

  1

  —

  1

  Welsh Committee on Drug Misuse

  —

  —

  1

  Welsh Development Agency

  —

  —

  2

  Welsh Health Common Services Authority

  —

  —

  4

  Welsh Industrial Development Advisory Board

  —

  —

  1

  Welsh National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting

  —

  —

  1

  Welsh Water Authority

  —

  —

  4

  1

  2

  53

  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many of the people he has appointed to public bodies since his appointment are normally resident outside Wales.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  [holding answer 16 February 1988]Of the 56 people I have appointed in the period from 13 June 1987 to 31 December 1987, 52 are normally resident within Wales. Of the remaining four, two are reappointments, one is Welsh by origin, and the other is a specialist in his field.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Assisted Places Scheme
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) if he will make a statement on the criteria and conditions required by state and public schools for acceptance on the assisted places scheme;

  (2) if he will list those schools, both state and public, that have applied to join the assisted places scheme in the last 12 months; and when he expects to announce his decision as to whether or not they have been accepted.

  Mr. Dunn
  The assisted places scheme exists to give help with tuition fees at certain independent secondary schools to the parents of able children who might not otherwise attend these schools. The principal criteria for admission to the scheme cover overall and sixth form size, curricular breadth, examination success and general academic merit. In addition, the Secretary of State has regard to the desirability of securing an equitable distribution of assisted places both geographically and between boys and girls.

  A total of 128 schools have within the last 12 months submitted formal applications to join the scheme. These are listed in the table. Careful consideration is now being given to these applications and my right hon. Friend will announce the outcome in due course.

  Independent Schools which have submitted firmal applications to join the Assisted Places Scheme

  Abbotsholme School, Uttoxeter

  Ackworth School, Pontefract

  Ardingly College, Haywards Heath

  Ashville College, Harrogate

  Austin Friars, Carlisle

  Barnard Castle School, Co. Durham

  Bedstone College, Bucknell

  Bentham School, Nr. Lancaster

  Birkdale School, Sheffield

  600

  Bloxham School, Banbury

  Bootham School, York

  Box Hill School, Dorking

  Bromsgrove School, Worcs.

  Blue Coat School, Birmingham (Prep.)

  Burgess Hill School for Girls

  Cheltenham Ladies College

  Christ's Hospital School, Horsham

  City of London Freemans School, Ashstead

  Claremont Fan Court School, Surrey

  Clayesmore School, Dorset

  Combe Bank School, Sevenoaks

  Convent of Our Lady of Providence, Hants.

  Croft House School, Dorset

  Croham Hurst School, Croydon

  Culcheth Hall School, Altrincham

  Derby High School

  Douai School, Reading

  Dover College

  Downe House School, Newbury

  Durham School

  Edgbaston C of E College for Girls

  Ellerslie School, Worcs.

  Ellesmere College

  Elmslie Girls School

  Felixstowe College

  Fernhill Manor School, New Milton

  Fulneck Boys School, Pudsey

  Giggleswick School, Settle

  Godolphin School, The, Salisbury

  Guildford High School for Girls

  Haileybury and Imperial Service College

  Halliford School, Surrey

  Headington School, Oxford

  Heathfield School, Pinner

  Hipperholme G S, Halifax

  Hollygirt School, Nottingham

  Holy Child School, Edgbaston

  Holy Trinity Convent School, Bromley

  Hurstpierpoint College, Hassocks

  Huyton College, Liverpool

  Kelly College, Devon

  Kent College, Tunbridge Wells

  Kimbolton School, Cambridgeshire

  Kings School, Bruton

  Kings School, Gloucester

  Kingsley School The, Leamington Spa

  Laxton School, Peterborough

  Leicester G S

  Leicester High School for Girls

  Leighton Park School, Reading

  Lubavitch House School, N16

  Marist Convent Senior School, Ascot

  Menorah G S, NW11

  Moira House School, Eastbourne

  Mount School The, NW7

  Mount School, York

  Mount Carmel School, Cheshire

  601

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne Church High School

  Notre Dame Senior School, Cobham

  Oakham School, Rutland

  Oswestry School

  Our Lady's Convent Senior School, Abingdon

  Pangbourne College, Reading

  Pierrepont School, Farnham

  Polam Hall School, Darlington

  Presentation College, Reading

  Princethorpe College, Rugby

  Prior Park College, Bath

  Purcell School

  Reading Blue Coat School

  Reed's School, Cobham

  Rendcomb College, Cirencester

  Rickmansworth Masonic School, Hertfordshire

  Rosemead School, Littlehampton

  Royal Russell School, Croydon

  Royal Walverhampton School

  Ryde School, Isle of Wight

  St. Anne's School, Windermere

  St. Brandons School, Clevedon

  St. Columba's College, St. Albans

  St. Edmunds School, Canterbury

  St. Edwards School, Cheltenham

  St. Felix School, Southwold

  St. Francis College, Letchworth

  St. Georges School, Ascot

  St. Hildas School, Whitby

  St. Joseph's College, Stoke-on-Trent

  St. Lawrence College, Ramsgate

  St. Margaret's School, Bushey

  St. Margaret's School, Exeter

  St. Martin's School, Solihull

  St. Mary's Convent, Folkestone

  St. Mary's Convent, Worcester

  St. Mary's Convent, Shaftsbury

  St. Michael's School, Oxted

  St. Nicholas School, Fleet

  St. Teresa's Convent School, Dorking

  St. Ursula's High School, Bristol

  Sacred Heart College, Droitwich

  Sacred Heart School, Tunbridge Wells

  Scarisbrick Hall School, Lancashire

  Scarborough College

  Sevenoaks School

  Shebbear College, Devon

  Silcoats School, Wakefield

  Solihull School

  Stella Maris Convent School, Bideford

  Stratford House School, Bromley

  Surbiton High School

  Tettenhall College, Wolverhampton

  Tormead School, Guildford

  Upper Tooting High School, Balham

  Ursuline Convent School, Kent

  Wentworth Milton Mount School, Bournemouth

  Westonbirt School, Tetbury

  Westwood House School, Peterborough

  Worksop College, Nottinghamshire

  Wrekin College, Telford

  Higher Education (Allowances)
  Mr. Ashdown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what would be the cost of providing each 16 to 19-year-old student attending higher or further education with an allowance equivalent to the pay of a youth training scheme trainee, on the assumption that there would be a 50 pe cent. take-up of places.

  Mr. Jackson
  If 50 per cent. of 16, 17 and 18-year-olds participated in full-time education and received an allowance equivalent to the youth training scheme allowance, the annual cost of those payments would be some £1,900 million. This figure is based on 50 per cent. of the total population of 16-year-olds in England 602
  receiving £28.50 per week—the youth training scheme allowance for that age—and 50 per cent. of 17 and 18-year-olds in England receiving £35 per week—I he allowance for trainees in their second year.

  The figure does not discount awards currently made by LEAs to students in this age group. Nor does it take account of child benefit payments to the parents of students in full-time education up to their 19th birthday.

  Educational Assessments
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will provide the latest available figures of the number of children with statements under the Education Act 1981 in each local authority in England, Scotland and Wales.

  Mr. Dunn
  The number of pupils with statements of special educational need attending maintained primary, middle and secondary schools and special schools in each local education authority in England in January 1987 is given in the table. Information on the number of pupils with statements of special educational need in Scotland and Wales is the responsibility of my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales.

  Pupils with statements in each LEA1 January 1987

  Pupils

  Barking

  272

  Barnet

  531

  Bexley

  525

  Brent

  492

  Bromley

  761

  Croydon

  835

  Ealing

  597

  Enfield

  503

  Haringey

  431

  Harrow

  396

  Havering

  484

  Hillingdon

  558

  Hounslow

  721

  Kingston upon Thames

  324

  Merton

  316

  Newham

  680

  Redbridge

  499

  Richmond upon Thames

  237

  Sutton

  394

  Waltham Forest

  893

  Inner London

  8,386

  Birmingham

  3,673

  Coventry

  1,052

  Dudley

  694

  Sandwell

  1,022

  Solihull

  410

  Walsall

  760

  Wolverhampton

  736

  Knowsley

  654

  Liverpool

  1,974

  St. Helens

  557

  Sefton

  803

  Wirral

  1,170

  Bolton

  632

  Bury

  432

  Manchester

  2,024

  Oldham

  735

  Rochdale

  713

  Salford

  940

  Stockport

  1,024

  Tameside

  585

  Trafford

  673

  603

  Pupils

  Wigan

  838

  Barnsley

  426

  Doncaster

  1,035

  Rotherham

  770

  Sheffield

  1,427

  Bradford

  1,388

  Calderdale

  411

  Kirklees

  1,003

  Leeds

  2,526

  Wakefield

  816

  Gateshead

  588

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  1,036

  North Tyneside

  659

  South Tyneside

  402

  Sunderland

  882

  Isles of Scilly

  0

  Avon

  4,450

  Bedfordshire

  1,298

  Berkshire

  2,186

  Buckinghamshire

  2,459

  Cambridgeshire

  1,753

  Cheshire

  3,476

  Cleveland

  2,287

  Cornwall

  1,173

  Cumbria

  1,306

  Derbyshire

  3,135

  Devon

  3,107

  Dorset

  1,777

  Durham

  1,381

  East Sussex

  1,964

  Essex

  4,371

  Gloucestershire

  1,409

  Hampshire

  4,836

  Hereford and Worcester

  1,880

  Hertfordshire

  3,294

  Humberside

  2,129

  Isle of Wight

  352

  Kent

  4,882

  Lancashire

  4,207

  Leicestershire

  1,734

  Lincolnshire

  1,736

  Norfolk

  1,729

  North Yorkshire

  1,726

  Northamptonshire

  1,856

  Northumberland

  774

  Nottinghamshire

  2,597

  Oxfordshire

  1,040

  Shropshire

  1,353

  Somerset

  1,398

  Staffordshire

  2,576

  Suffolk

  1,708

  Surrey

  3,361

  Warwickshire

  1,633

  West Sussex

  1,522

  Wiltshire

  1,852

  England

  141,962

  1 Excludes independent schools and nursery schools.

  Middle Schools
  Dr. Hampson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many middle schools of eight to 12 years and of nine to 13 years there are; and what are the approximate numbers of pupils in each category.

  Mr. Dunn
  The number of maintained middle schools of age eight to 12 and of nine to 13, and the number of pupils in these schools in January 1987 in England was as follows:
  604

  Middle schools with age range

  Schools

  Pupils

  8 to 12

  598

  147,737

  9 to 13

  569

  193,085

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Irish Republic
  Mr. McCusker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if, pursuant to his answer of 9 February,Official Report, column 149, he will list in precise detail the views and proposals of the Government of the Irish Republic put forward by them at the meeting of the Anglo-Irish Inter-Government Council both in November 1985 and since that date; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  My right hon. and learned Friend cannot give details of specific proposals put forward in private by the Irish Government. Nonetheless, a detailed communiqué was issued after the meeting of the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Council at Hillsborough in November 1985, and joint statements have been issued after each meeting of the Intergovernmental Conference held since.

  Nuclear Power Stations (Attacks)
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is Her Majesty's Government's policy towards the discussions in the conference on disarmament on banning attacks on nuclear power stations; and if he will take steps to strengthen the provisions of article 56 of protocol I of the 1977 additional protocols to the 1949 Geneva convention.

  Mr. Mellor
  The prevention of attacks on peaceful nuclear facilities is the subject of discussion by the conference on disarmament's ad hoc committee on radiological weapons. The United Kingdom plays a constructive role in these talks and is chairing the committee this year.

  We do not believe that it would be appropriate to attempt to alter the text of the 1977 additional protocols, which were preceded by long and detailed negotiations.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Food Aid
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has as to(a) the estimated value of emergency food relief contributions, by country, for the years 1985 to 1987–88, (b) whether these contributions are deducted from the overseas aid budget of such countries, and (c) the proportion of the overseas aid budgets of such countries these payments represent.

  Mr. Patten
  The table contains details of total food aid by donor country for 1985 and 1986 and the percentage of total official development assistance of each country that these figures represent. Information on the value of food aid used for emergency relief is not separately available. Nor is information readily available on the relationships between the overseas aid budget and expenditure on food aid in all the countries listed.
  605

  DAC donor countries—food aid 1985 and 1986

  $ million

  1985 Food aid

  1985 As percentage of oda

  1985 Food aid

  1985 As percentage of oda

  Australia

  51

  6·8

  84

  11·2

  Austria

  8

  3·2

  3

  1·5

  Belgium

  44

  10·0

  20

  3·6

  Canada

  263

  16·1

  262

  15·5

  Denmark

  25

  5·7

  27

  3·9

  Finland

  12

  5·7

  21

  6·7

  France

  127

  3·2

  122

  2·4

  Germany

  204

  6·9

  227

  5·9

  Ireland

  8

  20·5

  2

  3·2

  Italy

  164

  14·9

  259

  10·8

  Japan

  27

  0·7

  66

  1·2

  Netherlands

  85

  7·5

  109

  6·3

  New Zealand

  1

  1·9

  —

  —

  Norway

  27

  4·7

  27

  3·4

  Sweden

  38

  4·5

  35

  3·2

  Switzerland

  29

  9·6

  30

  7·1

  United Kingdom

  137

  9·0

  98

  5·6

  United States

  1,859

  19·8

  1,518

  15·9

  Total DAC countries

  3,113

  10·6

  2,912

  7·9

  Note: Total bilateral and multilateral food aid ie includes food aid by EEC according to member states shares of EC budget.

  ODA = Official development assistance (net).

  Source:Development assistance committee (DAC) of the OECD.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Motor Manufacturers (Components)
  Mr. Bright
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what information he has as to which British-based motor manufacturers are in a position to fit(a) oxidation catalysts and (b) three-way catalysts to their products from 1 January 1989.

  Value: £ million

  1979

  1987*

  (a)

  (b)

  Crude balance

  (a)

  (b)

  Crude balance

  imports (cif)

  exports (fob)

  £ million

  as a percentage of (a)

  imports (cif)

  exports (fob)

  £ million

  as a percentage of (a)

  Total trade

  48,423

  42,802

  -5,621

  12

  94,016

  79,851

  -14,165

  15

  of which:

  (i) Cereals and cereal preparations

  668

  264

  -404

  60

  741

  831

  +90

  12

  (ii) Agricultural products

  6,264

  1,814

  -4,450

  71

  9,407

  4,080

  -5,327

  57

  (iii) Other

  42,160

  40,988

  -1,172

  3

  84,609

  75,771

  -8,838

  10

  of which:

  (iv) Motor vehicles

  2,997

  1,519

  -1,479

  49

  5,692

  2,452

  -3,240

  57

  (v) Electrical goods

  3,643

  3,633

  -9

  0

  13,529

  10,246

  -3,283

  24

  (vi) Steel

  998

  1,080

  + 83

  8

  1,603

  1,874

  + 271

  17

  (vii) Coal

  136

  62

  -74

  54

  368

  78

  -290

  79

  Sources: The following SITC/R2 data in the United Kingdom Overseas Trade Statistics: (i) Division 04, (ii) Sections 0 & 4 and Division 22, (iv) Groups 781, 782, 783 and Sub-group 784.1, (v) Divisions 75, 76, 77 and Group 716, (vi) Groups 672–675, Sub-groups 678.2, .3, .4 and 679.3 and Items 676.01 (part), .02 (part), 679.42 and 791.99 (part), (vii) Sub-groups 322.1 and 322.2.

  Notes: (i) crude balance is United Kingdom exports (fob) less United Kingdom imports (cif). (ii) 0 signifies a value of less than 0.5. (iii) * 1987 figures are provisional.
  606
  Mr. Atkins
  Some United Kingdom motor manufacturers are currently producing three-way catalyst versions of certain of their models for export markets which enforce emissions standards requiring such equipment. However, these models are not necessarily produced in specifications designed for United Kingdom conditions. No United Kingdom manufacturers are presently supplying cars fitted with oxidation catalysts. The future model plans of the manufacturers are a commercial matter for the companies concerned.

  Trade Statistics
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will update the information contained in his reply to the hon. Member for Norfolk, North on 10 February 1987,Official Report, column 164, regarding the crude balance of imports and exports of (a) cereals and cereal preparations, (b) motor vehicles and (c) electrical goods in 1979 and 1987 and the net overall position in 1979 and 1987; and if he will also show (A) total imports and (B) total exports of (i) cereals and cereal preparations, (ii) all agricultural products, (iii) all other imports and exports, (iv) motor vehicles, (v) electrical goods, (vi) steel and (vii) coal for 1979 and 1987, giving in each case, the difference between (A) and (B) in actual and percentage terms.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The information is as follows:

  Fertilisers
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the total output of fertilisers, the percentage exported and the proportion of the domestic market taken by imports in(a) the United Kingdom, (b) West Germany and (c) Japan in 1958, 1960, 1965, 1970, 1975 and in each year from 1979 to 1987.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The available information for the United Kingdom for the value of output for years up to 1985 is published in the "Business Monitor" series PA 1002, "Report on the Census of Production", summary volume (table 11); 1986 output data are available in "Business Monitor" PA 251 (table 8). The available information on United Kingdom export and import ratios is published in "Business Monitor" series MQ12, import penetration and export sales ratios for manufacturing industry. These publications are available in the Library. Similar information for the Federal Republic of Germany and Japan is not available.

  Superconductivity
  Sir David Price
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what measures he is taking to promote the application of the principles of superconductivity in British industry.

  Mr. Butcher
  On 21 January 1988, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry announced a £16 million three-year programme to stimulate collaborative industrial research on superconductivity. The DTI will provide up to 50 per cent. of the programme cost and industry will find the balance. Work supported under the programme will include research into materials and device applications, as well as research aimed at producing superconductors that work at room temperature. The programme has been developed in consultation with the electronics and electrical engineering industries, and complements the Science and Engineering Research Council's programme of academic research in HEIs, including the first university research centre at Cambridge. The DTI and SERC have together established a National Committee for Superconductivity, announced in October 1987. Chaired by Sir Martin Wood, the national committee co-ordinates support for industrial and academic research and advises on national policy for superconductors.

  Financial Services Act
  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representations he has received from interested bodies concerning applications to register with self-regulating organisations under the Financial Services Act.

  Mr. Maude
  I have received many representations about this and other aspects of the Financial Services Act.

  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he has any estimate of the number of applications currently before the self-regulating organisations or the Securities and Investments Board.

  Mr. Maude
  I am informed by the Securities and Investments Board that the number of applications by 608
  investment businesses for authorisation by a recognised self-regulating organisation or the Securities and Investments Board which were either approved or in the course of consideration as at 12 February 1988 was approximately 9,800.

  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans he has to advertise further the time limits for applications before self-regulating organisations or the Securities and Investments Board.

  Mr. Maude
  My Department will be issuing a further series of advertisements in both national and regional press drawing to the attention of investment businesses the need to apply for authorisation before 27 February. This follows two earlier series of advertisements which, regrettably, some investment businesses seem to have ignored.

  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he is satisfied that the Securities and Investments Board and the self-regulating organisations have adequate staff and resources to deal with the applications before them; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  The then Secretary of State concluded before proposing the transfer of functions to the SIB in May 1987 that the staff and resources available to it were sufficient for the time. I believe that still to be the case. Before recognising a self-regulating organisation under the Act, the SIB is required to satisfy itself as to a number of factors, including the adequacy of the organisation's resources. I see no reason to differ from SIB's judgment.

  Wimbledon Citizens' Advice Bureau (Pamphlet)
  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will take steps to cease the distribution by the citizens' advice bureau in Wimbledon of the pamphlet "Sex", published by the Terrence Higgins Trust, in view of its explicit promotion of exclusively homosexual activities.

  Mr. Butcher
  Policy and day-to-day running of the citizens' advice bureaux are matters for the National Association of Citizens' Advice Bureaux (NACAB). I understand that NACAB circulates to bureaux a monthly information pack on AIDS publications which provides a comprehensive list of leaflets available on AIDS, including the Terrence Higgins Trust leaflet "Sex", which bureaux may choose to look at to decide whether they might be helpful to clients. The NACAB has informed me that, in its view, this leaflet is not suitable for public display and that it has not distributed it to bureaux. The NACAB has also informed me that the leaflet has not been stocked, distributed or displayed by the Wimbledon CAB.

  Specialised Satellite Services
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he intends to liberalise the provision of specialised satellite services; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The Government remain committed to the duopoly policy in telecommunications which was announced in November 1983. The Government made clear then that they did not intend to license operators other than BT and Mercury to provide the basic telecommunication service of conveying
  609
  messages over fixed links whether cable, radio or satellite either domestically or internationally. This position will not be reviewed until November 1990.

  The Government also made clear that they would give consideration to ways of introducing new specialised services by satellite. We are now proposing a degree of liberalisation in this area. Before settling the final details, we are allowing a six-week consultation period on how the following arrangements should be brought into practice.

  Our present intention is to license up to another six operators to provide point to multi-point satellite-based third party services in the United Kingdom only. If more than six acceptable proposals are put to us in a one-month qualifying period after the consultation period has ended, we will ask the Director General of Telecommunications to advise us which of the applicants to license.

  We are also intending to license receive-only terminals on users' permises. Users will be licensed to receive all kinds of satellite-delivered services within the scope of the Telecommunications Act 1984, whether national or international. A licence under that Act will be issued shortly after the end of the consultation period. The

  Chemicals

  Sales (US $ million)

  Export ratio (percentage)

  Import penetration (percentage)

  United Kingdom

  FRG

  Japan

  United Kingdom

  FRG

  Japan

  United Kingdom

  FRG

  Japan

  1965

  5,675

  8,471

  5,506

  22·0

  291

  9·9

  14·6

  16·8

  7·6

  1970

  7,602

  13,625

  15,256

  24·6

  37·2

  8·1

  17·8

  24·0

  6·7

  1975

  15,093

  30,283

  34,845

  31·3

  38·6

  11·1

  22·3

  23·6

  6·2

  1979

  27,960

  55,870

  68,316

  34·9

  43·0

  8·9

  28·8

  29·2

  7·7

  1980

  31,772

  59,324

  79,461

  37·4

  43·9

  8·6

  27·8

  30·5

  7·9

  1981

  29,138

  51,710

  81,946

  38·5

  46·2

  8·3

  30·2

  32·4

  7·9

  1982

  26,438

  48,516

  74,097

  40·2

  47·2

  8·6

  32·9

  33·8

  9·1

  1983

  25,681

  49,733

  80,956

  41·1

  48·3

  8·6

  34·8

  34·6

  8·9

  1984

  25,193

  49,418

  84,881

  43·9

  50·8

  9·0

  38·2

  36·6

  9·7

  1985

  26,112

  50,527

  85,865

  46·6

  51·7

  9·0

  39·3

  38·1

  9·4

  1986

  30,499

  64,544

  115,674

  46·8

  51·4

  8·2

  40·1

  37·6

  8·4

  Notes:

  1. Information for 1958 and 1960 and 1987 is not readily available.

  2. Figures for United Kingdom and Japan exclude man-made fibres, whilst for FRG they include man-made fibres.

  Source: Basic International Chemical Industry Statistics 1963–1986 published by Chemical Industries Association.

  Sub-postmasters (Annual Revisions)
  Sir Ian Gilmour
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what information he has as to how many sub-postmasters' annual revisions are awaiting checking at postal finance depot, Chesterfield; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Butcher
  [holding answer 16 February 1988]: This is an operational matter for the Post Office Board and I have therefore drawn my right hon. and learned Friend's question to the attention of the chairman of the Post Office.

  Acrylics
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the total output of acrylics, the percentage exported, and the proportion of the
  610
  licence will not permit users to convey the signals received onwards beyond their own premises. An announcement about the implications of this decision for the licensing regime under the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949 will be made shortly.

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

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

  Mr. Alan Clark
  [holding answer 16 February 1988]: The available information is as follows:

  domestic market taken by imports in (a) the United Kingdom, (b) West Germany and (c) Japan in 1958, 1960, 1965, 1970, 1975 and in each year from 1979 to 1987.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  [holding answer 16 February 1988]: I regret that this information is not available. The only available information relates to the United Kingdom and is published in the "Business Monitor" PQ2514 (tables 2 and 5).

  Videotape
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the total output of videotape, the percentage exported, and the proportion of the domestic market taken by imports in(a) the United Kingdom, (b) West Germany and (c) Japan, in 1958. 1960, 1965, 1970, 1975 and in each year from 1979 to 1987.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  [holding answer 16 February 1988]: I regret that this information is not available. Information

  611
  for the United Kingdom on output of videotapes is not published because the figures would disclose information about individual undertakings.

PRIME MINISTER

  Brussels Council
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister what is the agreed limit on agricultural spending for the current year in consequence of the Brussels Council agreement; and what was the agreed limit for 1987.

  The Prime Minister
  As I indicated in my statement of 15 February the guideline base for 1988 has been set at 27·5 billion ecu (about £19 billion). The limit for 1987 was just under 23 billion ecu (about £16 billion).

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister what estimate she has made of the maximum expenditure which the European Economic Community would be entitled to undertake if the 1·2 gross national product formula agreed at the Brussels Council were applied in full; and what limit would have applied if the 1·4 limit had remained in force.

  The Prime Minister
  The 1·2 per cent. gross national product ceiling on the Community's own resources agreed at the European Council is equivalent in 1988 to some 46·5 billion ecu (£32·2 billion), whilst the current 1·4 per cent. value added tax ceiling this year is equivalent, on a comparable basis, to some 36·7 billion ecu (£25·4 billion).

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) what percentage levy of gross national product for the current year was agreed at the Brussels Council;

  (2) what voting system will apply, in consequence of the Brussels Councils agreement, to alterations in the gross national product levy; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  The level of the new gross national product-related contributions will be subject to the overall ceiling on all own resources equivalent to 1·2 per cent. of Community GNP and to any annual sub-ceilings which the Council may agree. These ceilings, once adopted, cannot be changed except by unanimity and following ratification in all member states. Within that constraint, the level of GNP-related contributions required to balance the budget in 1988 and later years will reflect the expenditure decisions taken by qualified majority voting in the annual budgetary process, just as the actual rate of value added tax contributions is determined under the present system.

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister if there is any provision in the Brussels Council agreement to prevent the Commission underwriting spending levels in excess of legal limits in a manner similar to the metric year operated in 1987 when receipts were demanded one month in advance and receipts delayed for a month; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  The decision on budget discipline described in my statement of 15 February will be legally binding.

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister why she agreed to the exceptional circumstances clause in the Brussels Council agreement; and by which voting system it will be operated.

  The Prime Minister
  I refer my hon. Friend to the statement I made on Monday 15 February on the outcome 612
  of the European Council. The monetary reserve which I referred to in my statement will operate on the basis I described and the question of voting does not therefore arise. There is no other provision for so-called exceptional circumstances.

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister if the sum which is currently spent each week by the European Economic Community on dumping, storing and destroying food surpluses will change in consequence of the Brussels Council agreement; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  The sums spent each week on storage and disposal of surplus depend on the level of surpluses and the prices at which they can be sold. As I said in my statement on 15 February, the agreement on the agricultural stabilisers is intended to control both output and spending on surpluses.

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations Her Majesty's Government have received from the United States of America and other foreign governments about the Brussels Council agreement.

  The Prime Minister
  None.

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister if the previous decision of the Finance Ministers' Council to transfer the responsibilities of financing the cost of butter dumping to member states, which was declared to be unlawful by the Court of Auditors, was discussed at the Brussels Council; and what changes were proposed in these arrangements following the increase in EEC resources.

  The Prime Minister
  The matter was not discussed and no changes are proposed.

  Cereal Production
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister by what amount the 160 million ton ceiling for cereal production payment without price reduction exceeds or is less than actual cereal production in 1987; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  The 1987 cereals harvest was affected by exceptionally difficult weather conditions in many parts of the Community; the harvest is estimated at 153 million tonnes, which is well below the trend-line production figure for 1987 of 165 million tonnes.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Intestacy
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will introduce new regulations to simplify the settling of estates in intestacy cases.

  The Attorney-General
  No. I am not satisfied that there is any need to change the rules relating to the settlement and distribution, by personal representatives, of the estates of persons dying intestate. The rules are intended to enable the distribution of an intestate's estate in a manner that the intestate might have directed if he or she had left a valid will.

  Cash Limits and Running Costs
  Mr. Andy Stewart
  To ask the Attorney-General whether any changes will be made to the 1987–88 cash limit and running costs limit for Class XX Vote 27 of covering the administration costs of the serious frauds office and the provision in Class XX Vote 28 covering the Department's prosecution costs.

  The Attorney-General
  Yes. The office will not, as earlier expected, take over the conduct of some cases from the Crown Prosecution Service before it becomes operational. Sections 1–3 of the Criminal Justice Act 1987 are likely to be brought into force in April 1988. The cash limit for Class XX, Vote 27 will be reduced by £570.000 from £2,000,000 to £1,430,000 and the running costs limit by £570,000 from £1,500,500 to £930,000. With a shortfall of £1 million on prosecution costs under Class XX, Vote 28, £1,570,000 will be surrendered to the Reserve.

DEFENCE

  Weapons (Interoperability)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proposals exist for interoperability among NATO countries in(a) artillery barrels and (b) ammunition.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Existing arrangements within NATO already provide a substantial measure of artillery barrel and ammunition interoperability. These include a quadrilateral ballistics memorandum of understanding, and a NATO sub-panel with responsibility for ammunition information exchange. The United Kingdom is also fully involved in discussions on the interoperability of future artillery systems.

TRANSPORT

  Head Restraints
  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has on the number and percentage of vehicles registered in the United Kingdom that are fitted with head restraints; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The Department has no statistical information on this. The majority of new cars are now being provided with head restraints that meet European standards.

  Public Service Vehicle Drivers
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what legislation is(a) in force and (b) proposed concerning the maximum and minimum ages of licensed public service vehicle drivers.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  The Road Traffic Act 1972 and regulations made under the Act prescribe 21 years as the minimum age for driving public service vehicles with some closely defined exceptions where the minimum age may he reduced to 18 years. Drivers of these vehicles may continue to renew their licences until they fail to satisfy the traffic commissioners as to their fitness to hold a licence. There are no proposals to change these arrangements.
  614
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what legislation is(a) in force and (b) proposed concerning the physical fitness, and medical examination, of licensed public service vehicle drivers.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  The Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 and the regulations made under the Act require all applicants for public service vehicles drivers' licences to satisfy the traffic commissioners that they are fit to hold the licence. A medical report is required on first application, on each five-year renewal when drivers reach 46 years of age and annually after 65. There is also a general requirement for all drivers to report any medical condition which could affect fitness to drive. Interested bodies are now being consulted on a proposal to require public service vehicle drivers to submit medical reports with licence renewals from the age of 45.

  Greater London (Traffic Disruption)
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the approximate proportion of traffic disruption or major delay in Greater London over the latest convenient annual period attributable to(a) road repair works, (b) road improvement schemes, (c) road works by statutory undertakers, (d) traffic signal failure, (e) road accidents, (f) flooding or burst water mains, (g) vehicle breakdowns, (h) shed loads, other than in accidents, (i) illegal parking, (j) state occasions, processions and demonstrations and (k) excess of traffic demand over road capacity.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Information is not collected in this form.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has concerning the amount of road traffic congestion in Greater London; from what sources he obtains such information; and what definitions he adopts of(a) congestion and (b) serious delay to traffic flow.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Road traffic congestion in London is monitored by its effect on traffic speeds. Results of regular surveys are published in statistics bulletins available from the House Library. We have not adopted a definition of congestion or serious delay to traffic flow. The Department is considering whether specific indicators would be useful.

  M25
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has concerning the M25 in respect of(a) the number and distribution of major delays, (b) the causes of major delays, (c) the numbers, locations and causes of major accidents, (d) the times, places and degree of any excess of demand over effective road capacity and (e) hourly peak and minimum flows, expressed in passenger car units, in the most heavily and least used sections.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The information is not available in the form requested. The M25 is congested at certain times on some sections. Work has started to enable a fourth lane to be added to both carriageways between junctions 11 and 13. A study has been commissioned into the best way of adding a fourth lane between junctions 15 and 16.
  615
  We have recently invited proposals from consultants for a study of traffic patterns on the whole motorway which was announced in last year's roads White Paper. It will identify existing and potential problem areas and their causes, and suggest solutions. M25 traffic flows were set out in my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) on 9 November 1987, Official Report, columns 79–80.

  Disabled People (Parking Concessions)
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if there are any reciprocal arrangements for parking concessions for disabled people between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of New Zealand; and if he will consult the Royal Association on Disability and Rehabilitation on this matter.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Reciprocal arrangements for parking concessions for people with disabilities are confined to Europe. We intend to raise with the disabled persons transport advisory committee the question of extending reciprocity to countries outside Europe.

  French Minister of Transport
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last met his French counterpart; and what was discussed.

  Mr. Channon
  I met M. Douffiagues on 7 December at a meeting of the EC Transport Council. Matters discussed included international air services, road haulage permits and traffic through non-EC transit countries.

  Coaches (Speed Governors)
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the progress of the requirement to install speed governors in coaches.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  I made regulations on 15 February which will be laid before the House shortly. These require new coaches to be fitted with a speed limiter from 1 April 1989, coaches first used on or after 1 April 1984, from 1 April 1990, and coaches first used on or after 1 April 1974, from 1 April 1991. Older coaches or those which have a maximum design speed no higher than 70 mph will not be affected by the regulations.

  The limiters must comply with British Standard AU 217 and be set to a maximum speed of 70 mph. The regulations will be amended as necessary to refer to minor changes to this standard now under consideration.

  Manchester Airport
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action has been taken, following the meeting between the Minister responsible for aviation and directors of Manchester Airport plc held on 8 February, to communicate the Government's views on the issues which the Manchester Airport plc directors raised at the meeting concerning the serious implications of the Civil Aviation Authority's draft charging proposals for Manchester airport; if he will publish any letter sent to the Civil Aviation authority as a result of that meeting; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The issues are for the Civil Aviation Authority. As promised at the meeting, my noble 616
  Friend sent a short letter to the chairman of the authority mentioning the Government's oft-repeated White Paper commitment to the development of Manchester airport, and the provisions of section 39(2)(c) of the Airport Act 1986.

  Motorway Accidents
  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will set out in a table for each month of 1987(a) the number of accidents that occurred on motorways, (b) the number of vehicles involved, (c) the number of goods vehicles with an unladen weight of more than 3 tonnes or vehicles drawing a trailer involved and (d) the number of coaches involved.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  I will write to my hon. Friend.

  Rear Seat Belts
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he intends to require that all self-drive hire cars are equipped with rear seat belts.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  All cars, including self-drive hire cars, first used from 1 April 1987 are required to be fitted with rear seat belts or child restraints. We have no plans to extend this requirement to any type of car registered before this date. We hope that all concerned—the car hire firms and their customers—will consider on a voluntary basis, the safety advantages of fitting and using rear seat belts.

  Dartford-Thurrock Crossing Bill
  Mr. Couchman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has placed in the Library a copy of the report by Mr. Aksel Frandsen, referred to in the Government response to the special report of the Select Committee on the Dartford-Thurrock Crossing Bill.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  I did so yesterday.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Indecent Displays (Control) Act 1981
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many complaints have been brought under the Indecent Displays (Control) Act 1981; and how many were successful.

  Mr. Renton
  The available information, which may be incomplete, is given in the following table:

  Defendants proceeded against and found guilty of offences under the Indecent Displays (Control) Act 1981

  England and Wales

  Number of persons

  Year

  Total proceeded against

  Total found guilty

  19811

  —

  —

  1982

  17

  10

  1983

  20

  18

  1984

  22

  17

  1985

  24

  24

  1986

  22

  19

  1 The Act came into force on 27 October

  Arrest and Search
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will place in the Library a copy of his reply to the letter from the joint central committee of the Police Federation on specific powers of arrest and search of suspected carriers of knives or other sharply pointed articles; whether he proposes to meet Mr. Leslie Curtis, chairman of the Police Federation, to discuss this matter; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I have done so today. The chairman of the Police Federation has not requested a meeting to discuss the matter, but my right hon. Friend and I are always willing to discuss the matter with him and I have already met the Metropolitan branch of the federation.

  Section 128 of the Criminal Justice Bill makes it an offence to have a bladed or sharply pointed article (other than a pocketknife) in a public place without good reason. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 increased police powers by making available to all constables a power to stop and search for offensive weapons and prohibited articles, and the Criminal Justice Bill will extend these powers to enable the police to stop and search those reasonably suspected of carrying articles covered by section 128. The "reasonable suspicion" requirement, which is the basis of the federation's concern, is not specific to the new offence, but applies generally to stop and search powers. A definition of "reasonable suspicion" is contained in the codes of practice made under PACE. A review of the codes has now been initiated, during which my right hon. Friend will be consulting the Police Federation and others.

  Police (Computers)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) whether he will list the constabularies which will have computers connected to the upgraded police national computer network and those constabularies that have an existing mainframe computer linked to the police national computer;

  (2) whether he will list mainframe computers belonging to constabularies and indicate whether they are for command and control or criminal information purpose.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The following police forces have a direct link to the police national computer through their own force computer system(s); this indicates whether these are command and control or criminal information systems.

  Force

  Command and Control

  Criminal Information

  Avon and Somerset

  Yes

  —

  Bedfordshire

  Yes

  —

  Cambridgeshire

  Yes

  —

  Cleveland

  Yes

  —

  Cumbria

  Yes

  —

  Devon and Cornwall

  Yes

  —

  Dorset

  Yes

  —

  Durham

  —

  Yes

  Essex

  Yes

  —

  Hertfordshire

  Yes

  —

  Humberside

  —

  Yes

  Kent

  —

  Yes

  Lincolnshire

  —

  Yes

  Merseyside

  Yes

  —

  Metropolitan

  Yes

  —

  North Yorkshire

  Yes

  —

  618

  Force

  Command and Control

  Criminal Information

  Northamptonshire

  —

  —

  Nottinghamshire

  —

  —

  South Wales

  Yes

  —

  South Yorkshire

  Yes

  Yes

  Staffordshire

  Yes

  Yes

  Suffolk

  Yes

  Yes

  Surrey

  —

  —

  Sussex

  Yes

  —

  Warwickshire

  Yes

  Yes

  West Mercia

  Yes

  —

  West Midlands

  Yes

  —

  Wiltshire

  Yes

  —

  Hampshire intends to implement a direct link to the police national computer within the next year.

  It is intended that all forces in England, Scotland and Wales will eventually have a direct link to the police national computer through the proposed upgraded network. Further information about force computer systems is not held centrally in the form requested.

  Local Development Agencies
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans to amend the processes by which central Government funds are channelled to local development agencies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  The only central Government funds for local development agencies for which my right hon. Friend is responsible are those channelled through the experimental local development agencies development fund. We are at present awaiting the first progress report from the committee administering the fund and in the meantime have no plans to change it.

  My right hon. Friend has recently amended the terms and conditions under which the fund is administered to permit him to require the committee to withhold or vary the conditions attached to a particular grant in those exceptional circumstances where such action is justified in the public interest.

  This safeguard should not normally affect the day-to-day administration of the fund. We have, however, invited interested parties to make representations about the change and these are being considered.

  Data Protection
  Mr. Heddle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will indicate the measures taken to advise the general public of their right of access for data subjects in the Data Protection Act following the introduction of the measure on 11 December 1987.

  Mr. Renton
  I am informed by the Data Protection Registrar that after 11 November 1987, when the right of subject access came into force, he carried out an advertising campaign in the national press for about one month, to advise the general public of their rights. In addition 2 million advisory leaflets and posters were distributed to public libraries, citizens' advice bureaux and similar information points, and arrangements were made for the Post Office to frank approximately 90 million pieces of mail with a special mark drawing attention to the subject access right. The registrar undertook a public relations campaign involving the distribution of publicity material to regional newspapers and radio stations and he and his staff participated in more than 40 radio and
  619
  television appearances and numerous press interviews. Copies of the registrar's advisory leaflet, together with the guidelines on the Data Protection Act, have been deposited in the Library.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will hold discussions with the Data Protection Registrar to produce a code of practice covering personal data held for the purpose of national security.

  Mr. Renton
  No. Under section 27(1) of the Data Protection Act 1984 it is for the Secretary of State concerned to determine, in the light of the particular circumstances, whether personal data should be exempt from the provisions of the Act for the purpose of safeguarding national security.

  Prisons (Bibles)
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what is the annual budget within the prison service for the distribution of bibles to prisoners;

  (2) how much of the annual budget within the prison service for the distribution of bibles to prisoners remained unspent at 1 January;

  (3) if chaplains to Her Majesty's prisons are experiencing any difficulty in obtaining bibles to distribute to prisoners;

  (4) whether the remainder of the annual budget within the prison service for the distribution of bibles to prisoners will be spent on the purposes for which it was originally allocated by 31 March.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The budget for the distribution of bibles to prisoners is reviewed annually. The amount allocated for this purpose in 1987–88 was £7,260. All of this was spent by 1 January 1988. It was hoped that a further sum could have been made available in the current financial year, but this was not possible because of other severe pressures on the prison Vote.

  A small number of copies of the authorised version and the revised standard version (used by Roman Catholics) remain in stock, but all copies of the good news version of the bible have been distributed.

  British Standard Time
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will consider seeking to reintroduce a British standard time to give people in Britain an extra hour of evening daylight.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Government are aware of the interest in having extended daylight hours in the evenings and are considering how best to assess support for any change in the present arrangements.

  Taxi Drivers (Assaults)
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many reported assaults there have been on licensed taxi drivers for each of the last five years in(a) the United Kingdom, and (b) the Basildon area;

  (2) how many (a) prosecutions and (b) convictions were made for assaults on licensed taxi drivers in (i) the United Kingdom, and (ii) the Basildon area for each of the last five years, and if he will express the figures as a percentage of all prosecutions and convictions.
  620
  Mr. John Patten
  The information requested is not available. It is not possible from the records held centrally to distinguish the occupation of victims of assault.

  Police Manpower
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the ratio of police officers to(a) population and (b) crimes in (i) Northumberland police authority area and (ii) Northumberland county.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The information available is as follows:

  Northumbria police

  Northumberland county

  Police1/Population2 ratio

  1:413

  1:694

  Police1/Crime3 ratio

  1:47

  —

  1 Police strength as at December 1987.

  2 As at mid 1986.

  3 Notifiable offences recorded by the police as produced in volume 3 of "Criminal Statistics England and Wales Supplementary Tables 1986". The force does not have those figures broken down for Northumberland county.

  Miss A. A. Bergeman
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the scientific name of the antidepressant given to Audrey Ann Bergeman on 23 July 1987 at Risley remand centre; what other medical treatment was given to Miss Bergeman while she was at the centre; whether she made any requests for medical treatment whilst she was at the centre; whether she made any statements about her medical condition while she was at the centre; and what was the assessment of the medical staff who examined her upon her admission to the centre.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Miss Bergeman was received at Risley remand centre on 20 July 1987. At the reception examination she was found to be in good general health except for a bronchial condition, for which medication was prescribed. She reported sick on 23 July and was prescribed small doses of amitriptyline. No other medical application was made and no other treatment was given.

  AIDS
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he is currently considering for the improved protection of prisoners from infection with the HIV virus.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  High priority continues to be given to preventive measures, which currently include systematic medical inquiry and examination at the reception stage, counselling of individual prisoners, precautionary regime restrictions at the discretion of the medical officer for prisoners identified as HIV antibody positive, and a strong emphasis on educational initiatives directed to all prisoners. A purpose-designed video film for prisoners is being developed. All aspects of the prevention strategy are kept under review.

  "Sex"
  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will seek advice as to whether the pamphlet "Sex", published by the Terrence Higgins
  621
  Trust and distributed by Wimbledon citizens advice bureau, contravenes the provisions of the Obscene Publications Act.

  Mr. Renton
  Whether the publication of a particular article contravenes the Obscene Publications Act 1959 is a matter which only a court can determine. It is not a matter on which my right hon. Friend has any authority to offer advice.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Peachey Property plc (Investigation)
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster why he has announced the appointment of inspectors to investigate possible contravention of the insider dealing legislation in relation to the securities of Peachey Property plc; and why when doing so he made reference to any transaction with which Mr. John Ritblat, chairman of British Land plc. may have been connected.

  Mr. Maude
  My right hon. and noble Friend decided that the appointment of inspectors in this case was necessary in the light of information provided. Such information is received from various sources including the stock exchange. It has been the practice for some time to announce such appointments where the fact that a particular person would be involved in an investigation might, if it became known, be likely to affect the share price of a company with which he is connected. The purpose — to which the stock exchange as the listing authority attaches importance—is to avoid a disorderly market in the shares of the company through such information becoming known only gradually and partially. The appointment of inspectors carries no implication of guilt, but only of the existence of circumstances needing investigation.

SOCIAL SERVICES

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what are the responsibilities(a) of local authorities in relation to the administration of housing benefit locally and (b) of his Department in relation to the administration of housing benefit centrally; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  Local authorities are statutorily responsible for the administration of the housing benefit scheme which includes informing the public about the scheme, determining claims, making payments and reviewing decisions on appeal. It also includes making payments to householders who qualify for housing benefit because they are in receipt of supplementary benefit (from April 1988 income support). The detailed rules and benefit rates which determine entitlement are set out in regulations issued by the Department. The Department is responsible for issuing guidance on the regulations and determining the arrangements for reimbursing most of the costs of the scheme incurred by local authorities. Information is collected centrally both to enable subsidy payments to be made and to inform Ministers, Parliament and the public on the costs and operation of the scheme nationally.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how much rebate from community charge he estimates a young person in Coventry with an annual income of £2,500 would be entitled to, following the abolition of the domestic rating system.

  Mr. Scott
  The details of the community charge rebate scheme have yet to be decided and benefit rates for 1990 are not yet known, so it is not yet possible to make such an estimate. Rebate entitlement will also depend on a claimant's circumstances and on the level of community charge set by the local authority.

  Food Handlers
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what provision he is making to ensure that local authorities are able to secure adequate training for all food handlers in retail and manufacturing outlets.

  Mrs. Currie
  On 30 October 1987 my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food announced that officials had been asked to review the proposals contained in the joint consultation document on food legislation, which was issued in December 1984, in the light of comments received from interested organisations. One of these proposals is that local authorities should be empowered to provide food hygiene training for food handlers.

  Drugs
  Mr. Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the current annual cost of providing drugs in the National Health Service as a whole and to family practitioners; if he is satisfied with the control and accountability of these costs; and what measures he proposes to prevent fraud by the sale of drugs overseas by those who have received them at public expense.

  Mr. Newton
  The net cost of providing drugs in the National Health Service in England in 1986–87, including fees, remuneration and payments to hospital pharmacists1 was £2,016 million. Of this £1,639 million was paid in the family practitioner services, including £120 million to dispensing doctors.

  For proprietary medicines, pharmaceutical companies with sales to the NHS of £4 million or more provide audited financial returns each year covering their costs and capital. These returns are scrutinised under the terms of the pharmaceutical price regulation scheme. Companies with sales of between £0·5 million and £4 million also provide information annually, but of a more limited nature. For generic medicines, the prices reimbursed to chemists are shown in the drug tariff. In the main, the drug tariff reflects the competing prices in this market.

  A patient may receive drugs at public expense only in exchange for a prescription form signed by a doctor. It is the doctor's responsibility to ensure that any drugs he prescribes are, in his judgment, needed by that patient. Once dispensed, the drugs become the patient's property. The clinical control expected of doctors militates against patients receiving drugs in large quantities, and there are special arrangements for drugs controlled by the Misuse of Drugs Act and its regulations. Any cases of suspected fraud are investigated by family practitioner committees or health authorities in the first instance.
  623
  1This information has recently become available.

  Vaccination
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has any new schemes to increase parental compliance with the need for increased vaccination against measles, whooping cough and polio.

  Mrs. Currie
  Levels of vaccination have risen in recent years to 67 per cent. for whooping cough, 86 per cent. for polio and 71 per cent. for measles (1986). We do not regard these figures as high enough to give adequate protection from these preventable diseases.

  We announced on 17 December plans to introduce a triple vaccine for measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) from 1 October 1988. We intend that the introduction of MMR is preceded by a national and local publicity campaign aimed at parents and the health professions, which we hope will lead to a substantial increase in uptake levels. We are also considering how best to continue to promote the benefits of vaccination against whooping cough and polio.

  Every district health authority has now appointed an immunisation co-ordinator who will have a very important part to play in securing our objective of improved uptake of the childhood immunisation.

  Private Health Facilities (Operations Purchases)
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will gather and publish from each district health authority information regarding the number, kind and cost of operations which they have bought from privately owned health facilities; and what priority his Department attaches to such information in the carrying out of the review on the funding of the National Health Service.

  Mr. Moore
  An annual return is made of contractual arrangements between National Health Service hospitals and private hospitals and a copy of the most recent return (1986) has been placed in the Library. This information relates to the number of patients treated by specialty. Details of the number, type and cost of operations performed under these arrangements are not kept centrally. We have already indicated that our internal review of the NHS will be wide ranging and fundamental. In reaching conclusions, we will want to take into account all relevant information.

  NHS Patients (Charges)
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is his estimate of the effect on the percentage of the total funding available to the National Health Service taken by administrative costs of collecting "hotel charges" from patients.

  Mr. Newton
  Such an estimate could only realistically be made in relation to proposals for the introduction of such charges, which we do not have.

  NHS Waiting Lists
  Mr. Ken Hargreaves
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services by how much National Health Service waiting lists have changed between 1979 and 1987 in(a)
  624
  the North West regional health authority, and (b) the Blackburn, Hyndburn and Ribble Valley district health authority; and if he will make a statement.

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

  In-patient waiting list in the National Health Service at 31 March 1979 and 1987

  March 1979

  March 1987

  Change between 1979–1987

  North Western RHA

  Urgent

  4,614

  3,315

  -1,299

  Cases over one Month

  3,130

  1,824

  -1,306

  Non-urgent

  72,754

  60,566

  -12,188

  Cases over one year

  21,667

  15,056

  -6,611

  TOTAL

  77,368

  63,881

  -13,487

  Blackburn, Hyndburn, Ribble Valley DHA

  Urgent

  195

  9

  -186

  Cases over one month

  134

  0

  -134

  Non-urgent

  5,317

  2,395

  -2,922

  Cases over one year

  2,645

  450

  -2,195

  TOTAL

  5,512

  2,404

  -3,108

  Nurses (Geriatric Training)
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what measures he proposes to increase the number of nurses working within the National Health Service with special skills related to geriatric nursing.

  Mr. Newton
  The measures referred to in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) on 15 February at column 489 aimed at improving nurse recruitment and retention in all specialisms including geriatric nursing. In particular the recently agreed new clinical grading structure, for which the review body will recommend rates from 1 April 1988, will open up improved pay and career opportunities for those who wish to remain in clinical nursing. It will differentiate more clearly between levels of responsibility and competence and will recognise and reward additional skills and responsibility more appropriately.

  The health departments' evidence to the review body suggests that the geriatric lead of £165 per annum should continue pending a review during 1988 by the Nursing and Midwifery Staffs Negotiating Council, the body responsible for negotiating nurses' terms and conditions of service. The council aims to agree recommendations to the review body in the autumn of 1988.

  NHS (Staff Statistics)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what was the total number of(a) medical laboratory scientific officers, (b) pharmacists and (c) medical physicists employed in the National Health Service in each of the last 12 months, distinguishing between trainees and fully qualified staff.

  Mr. Newton
  Information in the form requested is not held centrally. Such information as is available is shown in the table (the data for 30 September 1986 are the latest available to this level of detail):
  625

  Staff in Post (England) 30 September 1986 (Whole-Time Equivalents)1

  Medical Laboratory Scientific Officers

  Pharmacists

  Medical Physics Technicians

  Students

  23,530

  355

  114

  Qualified

  11,094

  2,789

  2,031

  Total

  14,624

  3,144

  2,144

  1 Figures are independently rounded to nearest whole-time equivalent.

  2 Includes all Junior A MLSOs and Junior B MLSOs. Some may not be in training, but none are qualified staff.

  England

  Wales

  Scotland

  1979–80

  1985–86

  1979–80

  1985–86

  1979–80

  1985–86

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  Inpatient case (acute hospitals)

  466

  718

  433

  712

  535

  849

  Outpatient attendance

  14

  26

  16

  25

  n.a.

  12

  Day Case attendance

  36

  66

  25

  56

  n.a.

  60

  Note:

  Comparison between the Scotland outpatient and day case figures and those for England and Wales is not valid because outpatient figures for England and Wales include day case and day patient attendances in respect of hospitals with less than 1,000 cases per year.

  One of the factors leading to the higher cost per inpatient case in Scotland is that Scotland has a higher proportion of the United Kingdom's teaching hospital places and proportionately more patient care therefore takes place in the relatively more expensive teaching hospital environment.

  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
  Returns from district valuers are currently being checked for completeness before being aggregated. It is likely to be several weeks before the information sought is available, when I will let my hon. Friend have a further reply.

  Retirement and Pension Rights
  Sir Dudley Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if, in the light of the recent European Court decision on women's retirement and pension rights, he will seek to introduce equalisation between the sexes of working and retirement benefits.

  Mr. Scott
  Equal treatment between men and women in respect of working conditions and state and occupational benefits is already the subject of three EC directives. EC directive 76/207 provides for equal treatment at work, and following the European Court's decision that the age of retirement from work fell within the scope of that directive, the necessary provisions have been introduced into British law in the Sex Discrimination Act 1986. EC directive 79/7 deals with equal treatment in social security benefits and has been in force since December 1984. Pension age and survivors' benefits are excluded from the scope of that directive. Equal treatment in occupational social security is required by directive

  Patient Costs
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what information he has on the average cost of(a) an operation, (b) an out-patient attendance and (c) a one-day attendance at all the hospitals in (i) England, (ii) Wales and (iii) Scotland in 1979 and 1986.

  Mrs. Currie
  The nearest available figure for the average cost of an operation is the average cost per inpatient case. These figures, together with those for outpatients and day cases are shown in the table.

  86/378, which is not yet in force and excludes pension age and survivors' benefits until equalisation is required in the state scheme. The steps we have taken to comply with these directives mean that equal treatment between men and women exists in most areas of working and retirement benefits; some further steps will be needed to comply with EC 86/378 and we are considering these. We have no immediate plans to introduce equal treatment in areas excluded from the directives, but changes in pension age in particular have been under consideration for some time.

  Chlamydia
  Sir Dudley Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what diagnostic services are available under the National Health Service for the detection of the disease Chlamydia; and what plans he has to extend these.

  Mrs. Currie
  Facilities to test for the presence of chlamydial infection are readily available at NHS laboratories. Research is proceeding to investigate the prevalance of chlamydial infection in patients attending ante-natal, genito-urinary medicine and family planning clinics, in order to determine at risk groups; and to establish whether there is any justification for screening pregnant women for this infection.

  AIDS
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what information he has on the mode by which two laboratory workers in the United States of America working with the AIDS virus were infected by it; and if he will make a statement regarding the implications for similar United Kingdom technicians.

  Mr. Newton
  The two laboratory workers in the United States of America found to be infected with HIV after working with it had both regularly handled large volumes of highly concentrated virus.
  627
  I am informed that in the first case it has been suggested that spillages of contaminated material not observed and adequately dealt with at the time, may have been a contributory factor. In the second case, in which a laboratory origin of infection has not been confirmed, infection may have been the consequence of accidental injury with a blunt needle.

  Our laboratory safety guidlines for HIV remain entirely appropriate; it is important that they be observed scrupulously. No case of laboratory acquired infection has been reported in this country.

  Supplementary Benefit
  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) if he will supply details of the following on(a) on a national basis, (b) on a regional basis, and (c) for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde: the number of married or cohabitating men in receipt of invalid care allowance who have been successful in claiming the supplementary benefit long-term scale rate since married women were allowed to claim invalid care allowance;

  (2) if he will list (a) on a national basis, (b) on a regional basis, (c) for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde, the number of married women in receipt of invalid care allowance who have been refused the supplementary benefits long-term scale rate because their husband is or has been unemployed and who has been deemed to be an alternative means of care;

  (3) if he will give the criteria whereby someone is categorised by his Department as representing a alternative means of care under regulation 6(b)(ii) of the Supplementary Benefit (Conditions of Entitlement) Regulations 1981;

  (4) if he will list (a) on a national basis, (b) on a regional basis, and (c) for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde, the number of times regulation 6(b)(ii) of Supplementary Benefit (Conditions of Entitlement) Regulations 1981 has been implemented against married or cohabiting men since married or cohabiting men were allowed to claim;

  (5) if he will list (a) on a national basis, (b) on a regional basis, and (c) for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde, the number of married or cohabiting women in receipt of invalid care allowance who have been successful in claiming the supplementary benefit long-term scale rate since that section of the community were allowed to claim invalid care allowance;

  (6) if he will list (a) on a national basis, (b) on a regional basis, and (c) for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde, the number of times regulation 6(b)(ii) of the Supplementary Benefit (Conditions of Entitlement) Regulations 1981 has been implemented against married or cohabiting women since they became eligible to claim;

  (7) if he will list (a) on a national basis, (b) on a regional basis, and (c) for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde, the number of couples, one of whom is in receipt of invalid care allowance, who have been refused the right to transfer the role of claimant due to regulation 6(b)(ii) of the Supplementary Benefit (Conditions of Entitlement) Regulations 1981 because the husband is unemployed and thus deemed by his Department to be an alternative of care.

  Mr. Scott
  It is the independent adjudicating authorities rather than the Department who decide whether a claimant for supplementary benefit should be exempt from 628
  the requirement to be available for work by virtue of regulation 6(b) of the Supplementary Benefits (Conditions of Entitlement) Regulations 1981. The guidance relating to alternative means of caring issued by the Chief Adjudication Officer is that the adjudication officer should:

  (1) have regard to medical opinion, the views of social workers and the wishes of the family;

  (2) consider whether the severity of the disablement of itself means that temporary relief from such as a friend or neighbour is inadequate or inappropriate;

  (3) consider whether there is anyone else in the household who could provide the necessary help or whether the disabled person is able to pay for professional assistance.

  The statistical information requested is not collected and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Invalid Care Allowance
  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) if he will list(a) on a national basis, (b) on a regional basis and (c) for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde constituency, the number of married or cohabiting men in receipt of invalid care allowance in each of the years 1981 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985 and 1986;

  (2) if he will list (a) on a national basis, (b) on a regional basis and (c) for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde constituency, the number of successful claims for invalid care allowance made by married or cohabiting men in each of the years 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985 and 1986.

  Mr. Scott
  I regret that the requested information is not available. The information which is available is set out in the table.

  Invalid care allowance awards

  Men in Great Britain

  (1)

  (2)

  (3)

  (4)

  Year

  Number of awards made

  Awards in (2) where the disabled person was the claimant's spouse

  Number of awards current at 31 December

  1981

  1606

  1333

  3,442

  1982

  1,825

  909

  4,113

  1983

  1,975

  958

  4,776

  1984

  2,272

  1,093

  5,409

  1985

  3,433

  1,089

  5,989

  1986

  3,248

  1,309

  7,135

  1 Commencing 30 April 1981.

  Eli Lilly
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will now take steps to prevent the National Health Service purchasing any of Eli Lilly's drugs except those which are not replaceable.

  Mr. Newton
  As I explained to the right hon. Member when we met earlier this week, I do not think it would be appropriate for the Government to take such action.

  Breast Cancer
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) if he will list the number of women diagnosed as having breast cancer in the Central Nottinghamshire health authority area, together with the percentage of the totals screened for the years 1979–87, inclusive;
  629
  (2) if he will list the numbers of women on whom breast cancer screening was carried out in the Central Nottinghamshire health authority area for the years 1979–87 inclusive;

  (3) if he will list the number of women who sought breast cancer screening in the Central Nottinghamshire health authority area for the years 1979–87 inclusive;

  (4) if he will list the funds made available for breast cancer screening in the Central Nottinghamshire health authority area for the years 1979–1987 inclusive.

  Mrs. Currie
  I regret that the information requested is not centrally available.

  In 1979 the Government funded a seven-year, multi-centre, research trial in the United Kingdom to compare the effectiveness of different methods of early detection of breast cancer. The total financial support provided was £5 million. Nottingham was one of two centres testing the effectiveness of breast self-examination and women there were taught how to perform the examination and encouraged to report any abnormalities found. Diagnostic breast clinics were available for those who found abnormalities. The trial is not yet complete. A first report is expected later this year.

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) if National Health Service breast cancer screening is available on demand to women who reside or work in the Central Nottinghamshire health authority area; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will list the facilities available for breast cancer screening in the Central Nottinghamshire health authority area;

  (3) if he will list the facilities available for breast cancer screening in the Barnet health authority area;

  (4) if he will list the facilities available for breast cancer screening in the Southern Derbyshire health authority area;

  (5) if he will list the facilities available for breast cancer screening in the Leicester health authority area;

  (6) if he will list the facilities available for breast cancer screening in the Croydon health authority area.

  Mrs. Currie
  The programme for the national breast cancer screening service envisages a nationwide network of some 100 centres, each serving a population of about 500,000. All women between 50 and 64 will be invited for screening by mammography every three years, using computerised call and recall system. Older women will be screened on request. The programme will also involve the provision of the necessary back-up facilities for assessment, diagnosis, treatment, counselling and aftercare.

  Each regional health authority in England was allocated about one third of a million pounds in the current financial year to establish at least one centre by the end of March. The Government's cash plans include provision to meet the full, continuing estimated costs of the remaining centres to be set up by spring 1990.

  The first centre to be established in Trent regional health authority is located in Nottingham. It is one of four centres which will provide training for staff for the national programme and has received additional funds for this work. The first centre to be established in North West Thames regional health authority is located in Barnet. The
  630
  population of Southern Derbyshire, Leicestershire and Croydon health authorities will be served by centres to be set up over the next two years.

  More detailed information can be obtained from the Regional Health Authorities concerned.

  Social Security Reform
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether the effect of non-householders deduction for claimants under 26 years receiving income support contained in the housing benefit scheme from April, has been taken into account when estimating the number of losers under income support in the Government's publication "Impact of the Reformed Structure of Income Related Benefits".

  Mr. Scott
  Paragraph 11 of the preface to the "Impact of the Reformed Structure of Income Related Benefits" makes clear that the tables contained in it do not include the effect of changes to the structure of non-dependant deductions.

  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how the numbers of people requiring transitional additions relate to the numbers of losers estimated in the Government's report entitled "Impact of the Reformed Structure of Income Related Benefits".

  Mr. Scott
  Table 1B of the technical annex, "Impact of the Reformed Structure of Income Related Benefits" shows an estimated 1·66 million claimants to have a lower entitlement to income support than to supplementary benefit. This is calculated by comparing the current system, uprated to 1988–89 values, with income support. It is estimated that at the point of change, around 1·4 million claimants will have a lower entitlement to income support than their current entitlement to supplementary benefit and these people will receive transitional protection.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services to what extent his calculations on the effect of the structural reform of social security benefits on sick and disabled people included(a) disabled pensions, (b) unemployed registered disabled people and (c) families with disabled children.

  Mr. Scott
  [holding answer 1 February 1988]: I refer the hon. Member to "Impact of the Reformed Structure of Income Related Benefits" October 1987, a copy of which is in the Library. Within the category "pensioners aged 60–79" are 130,000 income support claimants who will qualify for the higher pensioner premium because they are disabled. Of these, about 100,000 will also be in receipt of housing benefit. The equivalent figure for housing benefit claimants not also in receipt of income support is 150,000. The 10,000 income support families expected to receive the disabled child's premium form part of the categories "Lone parents" and "Couples with children". There is no premium specific to unemployed registered disabled people; unemployed claimants who are blind or who receive mobility allowance or attendance allowance will qualify for the disability premium.

  National Insurance Rates
  Mr. Curry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he has completed his review of national insurance contribution rates for 1988–89.
  631
  Mr. Portillo
  I have reviewed the national insurance contribution rates paid by mariners and registered dockworkers. In the past, these groups paid a reduced rate of contribution to reflect the fact that the standard rate of class 1 contributions paid by other employees included the employment protection allocation paid into the redundancy fund, on which mariners and registered dockworkers could not normally draw. In the light of the decision that no employment protection allocation should be paid from class 1 national insurance contributions into the redundancy fund in 1988–89, which I announced on 3 November 1987 at columns 704–5, the special rates of national insurance contributions paid by some mariners and registered dockworkers, and their employers will be abolished with effect from 6 April 1988.

  The special lower rates of national insurance contributions paid by employers of foreign-going mariners will remain unchanged in 1988–89.

  The special rates of national insurance contributions paid by members of Her Majesty's forces will also be changed following a review by the Government Actuary. The rate of abatement will be reduced by 0·1 per cent. for both employees and employers to 0·8 per cent. and 0·85 per cent. respectively with effect from 6 April 1988.

  The special class 2 contributions paid by sharefishermen, and volunteer development workers, will remain at £6·55 a week during the 1988–89 tax year.

  Aspirin
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services when the conclusions of Dr. Warlow's study on the use of aspirin to prevent stroke and myocardial infarction are expected.

  Mr. Jackson
  I have been asked to reply.

  Numbers of patients awaiting treatment for Opthalmology by District Health Authority and Special Health Authority as at 31 March 1987

  Total cases

  Urgent Cases

  Non-urgent Cases

  All

  On list more than one month

  All

  On list more than one year

  Northern RHA

  Hartlepool

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  North Tees

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  South Tees

  612

  23

  12

  589

  188

  East Cumbria

  58

  0

  0

  58

  0

  South Cumbria

  77

  0

  0

  77

  1

  West Cumbria

  146

  0

  0

  146

  0

  Darlington

  348

  0

  0

  348

  1

  Durham

  90

  0

  0

  90

  0

  North West Durham

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  South West Durham

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Northumberland

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Gateshead

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Newcastle

  1,486

  103

  11

  1,383

  192

  North Tyneside

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  South Tyneside

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Sunderland

  918

  6

  0

  912

  61

  Yorkshire RHA

  Hull

  375

  0

  0

  375

  21

  East Yorkshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Grimsby

  187

  0

  0

  187

  4

  Scunthorpe

  488

  0

  0

  488

  210

  Northallerton

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  York

  531

  4

  0

  527

  61

  Scarborough

  399

  1

  0

  398

  23

  Harrogate

  157

  3

  0

  154

  8

  Bradford

  705

  5

  4

  700

  6

  Airedale

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Calderdale

  96

  2

  0

  94

  0

  632
  I understand from the Medical Research Council that the preliminary results of Professor Warlow's United Kingdom transient ischaemic attack aspirin trial, on the prevention of stroke and myocardial infarction, were published in the British Medical Journal on Friday 29 January 1988.

  NHS (Expenditure)
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what was Government spending on the National Health Service per household as a proportion of the average household income in 1978–79 and 1986–87.

  Mr. Newton
  [holding answer 11 February 1988]: Gross NHS expenditure per household in the United Kingdom represented 6·3 per cent. of average household income in 1978 and 6·7 per cent. in 1986. The figures for total health care expenditure are 6·9 per cent. and 7·5 per cent. respectively.

  Eye Treatment (Waiting Lists)
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list the numbers in each district health authority waiting for eye treatment as(a) in-patients (i) urgent over one month and (ii) non-urgent over one year, and (b) out-patients.

  Mr. Newton
  [holding answer 11 February 1988]: The available information is given in the table.
  633

  Total cases

  Urgent Cases

  Non-urgent Cases

  All

  On list more than one month

  All

  On list more than one year

  Huddersfield

  211

  0

  0

  211

  2

  Dewsbury

  52

  0

  0

  52

  2

  Leeds Western

  446

  12

  8

  434

  55

  Leeds Eastern

  632

  0

  0

  632

  53

  Wakefield

  296

  0

  0

  296

  16

  Pontefract

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Trent RHA1

  North Derbyshire

  112

  0

  0

  0

  44

  Southern Derbyshire

  699

  0

  0

  0

  80

  Leicestershire

  727

  0

  0

  0

  29

  North Lincolnshire

  341

  0

  0

  0

  21

  South Lincolnshire

  176

  0

  0

  0

  14

  Bassetlaw

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Central Nottinghamshire

  71

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Nottingham

  651

  0

  0

  0

  16

  Barnsley

  160

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Doncaster

  65

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Rotherham

  499

  0

  0

  0

  176

  Sheffield

  685

  0

  0

  0

  37

  East Anglian RHA

  Cambridge

  201

  26

  7

  175

  2

  Peterborough

  381

  0

  0

  381

  23

  West Suffolk

  365

  12

  7

  353

  46

  East Suffolk

  498

  0

  0

  498

  42

  Norwich

  281

  0

  0

  281

  0

  Great Yarmouth and Waveney

  170

  0

  0

  170

  7

  West Norfolk and Wisbech

  101

  0

  0

  101

  0

  Huntingdon

  152

  2

  0

  150

  3

  North West Thames RHA

  North Bedfordshire

  144

  0

  0

  144

  27

  South Bedfordshire

  410

  0

  0

  410

  27

  North Hertfordshire

  164

  0

  0

  164

  9

  East Hertfordshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  North West Hertfordshire

  210

  0

  0

  210

  59

  South West Hertfordshire

  170

  4

  4

  166

  36

  Barnet

  123

  0

  0

  123

  0

  Harrow

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Hillingdon

  265

  0

  0

  265

  103

  Hounslow and Spelthorne

  586

  0

  0

  586

  0

  Ealing

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Brent

  476

  17

  15

  459

  138

  Paddington and North Kensington

  414

  0

  0

  414

  0

  Riverside

  719

  61

  48

  658

  78

  North East Thames RHA

  Basildon and Thurrock

  41

  1

  0

  40

  0

  Mid Essex

  326

  1

  1

  325

  41

  North East Essex

  282

  0

  0

  282

  7

  West Essex

  297

  44

  44

  253

  139

  Southend

  56

  39

  21

  17

  4

  Barking, Havering and Brentwood

  356

  6

  3

  350

  10

  Hampstead2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Bloomsbury

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Islington

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  City and Hackney

  53

  33

  15

  20

  5

  Newham

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Tower Hamlets

  11

  3

  3

  8

  6

  Enfield

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Haringey

  278

  1

  0

  277

  50

  Redbridge

  5

  0

  0

  5

  0

  Waltham Forest

  366

  7

  0

  359

  0

  South East Thames RHA

  Brighton

  148

  9

  0

  139

  4

  Eastbourne

  286

  1

  0

  285

  31

  Hastings

  128

  7

  0

  121

  10

  South East Kent

  331

  0

  0

  331

  16

  Canterbury and Thanet

  497

  29

  24

  468

  187

  Dartford and Gravesham

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  634 635

  Total cases

  Urgent Cases

  Non-urgent Cases

  All

  On list more than one month

  All

  On list more than one year

  Maidstone

  441

  0

  0

  441

  22

  Medway

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Tunbridge Wells

  239

  48

  28

  191

  24

  Bexley

  508

  0

  0

  508

  0

  Greenwich

  279

  0

  0

  279

  4

  Bromley

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  West Lambeth

  647

  49

  1

  598

  12

  Camberwell

  166

  6

  4

  160

  1

  Lewisham and North Southwark

  67

  3

  3

  64

  6

  South West Thames RHA

  North West Surrey

  67

  3

  0

  64

  1

  West Surrey and North East Hants

  1,028

  183

  180

  845

  353

  South West Surrey

  234

  0

  0

  234

  30

  Mid Surrey

  754

  13

  4

  741

  411

  East Surrey

  624

  16

  16

  608

  150

  Chichester

  66

  3

  0

  63

  0

  Mid Downs

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Worthing

  555

  44

  34

  511

  84

  Croydon

  200

  1

  1

  199

  0

  Kingston and Esher

  375

  78

  47

  297

  44

  Richmond, Twickenham and Roehampton

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Wandsworth

  238

  0

  0

  238

  4

  Merton and Sutton

  147

  0

  0

  147

  0

  Wessex RHA

  East Dorset

  572

  0

  0

  572

  20

  West Dorset

  257

  4

  0

  253

  0

  Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

  899

  0

  0

  899

  137

  Southampton and South West Hampshire

  560

  0

  0

  560

  0

  Winchester

  357

  7

  3

  350

  63

  Basingstoke and North Hampshire

  184

  4

  1

  180

  48

  Salisbury

  572

  12

  0

  560

  0

  Swindon

  360

  0

  0

  360

  19

  Bath

  555

  16

  8

  539

  99

  Isle of Wight

  64

  0

  0

  64

  0

  Oxford RHA

  East Berkshire

  763

  6

  3

  757

  286

  West Berkshire

  298

  0

  0

  298

  0

  Aylesbury Vale

  358

  0

  0

  358

  19

  Wycombe

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Milton Keynes

  54

  1

  0

  53

  2

  Kettering

  8

  0

  0

  8

  0

  Northampton

  82

  0

  0

  82

  5

  Oxfordshire

  596

  0

  0

  596

  12

  South Western RHA

  Bristol and Weston

  1,240

  8

  2

  1,232

  169

  Frenchay

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Southmead

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  597

  21

  11

  576

  89

  Exeter

  289

  0

  0

  289

  18

  North Devon

  56

  0

  0

  56

  2

  Plymouth

  554

  0

  0

  554

  179

  Torbay

  403

  36

  1

  367

  96

  Cheltenham

  178

  0

  0

  178

  0

  Gloucester

  507

  6

  0

  501

  105

  Somerset

  356

  13

  3

  343

  17

  West Midlands RHA

  Bromsgrove and Redditch

  439

  0

  0

  439

  72

  Herefordshire

  251

  0

  0

  251

  0

  Kidderminster and District

  175

  0

  0

  175

  2

  Worcester and District

  269

  0

  0

  269

  37

  Shropshire

  813

  0

  0

  813

  286

  Mid Staffordshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  North Staffordshire

  642

  5

  2

  637

  168

  South East Staffordshire

  153

  0

  0

  153

  19

  636 637

  Total cases

  Urgent Cases

  Non-urgent Cases

  All

  On list more than one month

  All

  On list more than one year

  Rugby

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  North Warwickshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  South Warwickshire

  233

  0

  0

  233

  75

  Central Birmingham

  203

  39

  33

  164

  64

  East Birmingham

  651

  52

  41

  599

  332

  North Birmingham

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  South Birmingham

  463

  20

  20

  443

  47

  West Birmingham

  973

  62

  40

  911

  307

  Coventry

  1,000

  12

  2

  988

  273

  Dudley

  295

  51

  37

  244

  89

  Sandwell

  331

  0

  0

  331

  115

  Solihull

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Walsall

  6

  0

  0

  6

  0

  Wolverhampton

  582

  139

  128

  443

  228

  Mersey RHA

  Chester

  417

  0

  0

  417

  12

  Crewe

  219

  0

  0

  219

  48

  Halton

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Macclesfield

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Warrington

  185

  0

  0

  185

  18

  Liverpool

  631

  12

  7

  619

  16

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  89

  3

  1

  86

  0

  Southport and Formby

  419

  0

  0

  419

  140

  South Sefton

  26

  0

  0

  26

  4

  Wirral

  371

  0

  0

  371

  39

  North Western RHA

  Lancaster

  177

  0

  0

  177

  34

  Blackpool, Wyre and Fylde

  665

  50

  44

  615

  162

  Preston

  453

  0

  0

  453

  27

  Blackburn, Hyndburn and Ribble Valley

  365

  0

  0

  365

  29

  Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale

  146

  9

  6

  137

  29

  West Lancashire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Chorley and South Ribble

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Bolton

  508

  1

  0

  507

  154

  Bury

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  North Manchester

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Central Manchester

  2,003

  0

  0

  2,003

  246

  South Manchester

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Oldham

  770

  0

  0

  770

  289

  Rochdale

  612

  59

  35

  553

  249

  Salford

  21

  0

  0

  21

  2

  Stockport

  491

  1

  1

  490

  59

  Tameside and Glossop

  19

  0

  0

  19

  2

  Trafford

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Wigan

  928

  5

  0

  923

  426

  All Special health authorities

  The Hospitals for Sick Children

  52

  1

  0

  51

  0

  The National Hospitals for Nervous Diseases

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Moorfields Eye Hospital

  1,387

  0

  0

  1,387

  0

  Bethlem Royal and Maudsley Hospitals

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  The National Heart and Chest Hospitals

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  The Royal Marsden Hospital

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Hammersmith and Queen Charlotte's

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  The Eastman Dental Hospital

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1 Data not available. Imputed figures shown for Non-urgent cases on the waiting list for more than one year.

  2 Figures not available.

  638

  Mental Illness (North-West)
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what have been the levels of spending on the mentally ill in all the health authorities in the north-west region for each year from 1979 to 1987.

  Mrs. Currie
  [holding answer 12 February 1988]: Information on health authority expenditure by type of patient is not collected centrally. Hospital cost returns

  Health district

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  Bolton

  421,463

  435,586

  461,313

  488,433

  597,916

  Central Manchester

  —

  —

  —

  11,420,171

  1,658,503

  Lancaster

  876,038

  884,737

  923,538

  1,254,329

  1,304,985

  Preston

  13,318,178

  13,583,528

  13,439,427

  13,106,404

  13,356,038

  Rochdale

  326,400

  369,529

  410,166

  446,303

  284,626

  Salford

  13,955,531

  14,784,169

  15,343,857

  15,970,384

  17,632,609

  Stockport

  488,102

  512,560

  555,080

  572,547

  587,401

  1 Three units for mentally ill patients opened in 1985–86.

  2 The decrease in expenditure reflects reduced patient activity at Springfield Park Hospital in 1986–87.

  Schizophrenics
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is his current estimate of the total number of people certified as schizophrenics.

  Mrs. Currie
  [holding answer 16 February 1988]: People have not been certified under mental health legislation since 1959. A proportion of the people detained annually under the Mental Health Act 1983 have a diagnosis of schizophrenia, but our statistics at present do not show the number with that diagnosis who are currently detained in hospital. New information systems in the NHS will provide such statistics as from 31 March 1988.

  NHS Medical Laboratory Scientific Officers at 30 September

  Whole-time equivalent1

  Health Authorities

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Northern Region

  Hartlepool

  30

  30

  30

  30

  31

  North Tees

  50

  50

  53

  50

  48

  South Tees

  72

  76

  75

  73

  75

  East Cumbria

  33

  33

  32

  33

  32

  South Cumbria

  29

  30

  31

  29

  29

  West Cumbria

  27

  29

  28

  28

  31

  Darlington

  33

  34

  34

  32

  31

  Durham

  35

  35

  34

  36

  35

  North West Durham

  24

  24

  25

  26

  24

  South West Durham

  21

  23

  22

  24

  25

  Northumberland

  37

  38

  39

  40

  41

  Gateshead

  42

  43

  44

  45

  48

  Newcastle-Upon-Tyne (T)

  268

  277

  282

  279

  273

  North Tyneside

  26

  26

  29

  28

  30

  South Tyneside

  33

  34

  36

  36

  39

  Sunderland

  69

  71

  71

  76

  77

  RHA HA and HQ units

  69

  67

  63

  68

  67

  Regional Totals

  897

  918

  926

  931

  934

  Yorkshire Region

  Hull

  96

  97

  96

  96

  93

  East Yorkshire

  28

  30

  29

  28

  30

  640
  submitted to the Department show expenditure on hospitals of different types and costing returns in respect of community health services show expenditure relating to the areas of activity only.

  Hospital cost returns submitted by district health authorities in the North Western region, since their establishment on 1 April 1982, show total current expenditure on hospitals categorised as mental illness as follows (Districts having no hospitals in this category have been excluded):

  Health Statistics
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list by district health authority(a) the establishment figure of medical laboratory scientific officers for each year since 1979, (b) the number in post for each year since 1979, and (c) the number who have left the National Health Service in the last year.

  Mr. Newton
  [pursuant to his reply, 2 February 1988 c. 591]: Establishment figures (a) and numbers of MLSOs leaving (c) are not available centrally. The table shows the number of medical laboratory scientific officers (including unqualified grades) employed by each district health authority at 30 September for the years 1982–1986. Comparable figures for 1979, 1980 and 1981 are not available.
  641

  Health Authorities

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Grimsby

  47

  50

  52

  55

  52

  Scunthorpe

  32

  34

  36

  39

  41

  Northallerton

  19

  19

  20

  19

  18

  York

  57

  58

  59

  59

  59

  Scarborough

  31

  29

  32

  32

  31

  Harrogate

  32

  32

  31

  32

  32

  Bradford

  93

  88

  92

  93

  89

  Airedale

  39

  38

  38

  41

  39

  Calderdale

  56

  54

  56

  56

  57

  Huddersfield

  58

  56

  56

  56

  57

  Dewsbury

  33

  32

  31

  39

  41

  Leeds Western (T)

  194

  204

  205

  208

  203

  Leeds Eastern (T)

  107

  112

  115

  112

  116

  Wakefield

  44

  45

  45

  44

  44

  Pontefract

  41

  40

  41

  41

  41

  RHA HQ and HQ Units

  44

  45

  44

  50

  49

  Regional Totals

  1,050

  1,061

  1,077

  1,098

  1,091

  Trent Region

  North Derbyshire

  49

  53

  58

  59

  63

  South Derbyshire

  110

  109

  112

  110

  111

  Leicestershire (T)

  161

  183

  196

  198

  208

  North Lincolnshire

  41

  45

  45

  49

  48

  South Lincolnshire

  59

  59

  62

  60

  58

  Bassetlaw

  28

  28

  29

  27

  29

  Central Nottinghamshire

  70

  72

  71

  70

  69

  Nottingham (T)

  212

  210

  205

  211

  205

  Barnsley

  50

  51

  52

  49

  50

  Doncaster

  56

  61

  59

  56

  60

  Rotherham

  55

  54

  55

  54

  56

  Sheffield (T)

  224

  229

  232

  230

  232

  RHA HQ and HQ Units

  71

  70

  72

  72

  72

  Regional Totals

  1,187

  1,222

  1,245

  1,244

  1,261

  East Anglia

  Cambridge (T)

  113

  110

  108

  95

  102

  Peterborough

  58

  57

  57

  58

  57

  West Suffolk

  38

  36

  35

  52

  53

  East Suffolk

  65

  67

  67

  65

  63

  Norwich

  74

  118

  114

  81

  83

  Great Yarmouth and Waveney

  50

  52

  54

  55

  54

  West Norfolk and Wisbech

  50

  50

  45

  46

  47

  Huntingdon

  28

  40

  47

  51

  50

  RHA HQ and 11Q Units

  54

  55

  51

  55

  49

  Regional Totals

  530

  584

  577

  557

  559

  North West Thames

  North Bedfordshire

  44

  44

  43

  44

  53

  South Bedfordshire

  28

  30

  30

  33

  33

  North Hertfordshire

  41

  42

  42

  43

  45

  East Hertfordshire

  36

  37

  35

  38

  36

  North West Hertfordshire

  54

  66

  65

  67

  65

  South West Hertfordshire

  39

  49

  47

  47

  46

  Barnet

  89

  96

  88

  85

  83

  Harrow

  84

  80

  75

  77

  74

  Hillingdon

  91

  88

  89

  89

  91

  Hounslow and Spelthorne

  89

  89

  88

  56

  89

  Ealing

  43

  48

  47

  49

  47

  Brent

  57

  65

  62

  59

  60

  Paddington and North Kensington (T)

  88

  96

  96

  91

  89

  Riverside

  184

  191

  175

  180

  180

  RHA HQ and HQ Units

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Blood Transfusion Centre

  17

  18

  19

  20

  21

  Regional Totals

  993

  1,039

  1,001

  1,008

  1,013

  North East Thames

  Basildon and Thurrock

  88

  87

  82

  85

  82

  Mid Essex

  60

  63

  62

  61

  68

  North East Essex

  73

  71

  72

  75

  69

  642 643

  Health Authorities

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  West Essex

  64

  62

  56

  53

  55

  Southend

  72

  71

  64

  64

  65

  Barking/Havering/Brentwood

  154

  158

  59

  164

  164

  Hampstead (T)

  138

  134

  129

  120

  131

  Bloomsbury (T)

  103

  120

  125

  131

  128

  Islington

  71

  75

  71

  73

  68

  City and Hackney (T)

  196

  205

  192

  184

  190

  Newham

  64

  64

  63

  59

  60

  Tower Hamlets (T)

  131

  129

  127

  118

  123

  Enfield

  52

  51

  52

  53

  54

  Haringey

  96

  91

  87

  74

  76

  Redbridge

  50

  51

  47

  50

  46

  Waltham Forest

  74

  76

  76

  74

  71

  RHA HQ and HQ Units

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Regional Totals

  1,486

  1,507

  1,463

  1,437

  1,451

  South West Thames

  North West Surrey

  49

  47

  48

  48

  47

  West Surrey and North East Hants

  48

  49

  49

  49

  49

  South West Surrey

  49

  52

  51

  52

  53

  Mid-Surrey

  49

  52

  53

  49

  44

  East Surrey

  62

  60

  55

  51

  48

  Chichester

  46

  46

  44

  44

  45

  Mid-Downs

  35

  43

  60

  65

  71

  Worthing

  50

  48

  47

  49

  53

  Croydon

  59

  55

  55

  56

  55

  Kingston and Esher

  60

  54

  51

  52

  50

  Richmond, Twickenham and Roehampton

  39

  46

  45

  45

  50

  Wandsworth (T)

  67

  62

  58

  55

  50

  Merton and Sutton

  120

  116

  115

  118

  110

  RHA HQ and HQ Units

  60

  54

  57

  62

  66

  Regional Totals

  794

  784

  788

  793

  790

  South East Thames

  Brighton

  66

  65

  67

  68

  73

  Eastbourne

  51

  56

  52

  50

  52

  Hastings

  38

  36

  37

  37

  39

  South East Kent

  62

  58

  61

  55

  59

  Canterbury and Thanet

  76

  78

  75

  68

  70

  Dartford and Gravesham

  46

  46

  46

  47

  47

  Maidstone

  30

  32

  38

  39

  42

  Medway

  46

  50

  50

  53

  54

  Tunbridge Wells

  52

  54

  58

  51

  52

  Bexley

  29

  29

  34

  32

  35

  Greenwich

  106

  109

  106

  106

  103

  Bromley

  90

  90

  89

  87

  83

  West Lambeth (T)

  177

  175

  172

  168

  169

  Camberwell (T)

  108

  103

  101

  100

  99

  Lewisham and North Southwark (T)

  198

  201

  197

  183

  171

  RHA HQ and HQ Units

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Regional Totals

  1,174

  1,181

  1,182

  1,144

  1,149

  Wessex

  East Dorset

  104

  110

  105

  103

  106

  West Dorset

  40

  39

  39

  38

  37

  Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

  105

  98

  114

  112

  115

  Southampton and South West Hampshire (T)

  204

  211

  212

  216

  200

  Winchester

  54

  54

  51

  52

  54

  Basingstoke and North Hampshire

  41

  41

  41

  42

  42

  Salisbury

  48

  48

  47

  51

  49

  Swindon

  57

  57

  56

  56

  59

  Bath

  73

  69

  69

  67

  70

  Isle of Wight

  31

  31

  32

  34

  33

  RHA HQ and HQ Units

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Regional Totals

  762

  757

  765

  771

  764

  Oxford

  East Berkshire

  85

  74

  71

  68

  71

  644 645

  Health Authorities

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  West Berkshire

  77

  76

  78

  76

  78

  Aylesbury Vale

  67

  69

  67

  65

  63

  Wycombe

  58

  57

  54

  56

  60

  Milton Keynes

  —

  —

  33

  39

  38

  Kettering

  63

  67

  66

  65

  62

  Northampton

  95

  94

  93

  95

  86

  Oxfordshire

  194

  205

  204

  201

  203

  RHA HQ and HQ Units

  45

  45

  43

  40

  43

  Regional Totals

  684

  686

  709

  706

  704

  South Western

  Bristol and Weston (T)

  122

  113

  110

  110

  114

  Frenchay

  50

  43

  42

  43

  44

  Southmead

  95

  85

  85

  86

  84

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  54

  57

  56

  60

  58

  Exeter

  71

  72

  73

  73

  74

  North Devon

  33

  36

  34

  35

  33

  Plymouth

  73

  73

  76

  79

  79

  Torbay

  54

  61

  62

  63

  66

  Cheltenham

  49

  50

  51

  56

  58

  Gloucester

  66

  58

  58

  59

  60

  Somerset

  66

  62

  62

  62

  62

  RHA HQ and HQ Units

  60

  62

  47

  46

  50

  Regional Totals

  792

  772

  755

  772

  781

  West Midlands

  Bromsgrove and Redditch

  36

  34

  36

  34

  38

  Herefordshire

  33

  35

  36

  34

  31

  Kidderminister and District

  23

  24

  20

  24

  24

  Worcester and District

  54

  54

  55

  59

  61

  Shropshire

  82

  84

  78

  82

  82

  Mid-Staffordshire

  41

  44

  42

  42

  42

  North Staffordshire

  115

  114

  105

  110

  106

  South East Staffordshire

  30

  32

  40

  44

  47

  Rugby

  21

  22

  22

  23

  24

  North Warwickshire

  32

  32

  32

  39

  40

  South Warwickshire

  33

  36

  34

  33

  40

  Central Birmingham (T)

  219

  224

  213

  210

  211

  East Birmingham

  102

  104

  104

  101

  103

  North Birmingham

  60

  59

  61

  65

  62

  South Birmingham

  66

  67

  65

  63

  62

  West Birmingham

  94

  92

  89

  91

  93

  Coventry

  117

  115

  112

  109

  109

  Dudley

  102

  100

  100

  89

  92

  Sandwell

  82

  83

  80

  80

  78

  Solihull

  51

  49

  47

  49

  50

  Walsall

  43

  46

  48

  50

  50

  Wolverhampton

  64

  65

  69

  69

  70

  RHA HQ and HQ Units

  96

  93

  87

  94

  96

  Regional Totals

  1,596

  1,606

  1,573

  1,593

  1,610

  Mersey

  Chester

  42

  44

  42

  43

  38

  Crewe

  48

  45

  49

  47

  48

  Halton

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Macclesfield

  36

  36

  38

  37

  39

  Warrington

  42

  44

  47

  58

  64

  Liverpool (T)

  263

  282

  273

  262

  289

  St. Helens with Knowsley

  65

  61

  63

  61

  61

  Sefton North

  23

  21

  22

  23

  23

  Sefton South

  98

  101

  100

  101

  104

  Wirral

  96

  96

  95

  96

  98

  RHA HQ and HQ Units

  45

  44

  42

  43

  49

  Regional Totals

  756

  773

  772

  771

  811

  North Western

  Lancaster

  38

  38

  41

  39

  41

  Blackpool Wyre and Fylde

  65

  64

  66

  67

  69

  Preston

  74

  74

  77

  76

  83

  646 647

  Health Authorities

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Blackburn, Hyndburn and Ribble Valley

  46

  48

  52

  49

  52

  Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale

  35

  36

  35

  33

  36

  West Lancashire

  31

  31

  29

  29

  30

  Chorley and South Ribble

  3

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Bolton

  61

  59

  64

  63

  63

  Bury

  38

  41

  38

  39

  36

  North Manchester

  116

  113

  116

  117

  112

  Central Manchester (T)

  157

  165

  164

  164

  164

  South Manchester (T)

  296

  302

  213

  205

  200

  Oldham

  58

  59

  59

  65

  65

  Rochdale

  43

  40

  39

  39

  36

  Salford (T)

  116

  123

  123

  115

  114

  Stockport

  56

  56

  57

  57

  57

  Tameside and Glossop

  36

  37

  37

  37

  36

  Trafford

  56

  58

  53

  57

  56

  Wigan

  61

  63

  61

  66

  67

  RHA HQ and HQ Units

  83

  86

  83

  83

  87

  Regional Totals

  1,467

  1,493

  1,407

  1,400

  1,406

  1 All figures are independently rounded to the nearest whole-time equivalent.

  2 —Indicates nil.

  Source: DHSS Annual Census of NHS Non-Medical Manpower.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Stock Market Crash
  Mr. Wells
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the implications for economic stability of the growth in domestic demand since the stock market crash.

  Mr. Lilley
  The United Kingdom economy remains strong despite the stock market fall. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor will be publishing a new forecast at the time of the Budget.

  Accountants
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many accountants who are qualified members of United Kingdom professional bodies were employed within the Civil Service in financial and accounting roles in 1974, 1979 and 1988.

  Mr. Brooke
  At 31 December 1987 there were in the Government accountancy service approximately 740 members of one of the professional bodies forming the Consultative Committee of Accountancy Bodies (CCAB) — that is, the Institutes of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, of Scotland and in Ireland, the Chartered Association of Certified Accountants, the Chartered Institute of Management Accountants and the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy. About 90 per cent. were in financial or accounting roles. At the same time there were another 60 staff who had passed the final examination, but were not yet members and 500 staff studying for the examinations of one of these professional bodies.

  In July 1982, when the Government accountancy service was set up on its present basis, there were on a comparable basis a little over 600 members and 250 trainees. Figures for earlier years are not available on a consistent basis but the indications are of a rise in numbers in the mid to late 1970s.

  The figures exclude qualified accountants in certain departmental grades. There are currently about 80 professional accountants in the Inland Revenue tax inspectorate and the DTI insolvency service. The figures
  648
  also exclude members of accountancy bodies outside the CCAB, or of specialised bodies such as the Institute of Internal Auditors.

  Excise Duty
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received seeking changes in excise duty payable on non-alcoholic beers and lagers and dealcoholised wines.

  Mr. Lilley
  No excise duty is payable on non-alcoholic beers and lagers and dealcoholised wines. No recent representations have been received on this matter.

  EC (Payments)
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will update the information in his reply to the hon. Member for Norfolk North of 22 April 1987,Official Report, columns 577–78, for each year since 1973, concerning (a) the overall payments by the Treasury to the European Economic Community, (b) the total payments and refunds made to the Treasury and (c) the net cost to the Treasury.

  Mr. Brooke
  The additional information required in respect of the United Kingdom's contribution to and receipts from the 1987 Community budget is as follows:

  £ million

  Gross payments

  5,202

  Receipts other than negotiated refunds

  2,336

  Negotiated refunds

  —

  VAT abatements

  1,153

  Net total

  1,713

  The increase in the net total figure compared with the estimate of £1,347 million in the "statement on the 1987 Community budget" (Cm. 194) is mainly accounted for by higher than expected payments of levies and duties, the autumn supplementary budget for 1987 and the August 1987 VAT adjustment.

  £1 Notes
  Sir Geoffrey Finsberg
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many Bank of England £1 notes are still in circulation as at the latest convenient date; and how many were in circulation five years earlier.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 16 February 1988]: On 3 February 1988, some 108 million £1 notes remained in circulation, of which 69·9 million were series D £1 notes (those issued since 1978). There were 641 million £1 notes in circulation at the end of February 1983.

CIVIL SERVICE

  Opposition Whips' Office
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service how many civil servants are employed in the Opposition Whips' Office in the House of Commons; and what are their salaries.

  Mr. Richard Luce
  There are four, one chief clerk superintendent (salary scale £8,469 to £9,841) and three office assistants (salary scale £5,880 to £6,971). In addition, both grades receive inner London weighting (£1,527 per annum) and night duty allowance (£3,803 per annum).

SCOTLAND

  Housing
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give details of new housing developments which have been planned to commence in the current year in Angus.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Angus district council's January 1986 housing plan sets out its general strategy for housing provision in its area. It is, however, for the council to deploy resources available for capital expenditure according to the priorities it determines on a year-to-year basis, and details of council projects programmed are not held centrally.

  The Scottish Special Housing Association has no plans to commence any projects in the current year in Angus. The Housing Corporation in Scotland has implemented one scheme in the district, comprising 10 units, in the current year.

  No detailed information is available centrally on private sector housing developments.

  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give details of new housing developments which have been planned to commence in the current year in Perthshire.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Perth and Kinross district council's October 1986 housing plan sets out its general strategy for housing provision in its area in the current year. It is, however, for the council to deploy resources available for capital expenditure according to the priorities it determines on a year-to-year basis, and details of council projects programmed are not held centrally.

  The Scottish Special Housing Association is currently providing 50 special needs in Perth. The Housing Corporation in Scotland has approved five housing
  650
  association projects in Perthshire, comprising 40 houses, which have started or are expected to start in the current year.

  No detailed information is available centrally on private sector housing developments.

  Criminal Offenders (Tayside)
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether individuals charged with criminal offences by the Tayside police have their names put on public record, open for public inspection.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  No.

  Dunkeld Cathedral
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what provisions are made by him to make bell ringing possible in the part of Dunkeld cathedral which is run and controlled by him.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Arrangements can be made for teams of bell-ringers to ring the bells in the tower of Dunkeld cathedral which is in the care of the Secretary of State. A charge is payable to cover costs.

  Infant Mortality
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the six health authorities in Scotland with the highest percentage of post neonatal deaths, for each year since 1975.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information is as follows:

  Health Board Areas1 with the highest post-neonatal mortality rates,2 Scotland, 1975–86

  Health Board Area

  Rate per 1,000 live births

  1975

  Lanarkshire

  8·1

  Greater Glasgow

  6·8

  Fife

  6·7

  Dumfries and Galloway

  6·3

  Argyll and Clyde

  6·2

  Ayrshire and Arran

  5·8

  1976

  Greater Glasgow

  6·0

  Ayrshire and Arran

  5·5

  Lothian

  5·0

  Dumfries and Galloway

  5·0

  Lanarkshire

  4·5

  Highland

  4·5

  1977

  Fife

  5·9

  Ayrshire and Arran

  5·8

  Greater Glasgow

  5·5

  Highland

  5·4

  Lothian

  5·2

  Grampian

  5·0

  1978

  Western Isles

  7·2

  Highland

  5·8

  Greater Glasgow

  5·7

  Tayside

  4·4

  Lothian

  4·0

  Orkney

  3·9

  651

  Health Board Area

  Rate per 1,000 live births

  1979

  Borders

  7·9

  Fife

  6·0

  Highland

  5·7

  Dumfries and Galloway

  5·6

  Shetland

  5·5

  Forth Valley

  5·1

  1980

  Dumfries and Galloway

  6·7

  Highland

  6·2

  Ayrshire and Arran

  6·1

  Lothian

  4·6

  Greater Glasgow

  4·6

  Grampian

  4·5

  1981

  Orkney

  7·9

  Borders

  6·0

  Forth Valley

  5·4

  Lanarkshire

  5·0

  Grampian

  5·0

  Greater Glasgow

  4·9

  1982

  Orkney

  8·5

  Dumfries and Galloway

  8·2

  Shetland

  5·8

  Greater Glasgow

  5·0

  Lothian

  4·5

  Lanarkshire

  4·5

  1983

  Shetland

  12·7

  Borders

  7·2

  Dumfries and Galloway

  6·0

  Argyll and Clyde

  5·6

  Highland

  4·6

  Lothian

  4·6

  1984

  Grampian

  5·7

  Forth Valley

  5·5

  Dumfries and Galloway

  5·1

  Lanarkshire

  4·6

  Fife

  4·3

  Orkney

  4·2

  1985

  Orkney

  8·6

  Shetland

  6·5

  Highland

  6·1

  Dumfries and Galloway

  5·1

  Greater Glasgow

  4·6

  Borders

  4·3

  1986

  Orkney

  9·0

  Borders

  5·6

  Grampian

  4·6

  Dumfries and Galloway

  4·2

  Greater Glasgow

  4·2

  Lothian

  4·0

  Notes:

  1 Figures for the smaller health board areas, in particular Orkney, Shetland and Western Isles, are based on small numbers of live births and therefore rates vary considerably with small changes in the number of deaths.

  2 Deaths four weeks and over but under one year per 1,000 live births.

  Fire Service Training School
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland to what extent the recommendations made by his Department's inspector for changes in procedures at the Scottish fire service training school at Gullane were based on the evidence received during his Department's inquiry into allegations about conduct at the school; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The recommendations made by Her Majesty's Inspector of Fire Services were based on views formed by the inspector during his inquiry taking into account the evidence given to him by recruits and instructors and the surrounding circumstances.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what evidence he has as to the veracity of complaints made by fire service recruits about practices at the Scottish fire service training school at Gullane; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Complaints were received from one brigade only; I am satisfied that these have been properly investigated and that the conclusions reached by the independent inspector were reasonable.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when his Department published the report of the inquiry into allegations of malpractices at the Scottish fire service training school at Gullane; and when the report was made available to the Lothian and Borders fire brigade.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The report of the inquiry was not published nor was it made available to Lothian and Borders fire brigade, but a very full news release was issued on 16 September 1987, copies of which have been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if a Fire Brigades Union representative was present at all interviews with recruits and other staff in connection with his Department's inquiry into complaints about the Scottish fire service training school at Gullane; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Fire Brigades Union was invited to be represented at all the 24 interviews. I understand that a local office bearer was present at 20 of these but elected not to attend the other four and further that he expressed himself satisfied with the way in which the interviews were conducted.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will explain the reason for changes in procedures at the Scottish fire service training school at Gullane which have been introduced following the recent inquiry into complaints about that establishment.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The changes in procedures were introduced following recommendations made by the inspector in his report.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the procedure used by a senior officer of the Strathclyde fire brigade to interview 12 recruits about allegations of humiliating and degrading treatment at the Scottish fire service training school at Gullane.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  No special procedures were used. The senior officer of Strathclyde fire brigade
  653
  interviewed 13 recruits from his brigade, including one who has now left the service at Strathclyde's training establishment. None had any complaint to make nor had they seen anyone abused.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if any senior officers of the Lothian and Borders fire brigade were formally interviewed in connection with his Department's inquiry into complaints about the Scottish fire service training school at Gullane; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The inspector interviewed the third officer of the brigade on 17 June 1987.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (I) if he is satisfied with the way in which the firemaster and staff of the Lothian and Borders fire brigade dealt with complaints about the Scottish fire service training school at Gullane; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will make a statement on the investigation carried out by the Lothian and Borders fire brigade into allegations of humiliating and degrading treatment of recruits at the Scottish fire service training school at Gullane; and if he is satisfied with the conduct of the brigade in relation to these complaints and the subsequent inquiries.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The inspector in his report commented on the handling of the matter, and these comments have been passed to the firemaster.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will provide the firemaster of the Lothian and Borders fire brigade with a copy of the report and associated evidence of his Department's inquiry into complaints about the Scottish fire service training school at Gullane; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  No. The report was private and contained information which was given to Her Majesty's Inspector of Fire Services on the understanding that confidentiality would be observed. However, the findings and recommendations of the report were contained in a very detailed Scottish Office news release published on 16 September 1987, copies of which have been placed in the Library. Subsequently, Lothian and Borders fire board was given a detailed resume of the inquiry and I met representatives of the board on 29 January 1988 to discuss the matter further.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consideration was given to allegations about dangerous practices in his Department's recent investigation concerning the Scottish fire service training school at Gullane.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I am unaware of any allegations of dangerous practices.

  'Excess' winter mortality Scotland, 1958–87

  Year

  Winter Deaths

  Summer Deaths

  Differences

  Percentage Excess

  A

  B

  A-B

  (A-B) × 100/B

  1958

  18,622

  12,667

  5,955

  47·0

  1959

  21,048

  12,900

  8,148

  63·2

  1960

  17,194

  13,705

  3,489

  25·5

  1961

  18,752

  13,514

  5,238

  38·8

  Parkhead Stadium
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last made an official visit to a football match at Parkhead stadium; whether he has received any report from the Strathclyde police concerning crowd control arrangements at Parkhead; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My right hon. and learned Friend has not been invited to the stadium. He has not received a report from Strathclyde police on crowd control arrangements there, nor does he see a need to ask for one.

  Modern Languages
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what plans he has to implement the recommendations of European Community document 7706/84 on the teaching of modern languages in Scottish schools;

  (2) if he has any plans to include the teaching of a foreign language in the core curriculum for S3 and S4;

  (3) what future role he plans for the teaching of modern languages in Scottish secondary schools; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) on 12 February at columns 369–70.

  In Vitro Fertilisation
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list in the Official Report those hospitals which are equipped to offer in vitro fertilisation services.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  In vitro fertilisation (IVF) services are provided at centres approved by the Voluntary Licensing Authority. There are four such centres in Scotland. Clinical IVF services are provided at Ninewells hospital, Dundee, and at the Royal infirmary, Glasgow, and clinical IVF services in association with research work are provided at the Royal infirmary, Aberdeen, and the Simpson memorial maternity pavilion, Edinburgh.

  Winter Mortality
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish tables in the manner of those in the answer to the hon. Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley) of 9 February,Official Report, column 170, relating to excess winter mortality in Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information is as follows:
  655

  Year

  Winter Deaths

  Summer Deaths

  Differences

  Percentage Excess

  A

  B

  A-B

  (A-B) × 100/B

  1962

  18,516

  13,460

  5,056

  37·6

  1963

  20,711

  13,775

  6,936

  50·4

  1964

  16,510

  13,644

  2,866

  21·0

  1965

  17,806

  13,860

  3,946

  28·5

  1966

  19,471

  13,655

  5,816

  42·6

  1967

  15,834

  13,365

  2,469

  18·5

  1968

  19,264

  13,482

  5,782

  42·9

  1969

  18,148

  13,970

  4,178

  29·9

  1970

  19,271

  14,157

  5,114

  36·1

  1971

  16,712

  14,145

  2,567

  18·1

  1972

  19,108

  14,349

  4,759

  33·2

  1973

  18,171

  14,303

  3,868

  27·0

  1974

  17,093

  14,490

  2,603

  18·0

  1975

  17,338

  14,114

  3,224

  22·8

  1976

  19,780

  14,071

  5,709

  40·6

  1977

  17,049

  13,859

  3,190

  23·0

  1978

  19,112

  14,433

  4,679

  32·4

  1979

  18,810

  14,580

  4,230

  29·0

  1980

  17,304

  14,246

  3,058

  21·5

  1981

  17,293

  14,269

  3,024

  21·2

  1982

  19,364

  14,165

  5,199

  36·7

  1983

  18,108

  14,245

  3,863

  27·1

  1984

  17,225

  13,831

  3,394

  24 5

  1985

  17,466

  14,354

  3,112

  21·7

  1986

  18,456

  14,273

  4,183

  29·3

  19871

  16,878

  14,088

  2,790

  19·8

  1 Provisional

  Five Year Period

  Percentage Excess Winter Mortality

  1958–1962

  42·1

  1963–1967

  32·3

  1968–1972

  32·0

  1973–1977

  26·2

  1978–1982

  28·2

  1983–1987

  24·5

  Notes:

  Winter: deaths registered in months January to March inclusive.

  Summer: deaths registered in months July to September inclusive.

  Catering and Domestic Services
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will place in the Library an account of the discussions of the seminar on 2 October 1987 addressed by representatives of the trade associations for catering and domestic services contractors, referred to in his letter from general managers of Scottish health boards in December 1987;

  (2) if he will list the names and companies of participants in the seminar on 2 October 1987 addressed by representatives of the trade associations for catering and domestic services contractors, referred to in his letter dated December 1987 sent to general managers of Scottish health boards.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I refer the hon. Member to my replies of 19 January at columns 664–65, to the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith).

  Clydesdale (Population)
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the population of each town and village in the Clydesdale constituency since the 1983 boundary change.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 10 February 1988 at column 142.

  The term "Clydesdale constituency" was taken to mean the constituency following the 1983 boundary reorganisation, since there was no constituency of that name before then.

  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the population of each of the villages in the Clydesdale constituency with fewer than 500 people.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  1981 census population figures are available for various predefined areas and for user-specified aggregations of postcode unit areas. Villages were not included in the former category because they did not have easily-defined boundaries.

  D and C Operations
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has concerning the total number of D and C operations performed in Scotland in each of the last 25 years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [pursuant to his reply, 2 February 1988, c. 575]: The number of D and C operations performed in NHS hospitals in Scotland from 1961 to 1985 (the latest year for which information is held centrally) is given in the following table:
  657

  Year

  Number of operations

  1961

  18,167

  1962

  19,218

  1963

  18,524

  1964

  19,464

  1965

  18,918

  1966

  20,271

  1967

  20,255

  1968

  20,210

  11969

  19,000

  11970

  19,300

  1971

  19,538

  1972

  15,380

  1973

  13,824

  1974

  13,836

  1975

  13,016

  1976

  13,540

  1977

  11,916

  1978

  11,757

  1979

  10,889

  1980

  15,281

  1981

  12,931

  1982

  10,841

  1983

  13,031

  1984

  12,828

  1985

  13,210

  1 Estimated figures.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Official Opposition
  Mr. James Wallace
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will set out(a) the number of employees, (b) the machinery and equipment and (c) other benefits in kind which are provided to the official Opposition from public funds in addition to the assistance to Opposition parties, indicating the estimated annual value in each case.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The current annual cost to public funds of staff and benefits in kind provided to the official Opposition in addition to the moneys provided under the scheme for financial assistance to Opposition parties (`Short money') is estimated to be as follows:

  Estimated cost £

  (i) Opposition Whips Office (House of Commons)

  4 staff

  155,000

  Office equipment (photocopier)

  1,500

  Postal services

  15,000

  (ii) Opposition Whips Office (House of Lords)

  Postal services

  12,000

  HMSO supplies

  1,500

  1 Pay and Earnings Related National Insurance Contributions.

  In addition, a car is available to the Leader of the Opposition from the Government car service. The cost of this in the current financial year is estimated to be about £36,000.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will list(a) the salary of the Leader of the Opposition, (b) the salaries of any Opposition Whips who receive a salary in excess of the salary of an ordinary hon. Member and (c) the annual cost to public funds of the use of the Government car service by the Leader of the Opposition.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The information is as follows:
  658

  Salary at 1.1.1988 £ per annum

  (a) (i) Leader of the Opposition (Commons)

  148,148

  (ii) Leader of the Opposition (Lords)

  28,688

  (b)(i) Chief Opposition Whip (Commons)

  140,798

  Assistant Opposition Whips (Commons)

  131,738

  (ii) Chief Opposition Whip (Lords)

  25,618

  (c) The annual cost to public funds of the use of the Government car service by the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Commons is included in Class XX, Vote 1 and is estimated to be about £36,000 in the current financial year. The Leader of the Opposition in the House of Lords is not provided with the use of the Government car service.

  1 The salaries quoted for office holders in the House of Commons include a reduced parliamentary salary of £16,911 per annum.

  Members' Pensions
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what Exchequer contribution will be payable to a personal pension scheme in respect of a right hon. or hon. Member who elects to withdraw from the parliamentary contributory pension fund; and what is the current Exchequer contribution to the parliamentary contributory pension fund.

  Mr. Wakeham
  In a written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Page) on 4 December 1987, column 731, my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General explained that from July 1988 the Social Security Act 1986 will require employers to make a contribution for personal pension optants, as part of their national insurance contributions, at a rate no less than the contracted-out rebate (which currently stands at about 4 per cent. of the individual's salary). The Government consider that an employer's contribution at that level would be appropriate for public service employees opting for personal pensions, and that the same approach should be followed with the parliamentary pension scheme. The Exchequer currently makes a contribution of 13 per cent. of salary to the parliamentary contributory pension fund.

ENVIRONMENT

  Residuary Bodies
  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he plans to take any action, in the light of the latest annual reports of the seven residuary bodies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  The 1986–87 annual reports show that all seven residuary bodies are making good progress in discharging the functions they inherited from the former metropolitan county councils and the Greater London council. I congratulate all seven on their work.

  Young People (Homelessness and Crime)
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether his Department will conduct a study on the alleged link between homeless young people and crime, drug abuse and alcohol abuse.
  659
  Mr. Waldegrave
  We published research in 1981 which suggested that only a very small percentage of young homeless people suffer from alcoholism and drug addiction.

  Land Disposal
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the performance of local authorities in disposing of unused and underused land.

  Mr. Trippier
  By the end of 1987 local authorities had disposed of over 16,000 acres of the unused and underused land entered on the registers of such land which the Department maintains.

  In its recent report on local authority property management the Audit Commission has drawn attention to the ways in which the management practices of local authorities can be improved, which I am now considering.

  Rate Capping
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received regarding the effectiveness of the rate capping of precepting authorities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  The Department has received numerous representations about rate and precept limitation, including a recent letter from the leader of the metropolitan borough of Solihull about the effectiveness of precept control in the west midlands next year to which we will be replying shortly.

  Mr. Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to be in a position to announce his final decisions on rate limits for authorities selected for rate limitation for 1988–89.

  Mr. Chope
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) on 12 February, at column 384.

  Fulmer (Sewerage)
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he next expects to meet the chairman of the Thames water authority to discuss mains sewerage in Fulmer.

  Mr. Ridley
  The provisions of mains sewerage in Fulmer is a matter for the Thames water authority and South Buckinghamshire district council.

  Planning Policy
  Mr. Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any proposals to increase the effectiveness of town and country planning laws relating to development commencing without the granting of permission, or in breach of conditions attached to permissions.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Effective enforcement of planning control depends on the local planning authority's vigilance and resolution in using its statutory powers in the Town and Country Planning Act 1971. So far as enforcement appeals are concerned, we have recently completed an efficiency scrutiny, and an action plan, to achieve all-round improvements, will be published shortly.
  660
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will investigate the practice in the outer London boroughs whereby estate developers demolish residential buildings to create large-scale development sites; and whether he will consider proposing changes in the planning laws in the light of this practice.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  No. My right hon. Friend is satisfied that no extension of control for this purpose is necessary. It is already necessary to obtain permission to demolish listed buildings of architectural or historic interest, and unlisted buildings in conservation areas; and redevelopment requires planning permission in the usual way.

  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has received about improving planning procedures.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Hon. Members and others are rightly concerned about delays in reaching decisions on planning applications and appeals. We have recently urged local authorities to ensure that their procedures for dealing with planning applications operate efficiently and do not impose unwarranted delays. A substantial programme of measures is in hand to improve appeals procedures and to speed decision times.

  Mr. Heddle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to ensure that local planning authorities comply with the advice within circular 13/87 in general and paragraphs 11 and 12 in particular.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The advice in my Department's circulars about town and country planning is not mandatory, but it is a material consideration in decisions about development proposals. An applicant may appeal from a local planning authority's decision and an authority which has acted unreasonably on a case which goes to appeal by inquiry may face an award of costs. We are monitoring the extent to which local authorities impose conditions on planning permissions so as to restrict the freedoms in the general development order and the use classes order.

  Mr. Heddle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he and his inspectors will award costs against local authorities on appeal when evidence is laid before him that local planning authorities frustrate the spirit of circular 13/87.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The power, in section 250(5) of the Local Government Act 1972, for my right hon. Friend or a planning inspector to award a party's costs in appeal proceedings is discretionary in relation to the particular facts of any appeal and the parties' behaviour during the appeal proceedings. Paragraphs 7 and 13 of circular 2/87 make it clear, respectively, that if, without reasonable planning grounds, planning authorities fail to follow relevant advice given in departmental circulars, or they impose conditions which are unnecessary and unreasonable, an award of costs may be made against the planning authority when it is justified in the circumstances.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the Government's latest estimate of the number of people who are homeless as a result of mortgage defaults.
  661
  Mr. Waldegrave
  In the year to September 1987 English local authorities accepted an estimated 10,300 households as homeless because of mortgage arrears.

  Mr. Ashdown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give the total cost at 1986–87 prices to local authorities of housing homeless families in emergency accommodation(a) in 1986–87 and (b) in 1979–80.

  Mr. Ridley
  From information supplied by authorities in England and Wales and calculations made by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, net expenditure on hostels and bed and breakfast, when expressed at 1986–87 prices, amounted to £1,697 and £472 per 1,000 population in 1986–87 and 1979–80 respectively.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to seek to amend the homeless persons legislation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Roe
  No.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what further steps he proposes to reduce levels of homelessness.

  Mrs. Roe
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning gave to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) on 2 December 1987, at column 927.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he plans to publish and distribute the leaflet giving guidance on homelessness which was circulated for consultation purposes on 8 April 1987.

  Mrs. Roe
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) on 8 February, at column 22.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give figures for the number of households accepted as homeless in England(a) in 1980 and (b) in 1987 or the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mrs. Roe
  English local authorities are estimated to have accepted responsibility under the homelessness provisions of the Housing Acts for finding accommodation for 62,900 households in 1980 and for 108,100 in the 12 months to September 1987. The estimate for 1980 is not strictly comparable with more recent figures, because of a change in the method of reporting.

  Environmental Protection
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any proposals to issue a revised planning circular to provide clearer protection of the environment of the communities affected by opencast mining and similar activities; and what further consideration has been given to this subject since the Government's response to the recommendations of the Energy Committee's report on the coal industry.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Department issued revised draft planning guidelines for opencast coal mining for consultation in April last year. We are currently considering all the representations received and propose to publish revised guidelines in the near future.

  Farm Buildings
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take further steps to ensure that planning authorities respond positively and quickly to applications for the alternative use of redundant farm buildings.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Our planning policy since 1980 has been that permission should be granted for the conversion of redundant farm buildings to alternative uses unless there are specific and convincing planning objections. We re-emphasised this most recently in two planning policy guidance notes entitled "Green Belts" and "Rural Enterprise and Development", issued on 20 January. We continue to urge planning authorities to process all planning applications as quickly as possible.

  Peak Park Planning Board
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to review the way in which members are appointed to the Peak Park planning board; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  My right hon. Friend has no plans for such a review.

  Planning Appeals
  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many planning appeals have been decided by himself since 1986; and how many have been determined on his behalf by inspectors.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  In 1987, 655 planning appeals were decided by the Secretary of State and 16,458 by inspectors acting on his behalf.

  Housing Improvement Schemes
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many housing improvement schemes involving Estate Action have been approved so far in the present financial year.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  With the schemes I have announced today, 112 new Estate Action schemes will have been approved in the current financial year. Substantial financial support has also been given to some 70 schemes which were started last year.

  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the potential for using Housing Corporation funds to support developments complementary to Estate Action programmes.

  Mrs. Roe
  There is considerable potential for housing associations to contribute to Estate Action programmes and this will be expanded by the provisions in the Housing Bill extending the power of registered associations to help with the regeneration of rundown areas and in providing services to other bodies such as tenants' groups. Decisions on whether to fund any particular association or project remain of course a matter for the Housing Corporation, but I am confident that its consultations with local authorities and associations will have alerted it to opportunities for funding association developments which will complement Estate Action programmes.

  Rates Collection
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to meet the leader of the London Boroughs Association to discuss rates collection; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  My right hon. Friend has not received any request from the leader of the London Boroughs Association for such a meeting.

  Football (Membership Schemes)
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will reconsider his policy on membership schemes for football clubs, in the light of representations made by senior officers of the Metropolitan police.

  Mr. Ridley
  I want to see football clubs make further progress on membership schemes, including where necessary by making appropriate structural alterations to their grounds. Representations from the Metropolitan police have largely been in respect of constraints imposed on membership schemes at individual clubs by the present configuration of their grounds.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his latest estimate of the proportion of the adult population liable to pay the community charge who will pay the charge within due time.

  Mr. Howard
  All adults liable to the community charge will be invited to pay by 10 equal instalments each year, though collecting authorities will have discretion to agree other arrangements with chargepayers who prefer a different frequency.

  I have every confidence that local authorities will collect the community charge from those liable as efficiently as they now collect domestic rates.

  Bed-and-breakfast Accommodation
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give the latest available figure of people in bed-and-breakfast accommodation in urban areas.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his latest estimate of the number of families in bed-and-breakfast accommodation in rural areas.

  Mr. John Garrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give the latest available figure of people in bed-and-breakfast accommodation in non-urban areas and the figure for the previous year.

  Mrs. Roe
  The quarterly publication "Local Authorities' action under the homelessness provisions of the 1985 Housing Act: England, Supplementary tables" includes the numbers of households temporarily placed by authorities in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. The latest issue, with the results of the third quarter 1987, gives in table 4(a) estimates of the numbers being accommodated at the end of September 1987 and a year before, by London boroughs, by metropolitan district councils and by other councils.
  664
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he plans to meet representatives of Britain's local authorities to discuss the proposed community charge.

  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last met the local authority associations to discuss the proposals in the Local Government Finance Bill.

  Dr. Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he plans to meet representatives of Britain's local authorities to discuss the proposed community charge.

  Mr. Howard
  I refer to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State and Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Chope) to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Dunnachie) on 4 November 1987, at column 737.

  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will provide an up-to-date list of all those organisations supporting the community charge and uniform business rate proposals in the Local Government Finance Bill.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many local authorities have made submissions to him in support of the Local Government Finance Bill.

  Mr. Howard
  A summary of 1,271 responses, received by my Department before 31 October 1986, when the consultation period on the Green Paper ended, was placed in the Library on 15 December 1986. Since June 1987 my Department has received some 3,800 letters, including about 200 from local authorities and local authority associations. The letters contain a variety of comments on specific aspects of our proposals or requests for further information, and for this reason do not readily lend themselves to an analysis of correspondents' views.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about the position of parish and town councils under the community charge proposals, in the light of their prospective loss of the proceeds of rates from commercial premises.

  Mr. Howard
  I received a large number of representations from parish and town councils to the effect that the proposals in the Green Paper "Paying for Local Government" would have deprived them of any benefit from business rate income. The introduction of the collection fund, whereby grant and redistributed non-domestic rates will be applied in support of the expenditure of all tiers of authority, should meet their concern.

  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has received on the uniform business rate from the Confederation of British Industry and the National Association of Chambers of Commerce.

  Mr. Howard
  The CBI has made representations about some aspects of the uniform business rate and has asked for a £1·8 billion reduction in the total burden of rates on businesses, but has stressed that it considers the Government's proposals a substantial improvement on the status quo. The Association of British Chambers of
  665
  Commerce has expressed support for the uniform business rate, but has made representations seeking improved transitional arrangements and enhanced consultation arrangements between local authorities and business, which we are considering.

  Basildon District Council
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has yet received any request from Basildon district council for redetermination of his decision to rate cap the council; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  My right hon. Friend has received no request from Basildon district council for redetermination of his decision to rate-cap the council. He has, however, received representations from the council asking him to consider raising the rate limit proposed by him for 1988–89 and I met members and officials from the council on 27 January 1988 to consider the council's arguments for a higher rate limit in 1988–89.

  The Secretary of State has considered all the information available to him and in an order laid before the House of Commons on 12 February he specified for Basildon district council a maximum rate of 49·68p confirming his original proposal made on 9 December.

  Houses (Multiple Occupation)
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about the Government's policy towards houses in multiple occupation.

  Mrs. Roe
  My hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning met a delegation from the Campaign for Bedsit Rights last December. Some representations have also been made to the Department, and to our environmental health adviser in the course of his visits to local authorities.

  Nature Conservancy Council
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last met members of the Nature Conservancy Council; and what matters were discussed.

  Mrs. Roe
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan) to the hon. Member for Meironnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas) on Tuesday 9 February, at columns 128–29.

  Development Corporations
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the impact of the English urban development corporations since they were set up.

  Mr. Trippier
  London Docklands DC and Merseyside DC, which were both set up in 1981, have had a major impact on their areas. Information is contained in their annual reports, copies of which are laid before the House. The four English urban development corporations set up in 1987 have embarked on initial projects and have generated considerable interest in their areas.
  666
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much money he has awarded to each of the urban development corporations he set up on 7 December 1987; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  My right hon. Friend announced on 7 December his intention to set up further urban development corporations. No decisions have been taken on financial allocations.

  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any plans to meet the chairman of Telford development corporation to discuss the future of the corporation's assets.

  Mrs. Roe
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to do so at present.

  Mr. Kirkhope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will visit Leeds to discuss his proposals for a mini urban development corporation there.

  Mr. Trippier
  My right hon. Friend has no present plans to visit Leeds, but I visited the city on 18 January and discussed the UDC proposal with leading local figures.

  Mr. Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to be in a position to establish a new mini urban development corporation for central Manchester.

  Mr. Trippier
  The order establishing the UDC will be made after my right hon. Friend has received the consultants' advice on the boundary in March and the views of local interests on the proposed boundary.

  Mr. Hayward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what response there has been to his recent announcement of a proposed mini urban development corporation in Bristol.

  Mr. Trippier
  Generally welcoming.

  Nuclear Waste
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has yet been informed by Nirex as to when he can expect a copy of its proposals for the disposal of intermediate nuclear waste; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Roe
  My right hon. Friend expects UK Nirex Ltd. to submit its proposals for a deep dual-purpose disposal facility for low-level and intermediate-level radioactive waste within a year, after careful consideration has been given to the response to the discussion document "The Way Forward" and to other technical factors.

  Anti-litter Strategy
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a further statement on plans to tidy up Britain.

  Mrs. Roe
  The Tidy Britain Group has prepared proposals for a fresh anti-litter strategy, which we are currently considering.

  Sulphur Dioxide Emissions
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, in the light of the evidence contained in the report of the United Nations Economic Commission for
  667
  Europe about the increased emissions by Britain of sulphur dioxide compared with the year before, he will make a statement on what the Government is to do effectively to reduce such emissions.

  Mrs. Roe
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply give by my the Under-Secretary of State my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan) to my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) on 12 November 1987, at column 185.

  Rent Arrears
  Mr. Heddle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the current cumulative amount owed in rent arrears to all local authorities in England; and what further steps he is taking to reduce this amount.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answers I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope) on 20 January, at columns 756–57, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) today.

  Housing Defects
  Sir John Biggs-Davison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will introduce legislation so as to amend the Housing Defects Act to attach grants for repairs to the property and not to its owner.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We have no plans to do so. I am writing to my hon. Friend, setting out our reasons for this.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress he has made in reviewing the national grant eligible expenditure limits under the housing defects legislation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I have decided that the national limits set in 1986 need revision, given that a year and a half has passed since they came into force and that we now have much more experience of actual repair costs. In the light of all the information available, we are proposing the following new limits:

  House type

  Proposed limit

  Present limit

  £

  £

  Local designations and any new designations

  14,000

  14,000

  Cornish unit: 1 storey PRC

  17,000

  14,000

  Dorran: 1 storey PRC

  17,000

  16,000

  Gregory

  17,000

  14,000

  Myton: 1 storey PRC

  17,000

  16,000

  Newland: 1 storey PRC

  17,000

  16,000

  Tarran: 1 storey PRC

  17,000

  14,000

  Unity and Butterly: 1 storey PRC

  17,000

  20,000

  Wessex: 1 storey PRC

  17,000

  24,000

  Cornish unit: 2 storey PRC

  23,000

  16,000

  Stent

  23,000

  20,000

  Unity and Butterly: 2 storey PRC

  23,000

  20,000

  Airey

  27,000

  16,000

  Boswell

  27,000

  14,000

  Dorran: 2 storey PRC

  27,000

  16,000

  Dyke

  27,000

  24,000

  Myton: 2 storey PRC

  27,000

  16,000

  Newland: 2 storey PRC

  27,000

  16,000

  Reema Hollow Panel

  27,000

  20,000

  Schindler and Hawksley SGS

  27,000

  24,000

  Smith

  27,000

  20,000

  Stonecrete

  27,000

  16,000

  Tarran: 2 storey PRC

  27,000

  14,000

  668

  House type

  Proposed limit

  Present limit

  £

  £

  Underdown

  27,000

  20,000

  Waller

  27,000

  24,000

  Wates

  27,000

  20,000

  Winget

  27,000

  20,000

  Boot

  31,000

  20,000

  Orlit

  31,000

  24,000

  Parkinson

  31,000

  20,000

  Wessex: 2 storey PRC

  31,000

  24,000

  Woolaway

  31,000

  20,000

  These changes should help speed up the administration of the scheme. At present, local authorities often have to apply for individual higher eligible expenditure limits for particular properties: the new limits should reduce considerably the need for that. My officials will now be consulting the local authority associations, home owners groups, approved repairers and other interested bodies on these proposals. We hope to have all responses by early April and to reach a final decision soon after that. Bringing the new limits into force requires a negative resolution of the House of Commons. We hope to make such an order by May, so that new limits can be in operation by June.

  Structure Plan (Berkshire)
  Mr. Andrew MacKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received on his proposed modifications to the management structure plan for central Berkshire.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  To date my right hon. Friend has received 10 representations to his proposed modifications to the replacement structure plan for Berkshire.

  Berkshire county council is advertising the proposed modifications this week, specifying a six-week period, ending on 31 March, in which representations on the proposed modifications may be made to my right hon. Friend. All representations will be carefully considered.

  HOTCHA Scheme
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the operation of the HOTCHA scheme, which provides opportunities for house purchase for tenants of housing association properties.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The home ownership scheme for tenants of charitable housing associations was introduced in September 1984 to help tenants who would have had the right to buy but for the charitable status of their landlords. Tenants assisted under the scheme receive discounts, funded by housing association grant, on the purchase of homes on the open market. Over 5,000 properties have been purchased at discounts totalling some £80 million. Because demand outstrips the resources available a waiting list has been in force since 1 October 1986. At the end of December 1987 2,645 applications were being held. A further £19 million has been allocated for the scheme for 1988–89 to cover outstanding purchases set in hand before 1 October 1986 and a proportion of the applications received since that date. Applications received up to 31 May 1987 will now be allowed to proceed.

  Water Authorities
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last met the chairmen of the water authorities of England and Wales; and what subjects were discussed.

  Mr. Ridley
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on Thursday 11 February, at column 298, to the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley).

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to meet the chairmen of the water authorities in England and Wales to discuss compliance with the relevant EEC directives.

  Mr. Ridley
  I meet the chairmen of water authorities regularly to discuss matters of current interest, including compliance with EC directives.

  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was discussed at his meeting with the water authority chairmen on 19 January.

  Mrs. Roe
  I refer the hon. Member for the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) on 11 February, at column 298.

  Planning Applications
  Mr. Simon Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied with the performance of local authorities in dealing with planning applications.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  No. I believe that local authorities should be able to deal with at least 80 per cent. of planning applications within eight weeks of receiving them. On 1 February we published figures which showed that in the three months January-March 1987 41 authorities achieved that, but on average during that quarter English local authorities decided only 59 per cent. of applications within eight weeks. I hope that all local authorities will examine their procedures for handling planning applications and introduce improvements where appropriate, to make the system work more efficiently.

  Housing Associations
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give an estimate of the percentage by which he expects housing association rents to increase in real terms(a) over the next two years and (b) over the next four years.

  Mrs. Roe
  I can give no such estimate. Existing housing association tenancies will remain subject to rents registered by rent officers. Rents on lettings which take place after commencement of the relevant provisions of the Housing Bill will be for the associations to determine, taking account of their costs and of the grant available to them.

  UK 2000
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much public money has been spent by UK 2000; what information he has as to how much private money has been spent; and what has been achieved.

  Mr. Trippier
  My right hon. Friend has paid grants to UK 2000 and its participating organisations totalling £600,000 in 1986–87 and £1·4 million in 1987–88. My right 670
  hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have also paid smaller grants. In 1986–87, £400,000 of private sector support, in cash and kind, was secured by UK 2000 and in 1987–88 this has risen to £1·4 million. At the end of 1987–88 UK 2000 will be supporting over 400 projects offering over 12,000 community programme places and involving over 12,000 volunteers.

  Westminster Pier
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if, in the light of the resolution of the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services) of 2 February, he will now reconsider his earlier decision not to call in the planning application for Westminster pier; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  No. In considering whether to call in the Thames water authority's planning application for a new Westminster pier my right hon. Friend gave very careful consideration to all the material issues involved, including the impact of the proposed structure on the Palace of Westminster and its environs. We have looked again at the matter, in the light of the resolution referred to, but see no reason to take the decision out of the hands of Westminster city council, which is the local planning authority.

  Consultative Document (North Devon)
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment upon what dates(a) the consultative documents on right to buy, deregulation of the private rented sector, housing action trusts, tenants' choice and home improvement policy were despatched to North Devon district council and (b) replies were required; and what length of time he treats as a resonable minimum for a local authority to receive, distribute, consider, discuss and provide reasoned comment on such papers.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The table provides the information requested about each of the consultation and explanation documents.

  Issued

  Comments invited by

  Right to buy

  2 October

  30 October

  Deregulation of the Private Rented Sector

  2 October

  30 October

  Housing Action Trusts

  8 October

  6 November

  Tenants' Choice

  2 November

  4 December

  Home Improvement Policy

  5 November

  4 January 1988

  In issuing these documents we thought it sensible to give respondents an indication as to when their comments would be most useful, as clearly the earlier the comments are made, the more helpful they are in developing policy. However, nothing absolute was intended about the target dates set for responses and all comments that we receive are being carefully considered. I am grateful to North Devon district council for the helpful comments it submitted on four of these documents.

  It is not possible to generalise about the timetable for submitting comments on any other consultation and explanatory documents, since this will inevitably vary depending on the particular circumstances.

  Derelict Land Grant
  Mr. Dickens
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much his Department has spent on derelict land grant since 1979–80.

  Mr. Trippier
  Between 1 April 1979 and 31 December 1987 the total amount of derelict land grant paid by the Department was £416·73 million.

  Local Authorities (Property Management)
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he takes to monitor the performance of local authorities in managing their property assets effectively.

  Mr. Chope
  The recent major report from the Audit Commission, to which I referred in my answer given earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) sets out ways of making major improvements in property management. The local auditors will be following up and monitoring progress. Better property management can improve the performance of every local authority service, as well as generating increased capital receipts.

  Nirex
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will next meet the chairman of the Nuclear Industry Radioactive Waste Executive; and what matters will be discussed.

  Mrs. Roe
  My right hon. Friend has had discussions .with the chairman of Nirex from time to time about the disposal of radioactive waste, but he has at present no plans to meet him.

  Fire Authorities (Competitive Tendering)
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received seeking the exemption of fire authorities from competitive tendering for maintenance of fire tenders, under the Local Government Act; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  My right hon. Friend received a number of representations on this subject. The Government announced during proceedings on the Local Government Bill on 15 February that, while we were not willing to remove references to fire vehicle maintenance from the Bill, we had decided to use the order-making powers in the Bill to exempt that activity from compulsory competition when we make the first set of regulations and orders under the Bill.

  Water Supplies
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the areas that have provided bottled water to mothers feeding young infants when ground water supplies have exceeded limits in European Economic Community directives.

  Mrs. Roe
  Water undertakers are not required to inform my right hon. Friend when bottled water is provided for infant feeding because of high nitrate levels in public water supplies. However, I understand that bottled water was supplied to nursing mothers in a village 672
  in Worcestershire until July 1987 and will continue to be supplied to a village in the Yorkshire water authority area until the supply is replaced later this year.

  Green Belt
  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the area of designated green belt land in the Eddisbury constituency in(a) 1979 and (b) the latest year for which information is available.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Green belt within the Eddisbury constituency was broadly defined in the Cheshire structure plan approved in July 1979. It fell to local plans to establish the precise areas and this has been done for the following areas:

  (a) In Vale Royal District:

  Frodsham and Helsby local plan (adopted May 1981)

  Northwich local plan (adopted May 1981)

  Tarporley local plan (adopted June 1982).

  (b) Chester District:

  Chester rural areas local plan (adopted October 1985).

  For those parts of the constituency not yet covered by local plans the green belt remains as broadly defined in the structure plan.

  Home Ownership Scheme
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he intends to make changes to the Housing Corporation's home ownership scheme for tenants of charitable housing associations in the light of his review of the operation and effectiveness of the scheme.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I have no present plans to change the scheme.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the latest number of new home owners estimated to have been assisted by the Housing Corporation's home ownership scheme for tenants of charitable housing associations; and how many are now on the waiting list.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Over 5,000 properties have been purchased through the home ownership scheme for tenants of charitable housing associations. At the end of December 1987 there were 2,645 applications on the waiting list.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what funds have been allocated for transferable discounts under the home ownership scheme for tenants of charitable housing associations for the financial year 1988–89.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  A further £19 million has been allocated for the home ownership scheme for tenants of charitable housing associations in the Housing Corporation's approved development programme for 1988–89.

  Local Authority Services (Competitive Tendering)
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will issue draft regulations on the phasing-in of competitive tendering; and if he will make a statement.
  673
  Mr. Chope
  We are currently considering the responses to the Department's consultation paper on the implementation of the competitive tendering provisions in part I of the Local Government Bill. The necessary regulations and orders will be made as soon as possible after Royal Assent. I see no need to issue them in draft first.

  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what the overall response was to the Government's proposals for the phasing-in of competitive tendering from local authorities; and whether those will be published.

  Mr. Chope
  Some 210 responses to the English consultation paper have been received so far. In general respondents welcome the proposed phasing-in, although many authorities consider that the overall period is too short and that they should be given greater local flexibility.

  Where the authors have agreed, copies of responses will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament.

  Urban Programme
  Dr. Hampson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what the level of urban programme resource allocation has been for Leeds for each year since 1982–83; and if he will give the corresponding figures for Bradford.

  Mr. Trippier
  The initial allocations are in the following table:

  £ million

  Leeds

  Bradford

  1982–83

  4·98

  4·92

  1983–84

  4·93

  4·98

  1984–85

  4·13

  4·58

  1985–86

  4·14

  4·78

  1986–87

  4·13

  4·58

  1987–88

  4·50

  4·50

  1988–89

  4·40

  4·50

  In addition, the following urban development grant projects have been approved since 1983:

  Number of projects

  Amount of grant

  Associated private investment

  £ million

  £ million

  Leeds

  14

  6·265

  15·035

  Bradford

  4

  1·829

  5·016

  Ancient Woodlands
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to amend existing regulations on the protection of ancient woodlands; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Roe
  There are no present plans to do so, but we shall keep the position under review, in relation to both ancient woodlands and the amenity value of woodlands generally.

  Housing and Planning Act 1986
  Mr. Kirkhope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the provisions in the Housing and Planning Act 1986, which would enable local housing authorities to pay home improvement grants for works to the common parts of buildings containing flats, are expected to come into force.
  674
  Mr. Waldegrave
  The orders required to bring into operation the provisions of the Housing and Planning Act relating to common parts grants came into force today. This will be of considerable benefit to flat-dwellers as, for the first time, discretionary grants will be available to help with the costs of repairing and improving those parts of buildings containing flats, such as roofs and staircases, which lie outside the flats themselves. Local authorities will be able to give common parts grants for a wide range of buildings from large purpose-built mansion blocks to small scale conversions.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Royal Ulster Constabulary
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the function and composition of the Royal Ulster Constabulary special support unit.

  Mr. Stanley
  [holding answer 12 February 1988]: There are no longer units in the Royal Ulster Constabulary called special support units. The RUC does have headquarters mobile support units (HMSUs). They are mobile sections of uniformed officers, under the command of an inspector, and comprise specially trained personnel who are readily available for flexible and sustained duties against terrorist and other serious criminal activities.

  Ulster Security Liaison Committee
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the function and composition of the Ulster security liaison committee.

  Mr. Stanley
  [holding answer 12 February 1988]: It is not the practice to comment on the security arrangements of the Northern Ireland Office.

  Discrimination
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) how many companies or public bodies in Northern Ireland have suffered Government sanctions for failure to observe the code on fair employment;

  (2) how many manufacturing service and commercial organisations, local councils and Government departments who have signed the fair employment undertaking have had Government sanctions taken against them for alleged discrimination in employment practice.

  Mr. Viggers
  [holding answer 16 February 1988]: Government Departments in Northern Ireland and the major public bodies sponsored by them do not normally accept tenders from employers unless they are in possession of an equal opportunity certificate issued under section 7 of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1976, following the signature of a declaration of principle and intent. No central records are kept in respect of tenders not accepted.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Green Pound
  Mr. Michael Morris
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food by what estimated
  675
  amount, to the nearest £100 million, British farmers' incomes have been depressed due to the discrepancy between the value of the green pound and the real pound sterling for the two years 1986 and 1987.

  Mr. MacGregor
  Farmers' incomes in 1986 and 1987 were affected by many factors. I regret that it is not possible to assess reliably what the aggregate income levels would have been in these years given that the changes in the green pound as envisaged could have affected many other decisions on support levels.

  Intervention Stocks
  Mr. Michael Morris
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food by how much British farmers have benefited from intervention purchases over the past five years.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Over the five years up to 1 April 1987 the Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce spent £2,575 million buying surplus produce into intervention and received £870 million from sales out of intervention. During that period the board's costs of storing intervened produce, excluding financing charges, were £385 million.

  Peanuts
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will introduce legislation to make mandatory the display of warning labels against human consumption upon peanuts sold in petshops; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I have no plans to introduce such legislation. I would have thought it self-evident to the public that feed sold in pet shops was not intended for human consumption.

  Milk and Pigmeat
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will give the figures for the value of United Kingdom exports of(a) milk and milk products and (b) pork and pigmeat for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The information requested on United Kingdom exports is as follows:

  (a) Milk and milk products

  Year

  Exports to the world

  Intra-Community

  Exports to Third countries

  £ thousand

  £ thousand

  1979

  187,147

  141,671

  45,476

  1980

  284,589

  203,627

  80,962

  1981

  315,695

  203,039

  112,656

  1982

  330,118

  214,707

  115,411

  1983

  301,284

  175,684

  125,600

  1984

  238,381

  123,320

  115,061

  1985

  273,459

  161,082

  112,377

  1986

  294,055

  211,939

  82,116

  1987

  274,010

  184,217

  89,793

  Source: Eurostat.
  676

  (b) Pork and pigmeat

  £ thousands

  Year

  Total

  Intra-Community

  Exports to Third countries

  £ thousand

  £ thousand

  1979

  22,528

  219,595

  2,933

  1980

  24,438

  21,915

  2,523

  1981

  26,726

  22,637

  4,089

  1982

  39,755

  33,907

  5,848

  1983

  58,050

  50,216

  7,834

  1984

  55,494

  49,733

  5,761

  1985

  66,315

  56,922

  9,393

  1986

  71,888

  65,293

  6,595

  19871

  47,435

  43,200

  4,235

  Source: Customs and Excise Overseas Trade Statistics.

  1 Figures to end of September.

  2Spanish figures included in Third country total.

  Milk
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures the Milk Marketing Board took to ensure the movement of milk and milk products during the trough months of milk production; and with what success.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The Milk Marketing Board collects milk from producers and arranges for its delivery to dairies and manufacturers: it is not responsible for the movement of milk products. The board allocates milk so that the important liquid market is given first priority. During the seasonal trough in milk production additional supplies to meet this priority market are normally drawn from milk allocated to butter and milk powder factories. However, last year's trough was unusually deep and prolonged, with the consequence that, for a period, some milk also had to be drawn from cheese manufacture, but this was kept to a minimum.

  Butter
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the retail price of butter for each year since 1970, in actual prices and in constant prices, and also showing 1970 as 100.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The table below provides the information requested:

  Average Retail Price of Butter1

  Current p/500 gm.

  Constant2 p/500 gm.

  Constant2 p/500 gm. (1970 = 100)

  1970

  18·9

  18·9

  100

  1971

  26·2

  23·9

  126

  1972

  29·3

  25·0

  132

  1973

  25·6

  20·0

  106

  1974

  26·5

  178

  94

  1975

  34·9

  18·9

  100

  1976

  48·3

  22·5

  119

  1977

  58·7

  23·6

  125

  1978

  66·1

  24·5

  130

  1979

  78·4

  25·6

  135

  1980

  85·5

  23·7

  125

  1981

  92·4

  22·9

  121

  1982

  99·4

  22·7

  120

  1983

  99 1

  21·6

  114

  1984

  100·5

  20·9

  111

  1985

  102·8

  20·1

  106

  1986

  104·0

  19·7

  104

  1987

  103·0

  18·7

  99

  677

  1 Home-produced except for 1970–72 when no quotas were available and the price of New Zealand butter is used.

  2 Deflated by all items Retail Prices Index.

  Grain Production
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the total quantity of grain produced in each of the European Economic Community countries in 1987 and also the total amount of co-responsibility levy paid by each member state, in pounds sterling.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Figures for production and co-responsibility levy revenue collected are only available for the 1986–87 cereals marketing year (July/June).

  Member state1

  Production million tonnes

  Levy3 £ million2

  Belgium

  2·3

  13·3

  Denmark

  8·0

  6·9

  West Germany

  25·6

  50·0

  Greece

  5·2

  2·6

  Spain

  16·0

  17·6

  France

  50·1

  57·3

  Ireland

  1·8

  3·3

  Italy

  17·8

  24·5

  Luxembourg

  0·1

  0·2

  Netherlands

  1·3

  11·7

  United Kingdom

  24·5

  39·4

  1 Portugal does not yet implement the EC cereals regime.

  2 Converted at spot rates for 31 July 1987.

  3 Collected by 31 July 1987 for transactions to 30 June 1987.

  Farm Rents
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will update the information in the reply to the hon. Member for Norfolk, North of 3 March 1987,Official Report, column 540, about average farm rents in (a) the United Kingdom and (b) England for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The table gives average farm rents for(a) Great Britain and (b) England. Information cannot be provided for the United Kingdom because Northern Ireland's land tenure system is not generally comparable with that of Great Britain.

  Average farm rents (£ per hectare)

  Year

  Great Britain

  England2

  1979

  38·23

  42·13

  1980

  45·27

  50·01

  1981

  52·91

  58·36

  1982

  60·39

  66·14

  1983

  67·70

  73·93

  1984

  74·37

  81·27

  1985

  80·42

  88·01

  1986

  86·52

  95·11

  11987

  89·21

  97·84

  1 Provisional.

  2 The figures for England are due to be published in a Ministry statistics release on 24 February 1988.

  Milk Imports
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish in the Official Report a table showing the monthly imports into the United Kingdom of fresh milk from European Economic Community member states for each year since such
  678
  imports were first permitted.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Imports of UHT and sterilised milk have been allowed since November 1983. The latest data from Customs and Excise indicate that imports are running at about 500 tonnes a month, consisting mainly of skimmed milk from Belgium. More detailed information on this trade, and on Northern Ireland's imports of milk for processing, is given month by month in "Overseas Trade Statistics of the United Kingdom".

  Bovine Somatotropin
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many licences have been issued for experimental injections of bovine somatotropin into cows; what is the number of cows covered by such licences and the length of period of licensing; and what proportion of British cows' milk is likely to originate from the farms licensed to use bovine somatotropin.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Animal test certificates authorising trials of bovine somatotropin have been issued under the Medicines Act 1968 to three companies. These certificates are normally issued for a period of two years and are renewable. The certificates currently granted permit the treatment of a maximum of 1,130 cows. However, the number of cows treated at any one time is likely to be less than this, information relating to the proportion of milk originating from farms involved in the trials is not available.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has as to which countries of the European Economic Community allow the experimental use of bovine somatotropin.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Information is not available for all member states of the EC as there is no requirement to notify the Commission of trials taking place. Nevertheless, it is understood that bovine somatotropin has been tested in Germany, Netherlands, France, Italy and Spain.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has as to whether artificial bovine somatotropin has been tested on humans and found to be safe.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Before the certificates for trials of BST were granted the applications were considered by the veterinary products committee which was satisfied that the use of this product in trials in milk cows would cause no risks to human health. No information has since become available which would cast any doubt on the evidence considered at that time.

  Animal Medicines
  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to receive the independent study carried out by the Mr. Peter Cuncliffe into the licensing of animal medicines; and when the results will be made known to the interested parties.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The study, which I announced on 3 July last year, has been completed. Mr. Cuncliffe presented his report to me earlier this month and I am
  679
  placing a copy in the Library. The report makes 25 recommendations aimed at improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the animal medicines licensing operation. I am giving careful consideration to Mr. Cuncliffe's recommendations, and am most grateful to him for the work he has undertaken. Consultation will be undertaken as necessary and I will report further to the House.

  Wheat
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will update the information in his reply to the hon. Member for Norfolk, North of 22 April 1987,Official Report, column 638, about the average price of wheat received by the producer in the United Kingdom, Germany, and France (a) in national currency and (b) converted to £ sterling at the market rates prevailing on the latest date for which this information is available.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  [holding answer 16 February 1988]: Producer prices are not available for the three countries. For the week ending 31 January 1988 market prices for milling wheat were as shown below:

  National currency per tonne

  £ per tonne

  Germany (Hamburg)

  426·30 DM

  143·50

  France (La Pallice)

  1,354·67 FF

  135·20

  United Kingdom (Hull)

  144·20

  Source: Commission of the European Community.
  680
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will update the information in his reply to the hon. Member for Norfolk, North of 11 March 1987,Official Report, columns 228–29, about the average ex-farm price of wheat received by (a) British farmers, (b) French farmers and (c) German farmers, as well as the average intervention price for common wheat, in 1979, 1984, 1985, 1986 and 1987, in £ sterling.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  [holding answer 16 February 1988]: The information requested by my hon. Friend is not yet available for the 1986–87 and 1987–88 marketing years. I set out in the table the information for the 1979–80 and 1983–84, 1984–85 and 1985–86 marketing years. Ex-farm prices for the European Community as a whole are not available.

  Producer Prices for Wheat

  1£/tonne

  1979–80

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  United Kingdom

  95·83

  127·10

  3112·00

  110·15

  West Germany

  122·18

  125·75

  118·83

  116·63

  France

  88·03

  101·04

  99·05

  100·85

  EC2

  91·44

  120·16

  119·01

  116·98

  1 Exchange rates based on average spot rate for marketing years except for EC prices which have been converted at the average UK green rate for the marketing years.

  2 Average intervention price for common wheat.

  3 Revised figure.

  Source: "Agricultural Situation in the Community" 1981, 1986 and 1987 reports.

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

Angola and South African Forces
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what action they have taken or propose to take to halt South African military activity in Angola.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, we support United Nations Security Council Resolutions 602 of 25th November and 606 of 23rd December 1987, both of which called for the immediate withdrawal of South African troops from Angola. We continue to urge this upon the South African Government.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, while welcoming the statement of the noble Lord, can he tell the House whether it is the case that there are about 6,000 South African troops inside Angola not only fighting against the Angolan forces but also killing civilians and destroying crops? Can the Minister say whether the British Government are able to put their words of condemnation into practice by strengthening the opposition which they have expressed to this unprovoked aggression? Can they use their own offices to persuade or coerce the South Africans to withdraw their invading forces?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, we have repeatedly condemned violence in the region in the strongest terms. We are opposed to cross-border incursions of the kind that the noble Lord has described, in either direction. A military solution to this issue is unattainable. The problems of the region should be settled peacefully through negotiation. We support the efforts of both the United States and the United Nations Secretary-General.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, can the noble Lord say what progress has been made to implement the Security Council resolution of 23rd December which Her Majesty's Government supported? Secondly, can the Minister say what was the result of the talks held over the last fortnight between Mr. Chester Crocker and the Government of Angola? Is there any hope of a joint withdrawal of South African and Cuban troops from Angola?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am afraid that I am not in a position to give the noble Lord information on the part of his supplementary question in relation
648
to the recent visit of Mr. Crocker. As regards Resolution 606, the Secretary-General is due to report on that resolution later this month. Then we shall have a better idea of exactly how it should be taken forward.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, have we not a somewhat unbalanced picture here? Is it not a fact that the Russians have just committed a Lieutenant-General Shaganovich with a full divisional staff to take charge of the Soviet aggressive operations against an Angolan army? Is the Minister aware that that force, together with 40,000 Cubans under the command of a member of their politburo, was heavily defeated by Angolans supported by South African artillery on the Lomba river? They were driven back to Cuilo Cuanavale where they are at present in difficulties and besieged. There is every prospect of their being kicked out of the country. Is this not a matter of common cause and the first effective African resistance to communist occupation for us to express our gratitude—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Paget of Northampton: Finally—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, I have one more question to ask. Will the Minster convey to the South Africans that there are people in England who still remember with gratitude the soldiers who twice in our lifetime came to our aid when we were in trouble?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I did not get all of the question asked by the noble Lord. But we support the United States Angolan negotiations aimed at reaching an acceptable timetable for the withdrawal of Cuban troops.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, in answer to my first supplementary question the Minister appeared to give an even-handed assessment of the situation in Angola. Am I wrong about that? Is it not the case that the South Africans have invaded Angola but that Angola has never invaded South Africa? Will the Minister answer the question as to whether the British Government can put their words into practice in supporting and giving teeth to the United Nations' resolution demanding withdrawal of an invading army against a sovereign state?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, in saying that we are opposed to cross-border incursions in either direction, I cannot see that anything but good can result from any inference the noble Lord might draw about being even-handed, as he chooses to call it. I do not believe that we are causing any difficulties whatever. Of course it is right that cross-border incursions of that kind in either direction should be opposed. We have encouraged neighbouring countries to seek a peaceful solution of their differences and to co-operate on matters of regional concern.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, has the noble Lord any information as to whether there have been any—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Ferrier: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether the figure of 40,000 Cuban troops in Angola, which the noble Lord, Lord Paget, mentioned, is approximately correct?
Lord Glenarthur: Approximately, yes, my Lords.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, do the Government have any information to support the view apparently implied by the noble Lord that there have been cross-border incursions from Angola into South Africa?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I do not have that information. If the noble Lord has, I shall be delighted to hear it. The important thing is that we should continue to be opposed to cross-border incursion in either direction.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, in the event that South Africa should withdraw its troops, does my noble friend think it likely that there will be free and fair elections while there are 40,000 Cubans in Angola?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the important thing is to secure South African withdrawal. That is precisely what Resolution 602 and Resolution 606, which followed, seek to achieve.

Gibraltar and Spanish Airspace Restrictions
2.45 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether as a result of recent discussions the Spanish Government have withdrawn their restrictions on the use of Spanish airspace by British military aircraft arriving at and departing from Gibraltar Airport.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, no. My right honourable and learned friend the Foreign Secretary and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport, at their meeting with their Spanish opposite numbers in London on 2nd December, again pressed for the restrictions to be withdrawn. We regret that the Spanish Government were not able to agree to this.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Will he add to it by telling the House how the Spanish Government have sought to reconcile this restriction on the use of Gibraltar Airport with their desire to share in its operation?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the restrictions apply to military aircraft, not to civil aircraft. The Spaniards argue that the restrictions are necessary for reasons of national security.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, are we not supposed to be on the same side in NATO?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, we certainly are. My noble and learned friend is quite right. We agree that there should be no restrictions of this kind between two NATO allies. We shall therefore continue to press Spain to lift them.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, will the noble Lord clarify the position further and say whether the Government of Gibraltar support the agreement which was reached and whether the Gibraltar Parliament has ratified it?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I think that we are talking about two separate issues. This one is specifically concerned with the Spanish prohibited airspace and its use by military aircraft. Other developments on the airport are another matter. If the noble Lord would like me to pursue it, I shall.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, the two matters are surely connected. Will the noble Lord say whether the restriction on the use of military aircraft will have any effect on the arrangement for joint civilian use of the airport?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, it does not have any effect on civilian aircraft other than civilian aircraft on charter to the Ministry of Defence. The agreements about the airport are reached on the basis of consultation on the future development of civil aviation more widely and within Europe. The specific problem relates to the use of Spanish prohibited airspace by military aircraft.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, with great respect, my question about ratification by the Gibraltar Parliament and the agreement of the Gibraltar Government is very relevant to the general use of the airport whether for civilian or military purposes. I recognise that there has been no agreement on the military side but can the noble Lord say whether the Government of Gibraltar agree with the agreement that has been made and whether the Gibraltar Parliament is likely to ratify it?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am sorry if I misunderstood the noble Lord. The two issues are different but it is for the people of Gibraltar to make a democratic choice on the airport agreement. We have made it clear that we do not intend to impose it on them against their wishes. The Spanish Government have made it clear that they will not begin building a new terminal until the Gibraltar House of Assembly has acted.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, if a satisfactory agreement on civilian use is reached and it is approved by the Gibraltar Parliament, is there any prospect of lengthening the runway?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, there may be grave difficulties about that because of the geographical constraints that exist there.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is there not a connection between the two matters inasmuch as the Spanish attitude on the use of Spanish airspace for military aircraft into Gibraltar Airport must induce a mood of suspicion in the Gibraltar Government and people which could well bear on their decision?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, that is certainly a view. I very much hope that it will be possible in due course to persuade the Spaniards to lift the particular difficulty concerning use of Spanish prohibited airspace. I agree with my noble friend that it is possible that there can be a read-across from one issue to the other, but I hope that the former will be resolved.

Pensions Reform: Public Awareness
2.49 p.m.
Lord Gridley: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government when the reform of pensions, under the Social Security Act 1986, becomes effective, how they propose to ensure that the public are made aware of the new arrangements and the available choice of pensions.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Skelmersdale): My Lords, the Government will be mounting an information campaign, using press and television advertising, to alert the public to the new choices in occupational and personal pensions opened up by the Social Security Act 1986. The advertising will be supported by a series of leaflets and fact sheets explaining in some detail how the new pensions arrangements will operate.
Lord Gridley: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for his Answer. Is he aware of the press release publicising pension reform which states that the promotion of a particular product and advice about the type of pension that might be suitable in any given case are the responsibility of the pension provider and professional advisers? Will the Minister inform me who are the pension providers? Will members of the DHSS advise in any given instance or, if not, who will?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am sorry if the press notice to which my noble friend has referred was unclear. Of course it would be quite improper for staff in DHSS local offices to give advice on personal and occupational pensions. Therefore, the phrase "the pension providers" means the people who provide those schemes; for example, unit trusts, building societies and so forth.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, I warmly welcome the statement that the noble Lord made in his original
652
Answer to the Question. Will he accept from me, as one who has tried, that it is extremely difficult to give clear and intelligible advice about the various options that will be open to people in July regarding SERPS, occupational pensions and personal pensions? The public is in urgent need of clear, unambiguous and impartial advice on those matters. Does the Minister accept that there is now a danger that many people may merely opt for the course of action which results in the minimal payments at present with a possible financial loss later on? The advice from people who sell personal pensions, while being wholly honest, is not always impartial.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I accept that there is a danger that people who sell such schemes are not always impartial. That is why the department is publishing the leaflets to which I have already referred, which would give impartial advice, but of course it cannot go into detail and compare individual schemes. People would be well, advised first, to consult their employer and, secondly, to obtain professional advice from, for example, solicitors or accountants before making up their minds on the matter.

European Regional Grants: UK Projects
2.52 p.m.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will give details of the latest grants that the United Kingdom is to receive from the European Regional Development Fund.
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Lord Young of Graffham): My Lords, the United Kingdom has continued to receive commitments of grant from the European Regional Development Fund. The latest grants were announced on 6th and 27th January, 1988. In total, 416 projects were offered support and the total value of commitments was £213 million. This brings the total of grants committed to the United Kingdom during 1987 to £396 million and since the inception of the Fund in 1975 to nearly £2,800 million.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his admirable reply. However, I should like to ask one further question. Can the noble Lord confirm that the money is directed towards those parts of the country most in need of it?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, some negotiations as to where the moneys will go have yet to be concluded. However, it has been agreed that less developed regions within the Community will receive a larger share of the structural funds. Within the United Kingdom, only Northern Ireland is a less developed region. I am happy to confirm to my noble friend that it appears that United Kingdom receipts from the regional fund will grow significantly over the next few years.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, will the Minister explain what part Her Majesty's Government play in choosing those projects? Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, will he give the House an assurance that the existence of the grants from the European Regional Development Fund does not mean that the Government will cut the grants they otherwise would have made?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, it is in a way a cause for congratulation that less and less of the United Kingdom is becoming a "less developed region" within the European Community. I assure all in your Lordships' House that central government are not changing their policy with regard to support for regions. The detailed negotiations within the Community as to the precise allocation of those funds have yet to take place.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, following the question of the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, are the grants made from the European regional fund netted-off against grants to those recipients from UK official sources? In other words, does the receiver obtain no more as a result of a grant, or does he receive exactly what he would have in the first place from the national Government?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, this is a complex matter. Approximately two-thirds of the receipts from the fund go towards local authority and public utility infrastructure. They save about half the cost of the capital expenditure in the eligible areas. If the noble Lord cares to put down a Question about the precise allocation of those moneys, I shall be happy to enlighten him.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there is a feeling in some quarters that the United Kingdom is not as adept at obtaining grants as are some other parts of the Community, especially France.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am happy to assure my noble friend that there is a feeling in other parts of the Community that the United Kingdom is rather too adept at receiving those grants.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, am I right to assume that the Secretaries of State for Wales and Scotland and their offices are brought fully into consultation both in Brussels and in London?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I do not speak in your Lordships' House with responsibility for Scotland or Wales. I have said that at present, while the broad shape of the structural funds—that they should be doubled by 1993—has been agreed, no decisions have been taken about the size of the three individual funds or of the United Kingdom's share. No doubt, within the United Kingdom, the respective Secretaries of State are fully involved in the allocation of those moneys.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, that is a most extraordinary and unsatisfactory reply. Can the Minister give an assurance that his right honourable
654
friends the Secretaries of State for Wales and Scotland were fully consulted by him about those consultations and that they, or their representatives, were in Brussels when those matters were discussed?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I cannot give that assurance because I was not consulted in these negotiations. As I have already said, the overall shape of the structural funds has been settled, but the discussions about the size of the three structural funds, or the United Kingdom's share, have yet to take place. I should remind the noble Lord that the Question on the Order Paper is on another subject.

Business
2.58 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend Lord Lyell will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the Royal Ulster Constabulary.

Immigration Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.
Saint Bennet Fink Burial Ground (City of London) Bill [H.L.]
Read a second time, and referred to the Examiners.
University of Wales, Cardiff Bill [H.L.]
Read a second time, and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.

Nature Conservancy Council
2.59 p.m.
The Earl of Cranbrook The Earl of Cranbrook rose to move, That this House takes note of the 13th report (1986–87) of the Nature Conservancy Council.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the 1973 Act, which established the Nature Conservancy Council requires a report to be presented to Parliament each year. The 13th such report describes the affairs of a vigorous and active organisation under the leadership of Mr. William Wilkinson as chairman and Mr. Dick Steele as director general.
I am pleased that this debate has attracted such a long list of speakers, each of whom will speak with authority within his chosen area. I see my task as setting the scene with general remarks on the main activities of the council in the reporting year 1986–87, coupled with some personal views on present and future priorities and demands on Nature Conservancy Council resources.
The Nature Conservancy Council is a property-owning body with responsibility first for national

655
nature reserves. By 31st March 1987, 224 national nature reserves had been declared, comprising some 160,000 hectares and varying in size from small two-hectare sites to the vast 26,000 hectares of the Cairngorms NNR. There is a continuing programme of additions; 10 new national nature reserves were declared during the year. The chairman's introduction also mentions 760 further sites which have been identified as of NNR quality but are as yet unprotected.
As far as ownership goes, at present one-quarter of the total area under NNR is owned by the Nature Conservancy Council and a further one-eighth is leased by the council. The remainder of course operates under private ownership through agreements with the owners. Private ownership can bring management problems. Private ownership depends on individual lives or personal circumstances and on the risk of conflicting interests. Such a conflict of interests on the beautiful Strath Dionard in Sutherland is pinpointed within the report on page 15. A solution is needed.
For the balance of existing national nature reserves which are still in private hands and for future acquisitions, in my view it is not imperative that the Nature Conservancy Council be the ultimate proprietor. Under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, Section 35, there is provision for acceptable alternative forms of ownership and already four NNRs are held by approved bodies. Given the right guarantees, ownership by bodies such as a county council, the National Trust or the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds clearly can provide the necessary safeguards. I hope that my noble friend will agree that the main priority must be for continued growth in the network of national nature reserves, with the aim of taking in all the very best examples of biological communities and habitats in Great Britain so that these areas will be protected and managed with nature conservation as the primary objective.
Distinct from the national nature reserves but overlapping is the national network of sites of special scientific interest or SSSIs for short. These sites have been selected by reason of the high scientific value of their flora, their fauna or their geology or physiography. The 1981 Wildlife and Countryside Act imposed on the Nature Conservancy Council the obligation to renotify more than 4,000 sites which had previously been declared under the 1949 Act. After a laborious start and thanks to extra resources provided in 1985–86, the task was 80 per cent. complete by the end of March 1987. Then 2,852 sites had been renotified and 1,104 new sites had been added. In particular, in the reorganised earth sciences division there had been continued progress on the geological conservation review which was substantially completed and the number of geological or physiographical SSSIs had more than doubled from something approaching 400 to something approaching 800.
The anticipated total number of SSSIs will be 4,729, covering 1½ million hectares, about 8 per cent. of the British land surface. On page 8 of his report the chairman estimates that for about one-third of these
656
SSSIs the scientific value can be preserved only with positive management. I suspect that the proportion should be higher.
At the end of the reporting year 670 management agreements were in force covering some 24,000 hectares but a further 1,000 were under negotiation. The ultimate cost of maintaining the system is projected at £15 million to £20 million per annum. The chairman claims that this sum represents good value for money and I support him, provided that the management achieves its intended objectives.
In many cases effective management depends on the perpetuation, restoration or replacement of former land uses. For instance, the steady deterioration of the heathlands of southern England is attributable to the lack of grazing and the cessation of other traditional practices which served to remove rank growth and to prevent encroachment by bracken and seedling trees. In order to preserve the special qualities of the heathlands, including the rare snakes and lizards, management must produce similar effects. It is unfortunate that on too many heaths of southern England, especially in Dorset, owners have proved unwilling to accept management agreements. Unless this dilemma is resolved, the scientific value of the remaining heaths will be lost.
In other cases the precise requirements of the key species of plants or animals in an SSSI can only be elucidated by careful scientific research. Some fascinating biological studies have come out of NCC sponsored research. One of the most intriguing and subtle life cycles is that of the large blue butterfly, which noble Lords will see illustrated in the centre spread colour pages. I am tempted to go into the biology of this butterfly but perhaps this is not quite the right place. Appendix 10, however, to which I would draw the attention of noble Lords, shows that some £2.3 million has been allocated to contract research projects of that nature in the reporting year 1986–87 by the Nature Conservancy Council and the joint sponsors. I regard this sum, which is under 8 per cent. of the total expenditure, as a minimum sufficient to provide the scientific backing for effective management.
In the field of science the Nature Conservancy Council requires a strong chief scientist's team to plan research topics and to evaluate results. But the facilities for research can be found elsewhere. I welcome the variety of large and small projects put out for research and I am pleased to see such a diversity of contractors. The Nature Conservancy Council should draw on the national fund of expertise in our universities, our research council establishments and elsewhere.
On a gloomier note, during the year two SSSIs awaiting notification were destroyed and 46 declared SSSIs suffered some lasting damage, as reported on page 93. Legal sanctions exist to protect SSSIs and it is therefore of great concern to read on page 12 of the report that half of all instances of lasting damage were the result of operations which had received planning permission, were carried out by statutory undertakers or other public bodies or were the acts of third parties such as motorcycle scramblers, over whom there is no control. Against such damage there is no redress under the Wildlife and Countryside Act.

657
In my view there is an evident and urgent need to strengthen the law in regard to the protection of SSSIs.
Moving on to broad issues of habitat protection, there continue to be problems raised in the dialogue between the Nature Conservancy Council and forestry. The Nature Conservancy Council's document, Nature Conservation and Afforestation in Britain, which was published in the summer of 1986, concluded that in the case of long-established native woodlands there is now:
"Promise of a much closer and more mutually supportive relationship between forestry and nature conservation interests".
But,
"The issue of new afforestation has yet to be similarly resolved".
The extent of new afforestation in Caithness and Sutherland is highlighted by Mr. Wilkinson as:
"the most important conservation issue of the last 30 years",
and I suspect it will be an issue which will draw our attention this afternoon. The Nature Conservancy Council's position has been elaborated in its paper, Birds, Bogs and Forestry, which was published last autumn. A detailed scientific report on the peatlands is expected soon.
In February 1987 the Forestry Commission agreed to extend SSSI-type consultation procedures to all grant applications within Caithness and Sutherland. More recently, in January 1988, the Secretary of State for Scotland has given consent to some applications waiting in the pipeline, in several instances with specific restrictions for reasons of nature conservation. He has further proposed that as much as 350,000 hectares of unafforested peatlands should be protected by SSSI status.
It has been established by scientific research in conifer plantations that adverse effects on surface waters occur at various stages in the cycle from the establishment of the seedling to harvesting. Sensitive habitats can only be protected where whole catchments are conserved as units. In my view the approach of the Secretary of State will succeed only if all parties accept that an SSSI of necessity includes an adequate protection zone surrounding the core area of high importance.
I now move to the coastal environment. It is gratifying that the year 1986–87 at last saw the designation of Britain's first marine nature reserve in the waters around Lundy. The pursuit of agreement on the location of marine nature reserves has been a hard road and I congratulate the Nature Conservancy Council on its perseverance. The report looks forward to further designations.
Existing voluntary marine nature reserves as at St. Abb's Head, which is mentioned on page 47 of the report, provide a model for management, but the transition to statutory designation is not necessarily going to be any easier. A less frequented site might prove less contentious; for example, the sea around St. Kilda offers spectacularly exposed, clear waters with representatives of rocky coastal communities in profusion. The recent history of St. Kilda supports the premise of little damage by human activity. A marine nature reserve here would complement a site already declared a world heritage area, as is reported
658
on page 67. A compilation of all sites of conservation value is essential for sound planning of coastal nature protection. I am glad that the report emphasises that the marine nature conservation review is making progress.
I presume that the outcome will be proposals for the nautical equivalent of SSSIs, but I am not clear how these will be protected under the existing maritime law. The timescale is 10 years but that is 10 years too long. We have already seen established in Scotland by the initiative of the Crown Commissioners marine consultation areas. I believe that this initiative deserves to be put on a statutory footing.
The Nature Conservancy Council also has an important role in species protection. As required by the 1981 Act, the Nature Conservancy Council has performed the first quinquennial review of Schedules 5 and 8 of the 1981 Act. The recommendations are reported.
Among the whales and porpoises entanglement in fishing gear is recognised as a threat both generally and in specific instances. There are now grounds for serious concern over stocks of small cetaceans in the southern North Sea. I therefore welcome this open statement of the threat. I hope that it points to a determination by the NCC to confront the problem.
It is also recommended in the review that the international killing and injury of lizards, slowworms, grass snakes and adders should be an offence. As the explanatory statement makes clear, the adder must be included. If any one snake is unprotected all others remain at risk.
The licensing system by which trade is regulated in the commoner reptiles and the common amphibians unfortunately has not been employed to provide conservation management information, as was intended when we discussed this issue during the Bill that led to the 1981 Act and as is required in order to comply with the Berne Convention.
The starkest crisis in species protection is among bats. Since 1978, as research funded by the Nature Conservancy Council has shown, some 6 million breeding bats have been exterminated in the decade in which protection was extended to all bats. The national population of small bats has been reduced by some 62 per cent. The causes are complex but one factor stands out. The loss of natural roost sites has made bats heavily dependent on buildings. The weakness of the law in preventing bats from being killed either inadvertently or intentionally is emphasised on pages 59 to 60.
I look to the Nature Conservancy Council to maintain a high level of emphasis on bat protection in discharge of the statutory duty to advise and disseminate knowledge on nature conservation. We do not lack warning signs on the threat through habitat loss and environmental deterioration. The impending privatisation of the water authorities has provided an opportunity to look again at the legal framework for protection of the aquatic environment. The intended privatisation of electricity must give a similar chance to discuss air quality control. Measures to reduce surplus agricultural production must be devised to include positive conservation benefits.
The Nature Conservancy Council has the statutory duty to advise the Secretary of State or any other Minister on policies affecting nature conservation in Britain taking into account:
"actual or possible ecological changes",
as stated in Clause 1(5) of the Nature Conservancy Council Act 1973.
Chapter 5 of the report gives instances of the Nature Conservancy Council acting in this role. In this House on 13th January my noble friend the Minister said (at col. 1311 of the Official Report):
"Environmental policy must evolve on the basis of sound science, informed debate, foresight and a proper balance between development and conservation".
The Nature Conservancy Council has a key part to play in this process. I hope that my noble friend can assure the House that there are no constraints on the Nature Conservancy Council in addressing any ministry, government agency or any other statutory body and that, in accordance with the precautionary principle which the Minister has also said that the Government accept, due weight is given to the long-term protection on a basis of sustainability of the British natural environment heritage. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the 13th report (1986–87) of the Nature Conservancy Council.—(The Earl of Cranbrook.)
3.18 p.m.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sanderson of Bowden): My Lords, first I welcome the opportunity afforded to us by my noble friend Lord Cranbrook in introducing this important debate this afternoon. As noble Lords would expect, my noble friend Lord Caithness will wind up at the end and deal with the general and main issues that arise in the debate. We also look forward very much to the maiden speech of the noble Earl, Lord Granville, later today. My purpose in speaking at this stage in the debate is because of the importance of the Nature Conservancy Council's operations in Scotland and because of my responsibilities at the Scottish Office for agriculture and forestry and in particular for the Highlands and Islands.
As your Lordships are aware, we had a most useful debate initiated by the noble Earl, Lord Perth, on 27th January when we discussed matters relating to land use in Scotland. Everyone who took part in that debate was aware of Scotland's natural heritage; those of us who have lived and worked in Scotland all our lives are aware in particular of its great richness and diversity.
The importance of Scotland in the overall picture of conservation in Great Britain is reflected in the fact that 45 per cent. of the total area of notified SSSIs lie there. Also some two-thirds of the total area of national nature reserves lie north of the Border. This inheritance is subject to increasing pressures for change. There are legitimate demands for the needs of housing, industry, forestry or simply space for recreation and it is impossible to stand still. The Government's aim is to seek a balance acceptable to all among these various requirements and particularly acceptable to those who live in the Scottish countryside.
660
The Nature Conservancy Council has a very important part to play in helping to create this balance. The needs of conservation must he met in ways that are compatible with wider land use interests. This can only be achieved through a conscious partnership between all those with legitimate interests in the land and a willingness to work together towards common goals. It cannot be achieved overnight. It is a long hard road and I do not shrink from saying that there have been setbacks. But I also believe that progress has been made. It is of vital importance that co-operation develops between the NCC in Scotland and farmers and crofters, underpinned by the voluntary approach of the Wildlife and Countryside Act. This means that there has to be clear understanding of local sensitivities by all concerned.
Of course feelings run high sometimes, not least when the NCC last year notified a substantial new SSSI in the Rhinns of Islay. But there arc many examples of co-operation with the farming, forestry and wildlife advisory groups commonly called FWAGS working closely with the NCC. I do not believe farmers get enough credit for the enthusiasm for conserving the countryside which they have shown. My right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture said only last week:
"They are the best carers of the countryside we have".
I draw your Lordships' attention to the NCC's recent book entitled The Nature of the Land which illustrates well the range and beauty of our national nature reserves and their importance to Scotland's heritage.
A sensible balance between conservation and other land uses will stand us in good stead to develop the policies and to exploit opportunities presented by the need to reduce farm surpluses. I note with pleasure in the 13th report, which we are discussing, the importance attached to the environmentally sensitive areas which have been designated, and that they are described as of long-term significance. I too believe that. In addition to the two Scottish areas which have already been designated in Breadalbane and Loch Lomondside, extensive consultations are now taking place on the details of three new areas which are to be established, and these will be introduced as soon as possible. The NCC has also put forward some interesting arguments for maximising the benefits of set-aside for conservation, and the agricultural departments are examining them very closely.
I turn now to the forestry industry. It is an industry which is of particular importance to Scotland with nearly 90 per cent of new afforestation currently taking place there. As your Lordships will know, a Bill has been introduced to bring in a farm woodland scheme later this year, with a proper emphasis on broadleaves. This will add a new and welcome dimension to forestry. We shall strive to ensure that its operation will not become too much of an administrative burden and that we should see more planting under this scheme down the hill.
The Forestry Commission has a statutory duty to seek to achieve a reasonable balance between the needs of forestry and conservation. It has added to its environmental expertise in recent years and I myself have seen the work of the wildlife and conservation officers supported by an in-house research branch

661
and the employment of Dr. Morton Boyd, who is a former NCC director in Scotland, as an independent conservation consultant.
I hope that the work within the Forestry Commission in this area will get the publicity it deserves in future. I believe that today's foresters are now realising the importance of providing for the needs of conservation. The Forestry Commission has signed a declaration of intent with the NCC to protect wildlife on 344 SSSIs on commission land. But that all must take place against a background of understanding between foresters and conservationists who must acknowledge the legitimate needs and aspirations of each other.
The issue of balance is at the heart of the debate which has been taking place over recent months about the future of afforestation in the peatlands of Caithness and Sutherland, described in the report as the most important conservation issue of the last 30 years. It give me great satisfaction that the chairman of the NCC welcomed the Government Statement last month which pointed the way forward to a balanced solution in those counties. We agree that much of the two counties' areas are of national and international importance for conservation, and we believe that a very substantial area of peatland should he safeguarded as sites of special scientific interest. We envisage the area to be safeguarded in this way to be of the order of 180,000 hectares, or, in terms more familiar to your Lordships, ½ million acres. It would represent an additional 135,000 hectares of peatlands safeguarded for conservation. This is in addition to the 45,000 hectares already designated.
It may be helpful to your Lordships if 1 attempt to clear up a misunderstanding which has emerged about the implication of the Statement of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State concerning the future scale of forestry development in the area. I emphasise that that could amount in future to a further 40,000 hectares or about 100,000 acres—a far cry from the 500,000 acres reported in some quarters.
I emphasise to the House that the Statement of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland says that there would be protection for the most important bog systems and bird habitats, especially on the wet flows. I hope that that gives comfort to my noble friend Lord Cranbrook. Many noble Lords may have seen recently an Anglia Television"Survival" special programme on the flow country in which Dr. David Bellamy gave a vivid account of his perception of what the flow country holds for conservationists. I have no comment to make on the content of the programme. I take some exception to the postscript to the programme which suggested that the Government Statement on 25th January did not significantly affect the matters covered in the programme. I do not believe that anyone who has read my right honourable friend's Statement could believe that to be the case.
My right honourable friend's remarks, which I have just referred to, made clear the Government's view that the areas of prime conservation significance should indeed he protected from further afforestation. I congratulate the working party set up by the Highland Regional Council which is preparing
662
a land use strategy for the area concerned and thank the members for their work. They have undertaken exhaustive consultations and I think it is important that we should have the benefits of their findings before we determine our final approach to the problem. I understand that the report should be ready in April. I also think that we shall have a definition from the working party of what the flow country actually is.
I was very pleased, when I visited the Highlands and Islands Development Board, the Crofters Commission and the Highland Regional Council on 25th January in Inverness, that they also gave a warm welcome to the Statement. But with my special responsibility for the Highlands and Islands I urge your Lordships to realise the sensitive nature of the problem.
It is important to realise that Caithness and Sutherland's area is 28,000 hectares larger than Bedfordshire, Buckinghamshire, Hertfordshire and Oxfordshire put together, but with a quarter of the population of Milton Keynes. Those who live in that area all the year round appreciate only too well the importance of getting a satisfactory outcome for the local economy in this debate. The expression "Fragile—handle with care" must be attributed to this matter, just as it is to posting a valuable parcel.
The ecology of the area is fragile but so is the economy of the area, and that is acknowledged by the Government's welcome for the HIDB special development progamme for North-West Sutherland. Everyone must work with the grain in this matter. We must proceed by discussion and negotiation rather than by confrontation or conflict. Surely quiet, calm deliberation which will disentangle every knot is the right approach. That is the right approach in Caithness and Sutherland and I suggest that it is perhaps the right approach throughout the country.
3.25 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, this is an important occasion not only because this is the 13th report of the Nature Conservancy Council but also because it is the first report to be debated in this way in your Lordships' House. We are grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, for drawing the matter to our attention. We also look forward to the contributions of many well-informed Members of your Lordships' House, and we look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Earl, Lord Granville.
The occasion is also important in that perhaps this time and these few years signify the most important changes that are likely to take place in our countryside for many years. We have, for the first time for many years, real pressure for the reduction of agricultural output and the reduction of agricultural land. That pressure, coming from our own economic thinking as well as that of the European Community, gives rise to new conservation opportunities of which the Nature Conservancy Council is well aware and which it highlights in a number of places in its report. Those conservation opportunities deserve the most detailed attention from your Lordships.
In his opening speech the noble Earl made reference to a number of particular aspects of the

663
Nature Conservancy Council's work. He did so with admirable clarity. I shall not cover that ground again except where it seems necessary to ask the Government questions about their intentions as regards the work of the council.
The noble Earl first referred to the national nature reserves. He gave vivid examples of the value of those reserves and in particular the value of the 55 reserves which are actually owned by the Nature Conservancy Council. As many noble Lords will know, there has been a great deal of talk about privatisation of some of those national nature reserves. I think that it is appropriate to ask the Government their intentions in this respect. If, as the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, is suggesting, there is particular value in ownership of national nature reserves by the NCC, are the Government prepared to resist any pressure that there may be towards privatisation of the reserves?
The noble Earl devoted a considerable part of his speech—and justifiably so—to the sites of special scientific interest. Indeed the council must be congratulated on the rate of renotification that they have achieved, with 80 per cent. of sites renotified and 50 per cent. of new sites now notified. They are working towards a total 6,000 sites covering 8 per cent. of the land mass of the country, which is a very substantial amount of conservation.
However, at the same time the report gives evidence of difficulties in the notification process—both legal difficulties arising from the need for very great precision in notification to owners and occupiers and also procedural difficulties. I wonder whether in replying to the debate the Minister will be able to give any assurance to the House that the department is making progress in its review of the difficulties in the notification procedure and that matters will be made easier.
The noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, also referred to the damage being caused to a number of SSSIs. Two have been lost altogether, 46 have suffered lasting damage and 228 have suffered some damage. The report draws attention to the fact that much of that damage takes place despite planning permission and is caused by statutory undertakings and by public bodies, as well as by third parties who are not the owners or occupiers and therefore cannot be pursued by the council. I ask what steps the Government are proposing to take to prevent further damage? While I am on this point I also ask them what proposals they have to increase the use of nature conservation orders under Section 29 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.
It is not just a question of damage to SSSIs; it is also a question of neglect. The report raises the issue of whether there should be a requirement for powers for remedial work to be carried out where owners and occupiers neglect the sites. It does not make very good sense to have sanctions against those who plough up a site of scientific importance when just as much damage can be caused over a period of years by those who neglect a site rather than inflicting positive damage.
I turn next to landscape conservation orders. In this area the report refers to major weaknesses in the draft orders which have now been published for consultation. I think that there is widespread concern
664
among those interested in conservation about the weaknesses in those orders, which apply only to parts of national parks and not to all of national parks, and still less to areas outside national parks to which many people feel that they should apply. Of course there is a fundamental difficulty of funds for landscape conservation orders, and the quite extraordinary exclusion from the draft orders of forestry operations—a matter to which I shall return in a minute. I must ask the Government what their future intentions are with regard to landscape conservation orders. I hope that they will be able to give an assurance that they will be tightened up and made more effective.
All those issues give rise to the question of land ownership and purchase by the council. It is evident from many parts of the report that land which is owned by the council is more effectively protected than land which is leased or even controlled under NRAs.
There ought to be scope for some halfway house which would provide a high degree of protection. I wonder whether the Government will be able to give any consideration to the question, for example, of matching grant with suitable protective conditions on private purchases of land which is worthy of conservation.
Finally, before I come to the forestry issue to which the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, referred, I want to say something briefly about international obligations. The report goes into some detail about seeking to abide by this country's international obligations and that is worthy of congratulation. But the Government are falling behind in the way in which they are giving decisions on some of the outstanding orders which have been sought by the council. The application on the Wash area is more than four years overdue, and the applications on the Stour and the Orwell and the Mersey areas are substantially overdue. The result is that less than 20 per cent. of the sites which have been identified have been protected under our international obligations. I hope that the Government will be able to give us some indication that this will be speeded up.
Now I come to the contentious issue of forestry which has been given a great deal of public airing in recent weeks and months. The atmosphere hotted up when we found not only the Observer colour magazine devoting considerable space to it, but even today's Private Eye referring to it on a number of occasions.
We must first remind ourselves that we are talking about the Nature Conservancy Council report and not about the general issue of forestry and we must restrict our comments to that report. As the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, reminded us, the Nature Conservancy Council is consulted only about those forestry areas which are sites of special scientific interest and national nature reserves. He reminded us that some 300 of the SSSIs are on Forestry Commission land. The noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, reminded us that it is not just the sites which are afforested but also all the surrounding areas which are critical to the ecology of the terrain. You cannot isolate a pool area in the flow country which is

665
surrounded by forestry and expect it to survive in its original condition. I should remind the Government also that in Scotland the Countryside Commission for Scotland is consulted only on national scenic areas, and that is quite a severe restriction.
Both the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, and the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, have referred to the flow country where there are a number of sites of special scientific interest which merit a special section in the commission's report and also in its chairman's introduction to that report. First, it is important to have the numbers clear. The noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, has assured us that there will be 180,000 hectares of land in the flow country protected by SSSIs. As he reminds us, that is an increase of 135,000 hectares over the existing provisions. However we are talking of an area of 400,000 hectares of peat land and an area where 80,000 hectares have already been afforested and 67,000 of those hectares are already on peat land.
The conclusion which the Nature Conservancy Council draws from that is that:
"Sufficient planting has now taken place and operations should now cease".
That does not square with the statement by the Secretary of State for Scotland that 40,000 hectares are to be authorised or have been authorised— I am not sure which—for additional afforestation over the next 20 years. That runs directly counter to the views of the Nature Conservancy Council. The Government must make some more positive response than they have made so far to that contradiction because, as Bruce Sanderson said in the Scotsman, the afforestation of the flow country of Caithness and Sutherland is,
"one of the great acts of vandalism of the late 20th century".
Anyone who has read the pile of reports produced on this subject or who has studied the scientific evidence made available about the bird population of those areas and the degree to which the natural habitat has been destroyed by forestry will realise that something very bad has already occurred and that every effort must be made to ensure that such damage does not continue. We must tackle what is a very serious problem, principally and most evidently in Caithness and Sutherland but also in other parts of Scotland and to some extent in this country.
What is the solution? I suggest that the answer must lie in a combination of the stick and the carrot. The first thing that must be done—and I say this firmly as Labour Party policy—is that the absurd and grotesque, though accidental, tax reliefs for private forestry which have grown up must be abolished. It is absurd that taxpayers should spend £30 million a year—the figure was £10 million a year in 1980, so it is more like £30 million now—on private investment in forestry. It should be remembered that 90 per cent. of the afforestation in the flow country of Scotland is undertaken by private forestry.
It is not acceptable that this Government which abolished investment subsidies for industry many years ago should retain them for forestry. The idea is absurd that investors should have a choice between
666
Schedules B and D—Schedule D being more suitable for rich investors who have no interest or locus in forestry and Schedule B more suitable for those who want to achieve disposal without tax disadvantage. It is not acceptable that that choice should continue. Indeed matters are worse because, through the careful use of trusts, some people manage to have the best of both worlds. They start with Schedule B and land up on Schedule D.
There are also concessions on capital gains tax, inheritance tax and VAT, which I shall not go into at the moment. The result of all those concessions is, as my noble friend Lady White said in June 1986, that most forestry is a tax investment and not a tree investment. That is not acceptable and the Labour Party is committed to the abolition of those concessions.
However, it is not just a matter of tax relief. We shall withdraw Schedule D and outlaw the switched schedule schemes that are possible. We shall make sure that Schedule D is retained for replanting rather than in order to make windfall profits. Yet that is not the only reason for our dissatisfaction with the situation in which we find ourselves. The fact of the matter is that, through a combination of the environmental damage caused by afforestation and the cost to the taxpayer of the tax concessions which make it possible, we find ourselves in a situation in which every economic and environmental interest of this country works for something different.
The European Economic Community is encouraging us to take 500,000 hectares of land out of farming use over the next five years. The Ministry of Agriculture does not for one moment think that that is achievable. I think that it does not really want to believe that it is achievable. While that is happening any token compliance with the European Community objectives by the Government is on the whole for upland farming and marginal livestock rearing rather than for arable farming. All our perceptions of the situation indicate that a stronger effort must be made to convert arable land to forestry in so far as we need forestry; in other words, in the phrase of the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, "to bring forestry down the There is the possibility of EC subsidies for that purpose.
There is the evident necessity to deal with agricultural surpluses in this country as well as in the whole of Europe; there is the environmental damage of forestry policies as they are already being carried out; and there is the cost to the taxpayers of forestry policies as they are implemented. We hope to have from the Government today an indication that all those problems together expose the need for a radical change of heart in respect of their forestry policy.
The NCC is important not only for those who are professionally involved with the countryside. A very large number of people visit nature reserves. Indeed, nearly all the population of this country pay visits to the countryside. On behalf of the people, the Nature Conservancy Council deserves the thanks of us all for its efforts to date as indicated in this report; and it deserves the greatest support from the Government for its objectives.

Royal Ulster Constabulary
3.45 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Lyell): My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I shall now repeat a Statement that is being made in the other place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement on matters within my area of responsibility arising from the investigations carried out by Mr. Stalker and Mr. Sampson.
"In his Statement to the House of 25th January, my right honourable and learned friend the Attorney-General said that the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland had concluded that, having considered all the facts and information ascertained and reported by Mr. Stalker and Mr. Sampson, and having re-examined the original Royal Ulster Constabulary investigation files, the evidence did not warrant any further prosecutions in the two incidents in which charges of murder have already been brought, nor in the third incident at Ballynerry. He did, however, conclude that there was evidence of the commission of offences relating to perverting the course of justice but had further concluded, on grounds of public interest, that it would not be proper to institute any criminal proceedings.
"The question of further action therefore falls to be considered in the context of the question of disciplinary proceedings.
"The Director of Public Prosecutions has advised the Chief Constable of the RUC of those offences in respect of which he concluded there was evidence. The Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary has today announced that he has invited the Chief Constable of Staffordshire, Mr. Charles Kelly, to consider whether disciplinary charges should be brought in the case of RUC officers of chief superintendent rank and below, and if so what charges would be appropriate. Mr. Kelly has appointed one of his assistant chief constables to help him in this task. The work has already started. The Chief Constable of the RUC has told me of his concern that it should be completed without delay in the interests of all concerned. The Chief Constable of the RUC has also confirmed to me that he considers that any charges brought should be heard by a chief constable of another force. I have made clear to the Chief Constable of the RUC my own concern for these disciplinary issues to be resolved as soon as possible.
"Mr. Sampson also made observations on the role played by more senior officers. The Police Authority for Northern Ireland is the discipline authority for those ranks. Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary, Sir Philip Myers, has therefore informed the chairman of the police authority of these observations and is making available relevant material for its attention. I have seen the chairman who has confirmed this position to me and that these matters will now be considered by the authority.
668
"I shall keep the House informed of further developments on these matters.
"The circumstances surrounding and following the incidents in 1982 gave rise to concern about procedures, responsibilities and control within the RUC. In the light of Mr. Stalker's interim conclusions and of Mr. Sampson's further comments upon them, a special inspection into these matters was carried out by Mr. Charles McLachlan, one of Her Majesty's Inspectors of Constabulary, and I received his report on 25th January. I am grateful to him for the most thorough manner in which he carried out his task. I have since discussed his report with the chief constable.
"I am most anxious that there should be a better public understanding of the two major issues involved. The McLachlan report deals with the procedures and practices that have been followed in police work in Northern Ireland arising out of anti-terrorist operations. The report essentially covers two areas: first, how the Special Branch, with its own crucially important and distinctive task, still remains an integral part of the overall force within the disciplines of mainstream policing. The House will be aware of the concerns expressed in 1982 that the Special Branch had become a `force within a force'. The second issue is how to ensure that, nothwithstanding security and other considerations, there is a proper procedure for the investigation of all serious incidents and that full and accurate information is given to the Director of Public Prosecutions.
"These questions go to the heart of the problems faced by a police force using the normal processes of the law while fighting a vicious and ruthless terrorist enemy. Intelligence is the lifeblood of that fight. Without it the security forces are seriously handicapped. It is vital that it is protected. Moreover, knowledge of the procedures used by Special Branch and other RUC officers will not only make their task still more difficult but will put lives at even greater risk. That is why the security forces are understandably and rightly so committed to protecting intelligence. But the lessons of these incidents show clearly that that desire must not operate outside effective accountability and control.
"On the question of a force within a force, Mr. McLachlan's report makes it clear that while the Stalker-Sampson inquiry rightly focused on the situation in 1982 and immediately thereafter, matters were substantially improved shortly afterwards. In 1983, at the request of the chief constable, a former very senior officer of the security service carried out a special review into certain aspects of Special Branch management and its relationship with the CID. His recommendations were implemented in full. The new rank of senior assistant chief constable was introduced for the RUC in 1984. Since then both the Special Branch and CID have answered to the same senior assistant chief constable, so that their work has been fully co-ordinated.
"Special Branch operations must be conducted in secrecy but they must not be carried out without

669
the knowledge of the RUC senior command. Mr. McLachlan stresses that the regional assistant chief constables are now aware of the operations of Special Branch within their respective areas and re-emphasises the importance of their continuing to monitor these. In addition he makes a number of specific recommendations designed to ensure the highest standard in the selection and training of members of Special Branch, the prevention of overspecialisation, the encouragement of cross-posting both within the RUC and with other police forces and the further integration of the branch with the other parts of the force. In putting forward these recommendations, Mr. McLachlan pays a strong tribute to the present professionalism and standards of members of Special Branch, stressing the vital part they play in combating terrorism.
"I now turn to the second major issue covered by Mr. McLachlan. This concerns the vital need that serious incidents are thoroughly investigated. At the heart of this is the point that the policies and practices of the RUC should in future reflect the paramountcy of the CID investigations, including the need for evidence to be preserved and for no obstacle to be placed in the way of questioning of suspects and witnesses.
"Mr. McLachlan considers that the combined responsibility for both CID and Special Branch makes an important contribution to the proper handling of such inquiries. In addition, he now recommends that in controversial incidents involving RUC officers, the chief constable should consider whether an experienced assistant chief constable from another force should be appointed to lead the investigation and that an experienced senior CID officer should attend any debriefing where firearms have been used by the RUC and people killed or injured. He also recommends improved arrangements at the scene of such incidents so that the forensic, pathology and photographic resources available are used to best effect.
"In addition, however, to the specific recommendations of Mr. McLachlan in this area, as my right honourable and learned friend told the House on 25th January, the Director of Public Prosecutions was intending to discuss with the Chief Constable and Deputy Chief Constable of the RUC safeguards to ensure that in the future facts and information given to the director are in all respects full and accurate, whether or not any security interest is involved. The House will recognise that this is precisely the issue which I identified earlier and which has to be addressed. I can inform the House that a first meeting has already been held and that these discussions are now proceeding.
"The House will note therefore the steps that have been taken and are now in progress to address these difficult issues. The chief constable has implemented in full the recommendations of the special review in 1983; further changes have been made subsequently, including in particular the control of both CID and Special Branch under a single senior officer; and the chief constable is now
670
in discussion with the DPP on the necessary safeguards for full and accurate disclosures to the director. I can also tell the House that the chief constable has confirmed to me that he has accepted in principle all the recommendations of Mr. McLachlan.
"There is one further particular aspect that I should mention. Shortly before one of the incidents in 1982, two RUC officers were given approval to cross the border into the Republic of Ireland. At the meeting of the Anglo-Irish Conference yesterday, I advised Irish Ministers of the full circumstances of the officers' presence in the Republic. I emphasised that the two officers who made the crossings were in plain clothes, were unarmed and were in an unmarked car without radio. As the chief constable said in the statement which he issued on 7th April 1984, the crossings were made,
'for observation purposes only. There was no preplanned incursion nor is there any deliberate or authorised system of incursion'.
Nevertheless, it is fully accepted that it was wrong and regrettable that two RUC officers were permitted to enter the territory of the Republic unannounced as part of an ongoing operation. It is the Government's intention that this should not happen again and the chief constable for his part has undertaken to ensure that it does not; nor has it occurred since.
"These incidents of 1982 and the subsequent events illustrate sharply the acutely difficult problems faced by a parliamentary democracy and the police service in combating the evil of terrorism. These incidents, in which six lives were lost and in which one person was seriously wounded, have already led to four policemen being prosecuted for murder, two more senior officers suspended and the shadow of innuendo cast more widely over the RUC. Undoubtedly serious mistakes were made which have damaged the reputation of the RUC. This is a particular tragedy for a police force of the courage and professionalism of the RUC today, who have given ample recent evidence of their commitment to protecting the whole community from violence from whatever extreme it may come and who fully deserve the tributes that Mr. Stalker, Mr. Sampson and Mr. McLachlan all pay to them. We owe it to them and to the whole community in Northern Ireland to ensure that these matters that I have described to the House are dealt with promptly and correctly, that the wider lessons have been fully learnt and that the necessary changes are effective to ensure that such problems can never happen again."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made by his right honourable friend in another place. It is a sad Statement which we have heard. While, clearly, we welcome the Statement so far as it goes, we fear that it will not make a substantial contribution towards fostering a climate of confidence among the Catholic community in Northern Ireland in the RUC or in the rule of law or in the Anglo-Irish Conference.

671
It would be helpful if the Minister could clarify, or elaborate on, three or four points in his Statement. First, will he confirm that Mr. Kelly will investigate the conduct of the 11 officers who, in the unqualified opinion of Mr. John Stalker, should have been prosecuted for a variety of serious criminal offences, including conspiracy to pervert the course of justice? These are set out on page 254 of Mr. Stalker's book.
Will the Minister also confirm that Mr. Kelly will have effective and extensive powers, which were not available to Mr. Stalker, that will enable him to demand whatever evidence he considers to be necessary to get at the truth? We should like his investigation to be thorough. For example, can he demand the production of the MI.5 tape which recorded the events in the hay shed? Can the chief constable, who is still in position, block any demand by the investigating officer for evidence? I should like to press the Minister for a specific "yes" or "no" answer to that question.
Secondly, will the Minister confirm that the police authority for Northern Ireland has agreed that it will investigate the alleged conduct of the senior officers? It is not clear from the Statement whether this is a matter which is still being discussed or whether the police authority has now agreed that it will investigate the conduct of the senior officers with a view to deciding whether or not disciplinary proceedings can be taken against them. The alleged conduct of some very senior officers is referred to on page 257 of Mr. Stalker's book, where they are referred to as, "very senior officers who have certain accusations to answer".
Thirdly, will the Minister confirm that all the recommendations in Mr. McLachlan's report in relation to the Special Branch and the investigation of serious incidents, have been accepted by the RUC? If they have been accepted, when are the new safeguards likely to be in position? Who will monitor that the new procedures are being observed? Is this something that is to be left to the RUC or will the monitoring be by an external body such as the Inspectorate of Constabulary?
We believe that the implementation of Mr. McLachlan's proposals is important. If they are effectively implemented, that should go some way to ensure that the brutal conduct which occurred in Armagh in the winter of 1982 and its consequences will not be repeated.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, I should like to follow very much on the lines of the last speaker. First of all, I thank the noble Lord for giving us this long, elaborate and rather difficult Statement, which we have had 10 minutes to a quarter of an hour to consider. It would be very wrong to say too much about it at this stage. It is a most delicate and difficult situation. I shall be extremely careful not to say anything which will make matters worse, which would be extremely easy to do.
However, I agree with my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies that the Statement does not take us very much further except to tell us that still more inquiries are being made. The Chief Constable of Staffordshire is heading one inquiry; the Police Authority is
672
considering other facts and Mr. Charles McLachlan has carried out another inquiry, which we have not seen.
What we should like to know is this. Firstly, who was responsible for taking Mr. Stalker off his inquiry and why? No satisfactory answer to the whole of this complicated question can be made until we know that. Secondly, the report says that there have been worries that the Special Branch is becoming a force within a force. Are we to understand that the offences relating to perverting the course of justice were committed by the Special Branch officers? I suppose that we must assume that, but we have never been told so. I am unable to understand how there can be any hesitation or delay in punishing such offences even if it is done in secrecy, when at least we can be told that punishment has taken place. I can quite see that there may be security reasons for not mentioning names. However, it is a long time ago since this deliberate and admitted perversion of the course of justice occurred, and there has been nothing more than a lot of talk.
We respect the difficulties of the RUC in this and we do not want to hinder their fight. Every officer in the RUC or in the Special Branch, which works with them and is really a part of them, is expecting to be shot at and is perfectly prepared to be killed. A very large number of them have been killed. In circumstances of this kind, mistakes will be made. I should be very keen to reduce any crime of murder to the lowest number of cases I possibly could, knowing the provocation that these men are under and the difficulty of dealing in emergency with people who are trying to shoot you. But, surely, when there is an admitted offence of perversion of the course of justice, it should not take six years to tell us that this has been dealt with. I feel that until that is done, we shall not be very satisfied.
We are told in the Statement—and I believe it with satisfaction—that since 1982 alterations and improvements with regard to co-ordination and secrecy of information have taken place within the RUC. I am delighted to hear that. I think it is very important that it should be done, and if this sad series of events produces nothing else, it will produce that. I hope also that the most important thing of all for the RUC—the recruitment of individuals from the minority—can be resumed. I should like to know whether there is any sign of improvement there. I am afraid the position is probably very bad.
Having said that, I think we all need time to reflect on the Statement and to hear what the noble Lord will tell us before we come to any conclusion except that we are not satisfied yet.
Lord Lyell: Perhaps I may briefly reply to those of your Lordships who have spoken. I am very grateful for the welcome given to the length of the Statement. I make no apology for that, since your Lordships agree that this is a particularly tricky and difficult matter.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, directed the main thrust of his questions to the appointment of Mr. Kelly. I am sure that the noble Lord and the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, will agree that I cannot today elaborate at all on what will be the parameters

673
of Mr. Kelly's inquiry. That will be entirely a matter for Mr. Kelly and for the chief constable. The Government are quite satisfied that Mr. Kelly will have all the powers available to him to carry out such investigations as he wishes to make. The chief constable will be able to furnish Mr. Kelly with all the powers that Mr. Kelly may require in the course of his investigations, as I understand it.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, also asked about the police authority for Northern Ireland receiving information. I reiterate the point made in the Statement that Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary, Sir Philip Myers had informed the chairman of the police authority of his observations and was making available relevant material for their attention. I am quite sure the noble Lord will agree that certainly it is not any part of my brief this afternoon to speculate on what action the police authority would want to take. They will make up their own mind. However, I do confirm that observations and information have been sent to the police authority.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, also asked about Mr. McLachlan's report. I hesitate to interrupt the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, in his brief communication but I should like to stress that the Chief Constable of the RUC has confirmed to my right honourable friend that he has accepted in principle all the recommendations made by Mr. McLachlan. I hope that that sets the noble Lord's mind at rest.
I should like to turn to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson. Mr. Stalker's departure from the inquiry is a matter for the Greater Manchester Police Authority. It is no part of the duties of my right honourable friend, nor is it his responsibility, because the noble Lord will know that the inquiry carried out by Mr. Stalker was set up by the Greater Manchester Police Authority, which appointed him.
The noble Lord referred to a force within a force. Any offences carried out by members of the RUC in the course of the three events in 1982 were covered more than adequately by my right honourable and learned friend in another place and in the Statement which was repeated in this House by my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack. The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, will find that Statement in the Official Report of your Lordships' House. I stated:
"In consequence of this on 11th April 1984 the director"—
the Director of Public Prosecutions—
"formally exercised his statutory power to request the chief constable to ascertain and furnish to him full information with regard to the circumstances in which false or misleading evidence was provided by any member or members of the RUC.".—[Official Report, 25/1/88, col. 424.]
That is as much of the Statement as I wish to quote this afternoon, but I believe that it will answer the questions raised by the noble Lord. I am sure that Mr. Kelly will make all the inquiries that he considers necessary to carry out his duties.
As regards the noble Lord's question about mistakes, I point out that in the concluding paragraph of the Statement it is admitted that mistakes have been made. We recognise that and think that we are well on the way to curing many of
674
the mistakes. We have given an undertaking that as far as humanly possible such mistakes will not be made again. As regards perversion of the course of justice, I believe that the passage that I have just quoted covers that matter.
We are all grateful to the noble Lord for his kind words about the Royal Ulster Constabulary. I do not have the information about recruitment this afternoon but I shall write to him on that subject.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, as one who has been involved in writing a report about the police forces in Northern Ireland, I ask the noble Lord to assure the House that the implications of the Statement, which are clearly confined within narrow parameters, will not be allowed to reflect adversely on the high reputation of the RUC as a whole.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I am quite sure that the reputation of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, which I stressed in my opening remarks, was praised by Mr. Stalker, Mr. Sampson and Mr. McLachlan. All those officers praised the professionalism, integrity, commitment and above all courage of each and every present and past member of the RUC. The noble Lord's words will be gratefully received by all members of the constabulary in Northern Ireland.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, I have not had the benefit of seeing the written Statement and it will take some time to study all the details. I realise that it is meant to be ameliorative; to pour oil on troubled waters in Ireland. I do not think that it will have that effect because nationalist Ireland, north and south of the border, will be satisfied only if 11 RUC men are brought before the court, convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment. In Ireland it is as black and white as that.
I realise and accept that unfortunately Mr. Stalker was badly treated by certain sections of those in authority. However, in carrying out his investigations he seemed to rely upon opinions that were hostile to the RUC from the outset. On pages 45 to 50 of his book he states that he felt it important to talk to those communities who were hostile to the RUC. I should have thought that he would have considered it equally important to talk to some members of the community who were in support of the RUC.
On page 46 of his book he mentions that he was shown around Armagh and around certain homes under the supervision of a neutral Irish priest, Father Raymond Murray. I am quite certain that Father Murray would let it be known that he has never been neutral in the conflicts in Northern Ireland. He is one of the most pro-Republican, anti-British priests that ever donned a clerical uniform in Ireland. He has attended the funerals of many IRA men and yet he is taken by Mr. Stalker to be neutral. If Father Murray is neutral, I fail to understand what one would recognise to be a bigot in both a political and nationalistic sense.
The Stalker affair has undoubtedly caused great differences of opinion in Ireland. I listened to the answers given this afternoon. I believe that it should

675
be stated once and for all who was responsible for dismissing Mr. Stalker from the inquiry that he was holding into the RUC. Let us not forget in all the furore that exists throughout Ireland that the clear perception now is that Mr. Stalker was on the nationalist side and Mr. Stalker was on the Republican side. There are sides in Ireland and one is on either one or the other. Why was it that Mr. Stalker received an absolute folk hero's welcome on the streets of Dublin last weekend? It was because he was perceived to be on their side and against the other side. That is not the best position for anyone who is carrying out an impartial assessment of the role and activities of the RUC.
Throughout his book Mr. Stalker constantly refers to a certain attitude and demeanour of RUC officers which he failed to detect (or would not understand) or which would not be tolerated in any other police force in the United Kingdom. He is quite right in making that assessment but the other police forces in the United Kingdom have not suffered the murder of 250 of their men by terrorists in Northern Ireland and the injury of hundreds if not thousands more. Northern Ireland is not an impartial place. In Northern Ireland there are two tribal communities and I believe that it behoves everyone looking into the political, religious and community tensions which exist at least to show impartiality.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, the noble Lord, whose courage we all admire, has made his usual forthright comments this afternoon. I shall not comment upon the information contained in Mr. Stalker's book but I can confirm to him that Mr. Kelly will carry out his inquiry as he sees fit. Any questions of discipline or any problems found by Mr. Kelly will be resolved by him in his own time under the terms of his report and no doubt in discussions with the Chief Constable of the RUC.
The noble Lord mentioned a number of senior officers. Many figures have been bandied around, but I think that he will agree that it is not too helpful to mention figures with the classification of senior officers. Many people in Northern Ireland, not all of whom have the well-being of members of the RUC at heart, will be able to make certain deductions. That is why your Lordships will agree that Mr. Kelly should carry out his investigation into any matters that are still carried over from the events of 1982.
I stress again that the disciplinary proceedings which affected Mr. Stalker are nothing to do with the Statement that I made this afternoon. I stress to the noble Lord that Mr. Sampson arrived to lead the inquiry in place of Mr. Stalker and Mr. Sampson completed his inquiry with the same team as Mr. Stalker. I believe that that may put some of the problems in the mind of the noble Lord at rest.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, in view of what the the noble Lord has just said, if it is decided by the police complaints authority that it will investigate the conduct of very senior officers, will Mr. Kelly have the authority to investigate their conduct? Does he have the status to investigate their conduct or should that be entrusted to a judicial figure of the highest standing and authority?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, as I understand it, Mr. Kelly will investigate the conduct of any officers of chief superintendent rank and below. By statute any officer in the Royal Ulster Constabulary senior to that rank has his conduct investigated by the Police Authority for Northern Ireland. However, I stress in my opening Statement that Mr. Kelly will be investigating certain matters but he is entitled to investigate the conduct of officers of chief superintendent rank and below. Above that rank the officer's conduct is examined by the Police Authority for Northern Ireland.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, do I understand the Minister to say that Mr. Stalker was withdrawn from the inquiry solely at the request of the Manchester Police Authority?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, that is as I understand the matter but Mr. Stalker's departure from the inquiry is not part of my Statement this afternoon.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, if it becomes necessary, who will conduct the inquiry on behalf of the police authority? Will it be somebody in the police authority or will it have power to call in some high judicial figure to assist in this desperately unhappy matter?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I understand that the police authority has its own methods of carrying out its inquiries and investigations. Whether it is able to co-opt such a figure as envisaged by the noble and learned Lord I am not able to answer this afternoon. However, I understand that the police authority has its own machinery for conducting its inquiries and for laying out its recommendations as to any disciplinary proceedings which might result from its inquiries.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, perhaps further consideration could be given to that very matter.
Lord Lyell: Surely, my Lords.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I should like very briefly to follow a suggestion indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge. A number of police officers both in Britain and Northern Ireland have been prosecuted either for murder or for manslaughter and have nearly all been acquitted. Will the Government consider creating a lesser charge which could be available; for example, using excessive or inappropriate force in a given circumstance? I understand that there is a precedent in Australian law. I do not expect a full reply now but if the Government could consider that matter it would be very helpful.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I shall certainly take note of the point raised by the noble Lord. Indeed, he will not be surprised that it was mentioned to me earlier by one of my noble friends who had been interested in such matters. However, I undertake to see whether there is an answer and perhaps I may write briefly to the noble Lord.

Nature Conservancy Council
4.25 p.m.
Debate resumed.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, we on these Benches are grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, for drawing our attention to the report. It is an important report, it is delivered as the European Year of the Environment is drawing to its close and at a time when public concern and interest in environmental protection and in the whole area of wildlife continues to grow.
As the report says, the NCC's responsibilities are diverse. But with so many of your Lordships speaking, it is virtually certain that all or nearly all of the subjects raised in this report will receive the expert attention of one or other of your Lordships. I personally intend to exercise severe self-restraint by dealing with one single matter.
I was very tempted to raise the subject of the continuing development of skiing in Scotland and I hoped that the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson of Bowden, would have had a word to say about that. I should have liked to have said something about the extremely slow designation of marine nature reserves. Indeed the noble Earl has already drawn our attention to the fact that as yet only one has been designated in the course of seven years. However, I shall not deal with those subjects. I propose to speak about environmentally sensitive areas—ESA's.
As the chairman says in his review at page seven, the designation of ESA's is potentially of great long-term significance. I stress the word "potentially". It is good to learn on page seven that the NCC has allocated additional resources for the ESAs and is giving more time to its ESA project officers.
It is worth reminding your Lordships of the pioneering project as regards the Broads grazing marshes scheme and the Peak National Park—an integrated rural development project—both of which can be said to have been forerunners of ESAs on our own native soil. I should like to pay a tribute to the Ministers of Agriculture at the time and, indeed, to Mr. William Waldegrave, who receives a well deserved tribute in this report, for getting the ESAs off to such a good start. I am delighted that the Government should have decided not to await further experience with the pilot ESAs before making further designations.
However, when it comes to dispensing credit—and here I am very happy to follow the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson of Bowden—it is above all to the farmers in the areas so designated that credit is due for their readiness to co-operate. It was natural that there should be a certain number of reservations and doubts in the minds of some of them. A friend of mine who farms in the uplands on the Welsh Border in my own parish of Llanfairwaterdine has wondered whether it may become the "thin end of the wedge". That is the first stage in a more rigorous and demanding list of conditions in tier two of the agreement. I sympathise with that concern. I hope that in the event there will no cause for it. Tier two asks a great deal of people whose traditional livelihood will be or is likely to be adversely affected by the EC legislation.
678
Given the example which has been set by my friend and others like him—participation, to the tune of some 90 per cent. of the 400 farms in "the Shropshire borders" ESA; and hopefully 70 per cent. participation in tier two—the prospects are promising in that particular ESA. In another sense I personally hope that the potential referred to by the chairman of the NCC will be realised and that the ESAs will increase in number and be expanded in size to include the balance of the original list proposed jointly by the NCC and the Countryside Commission. I further hope that the ESA status will eventually be accorded to national parks and AONBs—areas of outstanding natural beauty. At present, ESAs are relatively small areas within or outwith those designations. Therefore, when the Minister replies perhaps he will say something on the matter of increasing and expanding ESAs.
We surely want to avoid a situation whereby one ESA such as the Shropshire borders, consisting of 21,000 hectares, is improved in the real terms of its environmental values, its wildlife habitats and archaeological sites while adjacent upland areas to the north and south along the Welsh border are improved in an agricultural sense but lose out environmentally, their heather and rough grazing ploughed and re-seeded, their hedges and single trees uprooted, wire proliferating and new farm buildings springing up while older traditional buildings fall into disrepair.
The chairman makes two points in the first paragraph of the review which are of special relevance to the success of ESAs. He calls for forestry policies more sensitive to major conservation and points to the need for co-operation by all concerned in seeking solutions to the problems arising from nature conservation. The Countryside Commission also expressed concern in its policy document Forestry and the countryside, published in December 1987, that forestry in the designated areas,
"should not detract from their natural beauty".
In an earlier policy paper, A better future for the uplands, published in March 1984, the commission pressed for forestry to be subject to planning controls above a proposed 50 hectares.
I am particularly concerned about the bearing of that sentiment and that statement of policy on the ESAs. I am concerned because of the small size of the ESAs. In the Shropshire borders ESA agreement, there is no mention of not planting conifers as an alternative crop. It may well be implicit in the undertaking to maintain the status quo. The existing woodlands are excluded from the ESAs as such. New planting will depend on the attitude of the Forestry Commission and ADAS, the Agricultural Development Advisory Service.
I believe it should be made explicit that there should be no conifer planting. As everyone who knows the Welsh border country is aware, it is an area where the linear regiments of dark conifers march up and down and across the shapely hills and tend to dominate the landscape. We cannot afford to have more of them. Meanwhile, short of planning controls, is it not desirable to enlist the co-operation of the Forestry Commission in the ESAs to landscape the existing conifer plantations with fringes of local

679
broadleaved trees such as oak and beech in which local wildlife such as the buzzard, the raven and the pied flycatcher can survive? When the Minister replies perhaps he can say something about forestry in the ESAs.
I turn to the second point made by Mr. Wilkinson in his review Working together. It is referred to at page 64 of the report. An excellent example is given, at page 8, of Coed Cymru, a joint project involving the Nature Conservancy Council and other agencies to save the ancient woodlands of the Principality. This kind of co-operation is, or should be, the keynote to conservation in all its aspects—landscape, archaeology, other scientific interests and forestry.
If I have any criticism of the report, it concerns the very scant reference—appearing only in the context of research at page 35 and, in the Coed Cymru project, at page 8—to the Countryside Commission. The commission is the counterpart of the NCC. It is its partner in regard to the ESAs. Its responsibilities lie in the wider conservation of the countryside within which the particular interests of the NCC are located. Many species of wildlife depend upon that wider catchment area for their survival. Perhaps the Minister can assure the House that these two statutory bodies are in all respects working closely together.
4.35 p.m.
Lord Moran: My Lords, we must all be grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, for initiating this debate. He speaks with great authority on these matters. I am one of those privileged to sit under his chairmanship on the Environment Sub-Committee.
This is the first time that the Nature Conservancy Council has been debated in the House since it was set up in 1973. I think that we should debate it more often. Before the debate I reread not only the 13th report but also the NCC book "Nature Conservation in Great Britain", which came out in 1984. It seemed to me an admirable survey. I commend it to noble Lords who are not familiar with it. It struck me on reading it that there was a paradox in that in the last 40 years, since the second world war, there has been an immense growth in concern throughout the country about conservation. Half a million people now belong to the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, for example. But, in the same 40 years, immense damage has been done to very many habitats in the country—marshes, chalk downs, hedges, ancient woodlands, hay meadows. All is documented thoroughly in the NCC's book.
I remember when I was a boy seeing birds like quail and water rails in Wiltshire, which I do not think one would see now. There has been an enormous decline in the number of butterflies. Even once common birds like partridges and snipe are now much scarcer. The important thing now is surely to ensure that in the next 40 years we do not continue that process but halt and reverse it.
In that, I believe that the Nature Conservancy Council must be in the lead. It is doing a very important job at present under its distinguished chairman, Mr. Wilkinson. It has notable and distinguished members on its council—people like Sir
680
Andrew Huxley and the noble Lord, Lord Middleton. I think that most noble Lords will warmly applaud the work that it has done.
I wonder whether the time has come when that work should be extended to the whole of the United Kingdom. It seems odd that it is restricted simply to Great Britain. Once again we have left out Northern Ireland. This may be a point about which the noble Lord, Lord Blease, will say something later. I think that it should cover all the United Kingdom.
I have one other small criticism. I note that only 5·5 per cent. of the total budget of the Nature Conservancy Council is spent on the wider countryside, which of course is by far the greatest part of the land area of the country, especially now that the process of renotifying SSSIs is beginning to come to an end. It would be a good thing if in future the NCC could spend rather more on the wider countryside.
I have a further small criticism. There have been some instances in the past when the Nature Conservancy Council has, I think, been a little insensitive in dealing with matters of field sports. After all, field sports like fishing and shooting have contributed a great deal to conservation in the past, and most of the fox coverts and pheasant coverts in the country are havens for wildlife. I noted recently, for example, after Chimbolton Common on the Test was notified as an SSSI, that the anglers on the Test are concerned because they have no legal guarantee that they will be able to continue, or that their successors in ownership of the riparian rights will continue to be allowed to fish for trout. We must preserve the sedges and insects along the banks of the Test, but it seems reasonable that people should have a right to fish there just as people at Newmarket may train horses. I believe that the NCC should work even more closely than it does today with the many organisations, like the Freshwater Biological Association, the Anglers Co-operative Association and all the others concerned with water problems and field sports.
In its report the NCC mentioned three main areas of concern; namely, agriculture, forestry and estuaries. As regards agriculture we are clearly facing a period of great change after the rather murky compromise reached recently in Brussels. The Prime Minister seems to have set out for Brussels like St. George about to slay the dreadful dragon of the CAP. However the dreadful dragon seems to be still in very good form and liable to be with us for a considerable time.
I notice that a policy of set-aside was decided at Brussels. What seems to me to be very important is that in a period in which there are to be great changes in agricultural practice the NCC and the Countryside Commission should be very fully consulted and should play a leading part in ensuring that these changes are beneficial to wildlife.
I do not propose to say much about forestry because many of your Lordships are much more expert than I on the subject. I welcome the Chairman's remark in his report that he would,
"prefer greater incentives to encourage positive management of broadleaved woods to benefit nature conservation.

681
I believe that one of the most sensible statements I have seen recently about forestry was the letter in The Times of 5th February from Mr. Barber, the chairman of the Countryside Commission. He called for a national forestry policy to be based upon multiple objectives. That seems to me to be very important and I hope very careful note will be taken of what he said.
I am glad to see that in the Government's reply to Mr. Wilkinson which was announced by Mr. Rifkind in another place on 23rd October, the Government said that they had taken careful note of what the NCC had said concerning the need to review the present tax incentives for forestry. I believe that very many people would agree about that need.
As regards estuaries I believe the importance of our coastline and estuaries for wading birds and wildfowl can hardly be over-emphasised. They are a very important and central part of the Eastern Atlantic flyway. Birds come from Canada, Greenland, Iceland, Siberia and Scandinavia and they all come to winter in Britain or they pass through on their way south and then return.
In the past a good deal of damage has been done to our estuaries through land reclamation and the establishment of oil terminals, docks and so on. Sometimes it seems that the measures we are now proposing are almost frivolous. For example I might mention the Cardiff Bay Barrage which is proposed not for any economic benefit but simply in order that those who are to live on the reclaimed part should look out on muddy water rather than on what are now called "unsightly mud fiats". I believe we ought to take serious notice of the future of our estuaries.
Lastly there is one very small point about TBT or tributyl tin mentioned at page 53 of the report which we are considering. It is described there by the NCC as,
"the most toxic biocide ever deliberately introduced into the marine environment."
I know that it has been banned for small boats and for fish farms. I wonder whether it is safe to allow it to continue to be used by large ships until we know what effect it is having in deeper water and when these ships come into harbour. I wonder whether we ought not to conduct careful research with the NCC and the National Environmental Research Council into possible alternatives for use on large as well as small ships.
4.45 p.m.
Earl Granville: My Lords, I fear that it is far too long but I have never had the temerity to come and speak here. So I must ask for the indulgence of your Lordships for any mistakes that I am sure to make. I would not now be so bold had I not been lucky enough to have lived in North Uist for 30 years. That gave me the opportunity of meeting and getting to know the nature conservancy people. I made good friends with them and I strongly support their aims.
I shall restrict myself to our domestic concerns. Grey seals and geese have been a problem over recent years but they are both apt to be controversial subjects so I had better not refer to them and instead
682
refer to SSSIs. Between the 1940s and 1981 there were few regulations and in fact an owner or occupier of an SSSI did not necessarily know that he had one on his land. If there was a worry about birds, plants or habitat the regional officer, when asked, would come over, chat up the crofter concerned and, possibly over a dram, get an agreement to leave alone or mind that piece of land. This nearly always worked.
After 1981 the governing bodies responsible for SSSI's were equipped with the teeth they needed but there may have been a rush of teeth to the head with some assistant regional officers. A number of them had urban backgrounds and, with the law behind them, some may have become a little overenthusiastic bearing in mind that the conditions in the Western Isles are, thank heavens, very different from those in England and some parts of Scotland with very little threat from developers and the like. I have heard fairly recently of many complaints of the arrogance and high-handedness of the NCC which is in direct contrast to the feeling previously. I am sure this was due to one individual who was known to be abrasive and who did not get on with the crofters. He seemingly made little effort to do so. He has now moved and I hear that he is making his presence felt in another part of Scotland. The NCC is responsible for the officers it appoints and for their methods. I am glad to say that the present assistant regional officer covering the Uists is a charming and very helpful lady who has already done much to restore the good name of nature conservancy.
As regards the SSSIs, there are eight notified or re-notified in North Uist; two concern offshore uninhabited islands; five are what one might call blanket covers and take in over 9,500 acres out of a total of just over 105,000 acres. What is more relevant is the number of crofts affected to a greater or lesser degree, which is 250.
I do not believe that even the regional officers whom I have met can visit that number on the same basis as previously. At the moment in North Uist we have only two management agreements. One of them raises an interesting point. A crofter on Baleshare, with a blanket SSSI, had been granted an apportionment of the common grazing on condition that he drained and cultivated it. He was not allowed to do this so he negotiated his management agreement. Now he is technically in default of his agreement and should perhaps return the land and his compensation to the township. Fortunately any decision is the responsibility of the crofters' commission which seems to be keeping a low profile. This might affect other crofters when they come to negotiate a management agreement.
The other case is more local and concerns a prohibited drainage ditch. The crofter responsible for one end is enjoying his management agreement but the crofter at the other end is still waiting for his agreement after three years. One might call it an island anomaly.
There is an instance of conflict between the NCC and a fish farm about an SSSI which might be of interest to fish farmers. A fish farm supplying salmon eggs and smolts to Western Isles' on-growers had the intention to expand into Loch Obisary when the time was right. He had cages with salmon smolts there for

683
a year and a survey from the Scottish Marine Biological Association; all of this before the SSSI was designated. The Western Isles Council has laid down that fish farms have to have planning permission in which case the NCC is asked for its recommendation. When the fish farm wanted to proceed, the NCC advised against it, thereby not only preventing the fish farm from expanding its business but also debarring it from negotiating a management agreement.
As regards the SSSIs on the rest of the Eastern Isles, I have only the numbers but not the acreages involved or the crofts affected. In Lewis there are 18 SSSIs; in Harris there are eight; in North Uist, eight; in Benbecula, two; in South Uist, five; and in Barra, two. There is only one management agreement in Lewis and Harris and there are 11 in the Southern Isles. The only reaction to SSSIs that I have heard is a no doubt malicious rumour that South Uist is delighted with SSSIs which may stop their snipe bogs being drained. Such a thought would never have occurred to me.
I would urge the NCC, if it so wishes and if it can find room for more SSSIs in the Western Isles, to restrict the areas to specifics and to maintain a personal approach with or without the drams.
4.51 p.m.
Lord Blease: My Lords, it is a privilege for me to follow the noble Earl after his excellent maiden speech—excellent in its content, thoughtfulness and caring, in presenting the down-to-earth issues of nature conservation and in its quiet manner of presentation. I suppose that it is what we should have expected from him. He had a very distinguished career in the services in the last war. He has given excellent service, and it is a great privilege for me to congratulate him here today and to wish him well on behalf of the House. I can almost say that we share a common interest in the better things of Ireland. Looking at his address—and he spoke about the Outer Hebrides—I am almost tempted to say that we are part of the Celtic fringe. I hope that he will find health, happiness and a sense of commitment to the procedures of the House and be with us often to take part in debates such as this.
Before I take part in the debate I wish to explain to the House that I have an unavoidable commitment this evening and I may have to leave before the debate is concluded. I have explained to the Minister and tendered my apology.
From the list of noble Lords who are to take part in this debate and from the remarks of those who have already spoken, it is evident that this 13th report of the Nature Conservancy Council is timely and challenging. I agree with the opening words, where the NCC chairman states:
"There is no doubt that the general public is attaching increasing importance to nature conservation and the countryside generally".
I am pleased to say that those words are true also of the general community attitude in Northern Ireland. What is absent is imaginative and understanding leadership with clearly defined management objectives for nature conservation. That will be the main thrust of my remarks in the debate this evening.
684
I have been encouraged by the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, who spoke about the importance of management in conservation.
The legislative territorial remit of the Nature Conservancy Council covers the regions of England, Scotland and Wales. However, it is gratifying to note from Chapter 8 of the report on page 66 the much wider horizons of the activities of the NCC. This part of the report deals with the wide range of the input, the influence and the interests of the council in relevant international matters. It explains the ways in which the council has helped to shape and influence the principles of the world conservation strategy and to inspire the hopeful developments at the international conference held in Ottawa in June 1987.
Along with the work in a number of other international nature conservation bodies, there are references to the council's participation in the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources and in the activities of the new European Committee for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources. It is obvious from this chapter of the report that in its representations on the various international bodies the council speaks for the whole of the United Kingdom and for the United Kingdom Government. I was pleased to hear the reference of the noble Lord, Lord Moran, to Northern Ireland. He has encouraged me to develop this point about the remit of the council.
Along with others in Northern Ireland, and especially people in the Province directly concerned with conservation work, I welcome and warmly support this important, indeed vital, role, and the high standing of the NCC in these international conservation activities. Great Britain cannot remain isolated from what is happening internationally. It must take a larger part in what is happening in the world. If that means taking into consideration part of Northern Ireland, then all to the better.
However, I consider it pertinent to suggest to the NCC that as Northern Ireland is an integral part of the United Kingdom it may be helpful to the council, and I am sure useful to Northern Ireland, if the NCC could take an interest in the current state of nature conservation in the Province. In the few minutes I have in this debate I wish to speak about some aspects of nature conservation in Northern Ireland. As elsewhere, there is a growing awareness of the need for conservation and of the urgency of the challenge confronting us all.
Among all parts of the community in Northern Ireland there is an awakening to the great treasure house of wildlife, to the richness of the flora and the fauna and to the great variety and beauty of the landscape, with a new vista in every turn of the road. Sadly, there is much lacking in the legislative provisions, and the administrative framework for the Province falls far short of the glaring need for a suitable nature conservation strategy. There is an urgent need for a co-ordinated protection policy against widespread damage to the countryside. Clear administrative action is required to counter the critical loss of the precious and delightful variety of wildlife in the Province. In addition, there is a serious decline of natural resources through thoughtlessness, mismanagement and neglect.

685
The present legislation governing nature conservation is the Nature Conservation and Amenity Lands (Northern Ireland) Order 1985. The provisions and functions of the order are under the control and authority of the Minister and the countryside and wildlife branch of the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland. Under that legislation, two advisory committees have been appointed by the Northern Ireland Minister —the Ulster Countryside Committee and the Committee for Nature Conservation. I understand from members of both committees who have expressed their views that in the three years since they were established there has been little or no progress in practical conservation matters. The meetings of both committees are wholly discursive and lacking in bite. They do not involve the deliberative and decision-making processes that are necessary to promote enthusiasm and inspire action. Some of the members have found such involvement totally frustrating and a diversion from their previous efforts and commitment to the practical tasks required to progress nature conservation.
One body in Northern Ireland which is earnestly and strenuously making efforts to meet this challenge of change is the Northern Ireland Environment Group. This informal association of some 16 voluntary conservation and amenity organisations consists of representatives of academic distinction and professional practitioners of proven experience and commitment to nature conservation matters. It has stated that there is a need for an independent commission for nature conservation in Northern Ireland, with its own professional staff who will be able to take the initiative in new ways of thinking and in resource management and operation and who would be able to advocate new policies whenever and wherever the need arises.
Had time been available this evening, I could have given the House more extensive information about the tremendous destruction of the countryside and loss of wildlife—precious wildlife in the Northern Ireland context. A number of studies have been carried out by Queen's University, the University of Ulster and other organisations. However, I am more concerned in getting over the point about the machinery required to promote some adjustment to the needs of Northern Ireland.
This presentation is not merely a request for the appointment of another quango or a demand for more financial resources; it is a plea for the establishment of adequate and effective administrative machinery and the efficient use of existing resources. That point has been cogently stated by Dr. Arthur Mitchell of the Northern Ireland Environment Group, when he recently spoke to a town planning institute conference. He said:
"I don't want anything above what you have in the UK mainland. I just want what you do have, and regard as having had it rightfully".
I do not know whether that Irish alliteration comes across, but Dr. Mitchell meant that we have it here in the mainland as of right and we should like to have it in the Province.
I hope that the chairman and the officials of the NCC will read the Official Report of the debate and that they will be helped by what they glean from it in
686
connection with the wider context of Great Britain and in the international field. I hope that they will consider matters in the Northern Ireland context and make suitable arrangements for a meeting with the Northern Ireland Environment Group. I consider that the public in Great Britain is fortunate to have this excellently prepared report and we are fortunate to have the opportunity for this debate.
I conclude by inviting the Minister to convey to the Secretary of State and Ministers in the Northern Ireland Offices a request that earnest consideration be given to the proposal that an independent commission or an agency be established for nature conservation in Northern Ireland.
5.4 p.m.
Lord Kimball: My Lords, 1 add the congratulations of this side of the House to those that have already been expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Blease, to the noble Earl, Lord Granville, on his excellent maiden speech. How much we all agree with him when he says that so much depends on the confidence the local agricultural community has in the local regional officer of the Nature Conservancy Council. We all hope that the sound commonsense and excellent leadership which has been shown by the present chairman of the Nature Conservancy Council in England and Wales, and his counterpart in Scotland, will start to permeate through the whole of the organisation.
I feel that I must declare an interest, as the owner of the most westerly, large expanse of lowland blanket mire at Altnaharra in Sutherland, which is shown on many of the old 18th century maps. It is marked as "Lord Reay's Green Table". It is the land lying at the head of the River Naver watershed where, over several thousand acres, rainfall of some 45 inches per annum feeds a vast peat sponge of immense scientific value. That importance was recognised by the International Mire Conference when it visited the flows in September 1986, and declared it to be the most unusual mire formation in the whole of the British Isles.
I should like to make clear what we mean by a "flow". A flow is a large damp area at the head of the watershed where the rainfall takes a long time to make up its mind which way it will go. Therefore, it stays there for a long time. That is what makes this sponge which is so important for the environment of any watershed.
I want to deal especially with page 9 of the conservancy's annual report. It stresses the need to encourage the traditional land uses in the area. We must recognise the problems associated with carrying on the present pattern of land management in those areas. Hill sheep farming is viable only so long as the present level of support is continued. Any increase in the stock of farm animals will result in grazing pressures which will damage the fragile balance on the moorland. Re-seeding and fertilising some parts of the hill are of dubious current value and do not provide a true long-term improvement.
The stocks of deer, grouse and salmon are the other source of employment; but they will not stand the increased cull needed to meet present-day wage levels

687
and the expenses of such a remote area. We must face the fact that just to leave the flows alone will not ensure that they will survive nor that the communities that live in them can possibly survive.
There are only two alternatives: a new partnership with the Nature Conservancy Council in line with its sentiments expressed in the annual report, or the development of a forest industry. The recent announcement by the Secretary of State on the need to reach a balance between conservation and forestry interests recognises that forestry in the flow country is a growing part of the local economy. The timber yield is as good as in many more widely accepted forestry areas, and establishment costs are much lower.
Reports are circulating about a demand to change the tax treatment of individuals who undertake forestry planting. Planting trees is an article of faith. If the nation wants to reduce its timber imports, then individuals must be encouraged to make that commitment. The taxpayers' contribution is directly affected by the costs of planting. In Sutherland and Caithness, because the establishment costs are lower, the taxpayer is actually getting good value for money.
The alternative, if forestry is not acceptable—of course it is not acceptable in much of that area—is equally contained in the Secretary of State's Statement that the Nature Conservancy Council must be given encouragement to protect the vast area of up to 400,000 hectares encompassing the flow country of scientific importance, either by its SSSI procedure or by its power under the Countryside Acts of 1949 and 1968. The money needed to safeguard these areas is not great on any reasonable scale. I trust the Government will make it available so that the planting right can be extinguished, leaving the sporting and restricted grazing rights in this area. When we consider the conservation problems I think we must face up to the fact that islands of conservation are not enough. A few SSSIs dotted about the place achieve nothing; they waste money in fact. The real wilderness needs scope for its proper preservation. The flows of Sutherland are also peopled by pastoral communities; they are not the sort of people who will work in forestry, and they certainly do not want to be displaced by forestry interests.
In conclusion, I think that we must bear in mind the immense damage that a forest does to the fishing industry. An inch of rain falling on an acre of heather and bracken runs off at 90 per cent., and an inch of rain falling on an acre of coniferous trees which have canopied at 20 years runs off at only 28 per cent. A forest is a very thirsty neighbour, to say nothing of the increase in peat and acidity in the rivers brought about by forest ploughing. For every yard ploughed in order to establish a forest, six yards of raw peat is exposed. Then the rushing of the water down these new peat drains washes out the spawning beds and it destroys the valuable sponge, which I mentioned in the first instance, that is so important in times of drought.
Whatever noble Lords may think about wetness in the Highlands, one must bear in mind what a low rainfall there is in eastern Sutherland and Caithness
688
when compared with some other parts of the Highlands. I am certain that during the course of this debate other Members of your Lordships' House will stress the damage to birdlife in the flow country from too much forestry. I believe that we have all neglected the botanical and entomological importance of this area. Over the past 20 years we have all seen what a partnership with forestry—not necessarily the Forestry Commission—can do in this part of the world. But what we have not got in the flow country is a proper working partnership with the Nature Conservancy Council. It is my ambition to establish such a partnership in the centre of Sutherland in the hope that others will see it as an alternative way of managing the area.
I have reason to believe that the Nature Conservancy Council would welcome such a move if the resources which are relatively small in national terms could be made available. If public money is to be spent to preserve these unique hydrological systems from afforestation then public access and information must be available. There are new employment opportunities here for informing the public about the wilderness, and that is what we are trying to protect. I hope that during the course of the next year we shall see that the planting right will be extinguished on a large part of the flow area and then in some 90 years' time perhaps subsequent generations will have time to see how the balance of birds, bogs and forestry has been maintained.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, I should like to join other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Earl, Lord Granville, on his maiden speech and to tell him how much we look forward to hearing him often in this House. I should also like to express my apologies to the Minister. Unfortunately due to the Statement and because I have another appointment this evening I shall leave as soon as I have finished my speech. I am very sad about this but I hope the noble Earl will forgive me.
I should like to congratulate the Nature Conservancy Council on this magnificent report, and most of all on the outstanding progress which it has made in the designations of environmentally sensitive areas; the notification of sites of special scientific interest; management contracts and the acquisition and management of national nature reserves. This has often been in co-operation with voluntary conservation bodies and individual owners. There is a very good record contained in the report.
I suppose one must also congratulate the council on its report last July on birds, bogs and forestry which drew particular attention to the flow country in Sutherland and Caithness. I suppose I must admit to having a certain interest in forestry since I have some forestry in Scotland and also down in the South of England. What strikes me as being quite unacceptable in our dealings with planning permission for forestry is that we have no licensing system in this country. On the other hand, everybody looks on the grants for planting agreed with the Forestry Commission as a virtual licence. Therefore one must to a certain extent blame the Forestry Commission for what went on in the flow country. Although the local planning authorities have limited

689
powers, they are involved in the principle of the change of use of land. So the ordinary investor who wants to go and plant forests cannot do so without those two restrictions. However, they obviously have not been enough because we have made too many mistakes.
I was delighted to see in the report in the Guardian that the Secretary of State for Scotland, Mr. Malcolm Rifkind, reported that he had given permission for another 5,223 acres to be planted. I was also delighted to read that the Highlands Regional Council is setting up a working party to produce a land use strategy. I understand that the report is expected next month. 1 believe that all over the country we should have much more strategy planning about land use than we have had in the past.
However, I really want to talk about the taxation problems of forestry. I suppose everybody has read the supplement in the Observer about the kinds of people who are investing in forestry in Scotland at the moment. The conclusion is that they do so because it is a good tax incentive. It is very rarely mentioned that the estate duty relief on probate is also of great importance to people who happen to have some money which they want to invest long-term. If we want forestry to grow in a balanced manner in this country, we must give some incentive to people to plant. If there is no incentive, then, because of the long-term character of investing in forestry, which is a minimum of 60 years, there would be very little investment.
Some people argue that when the Schedule D incentive to planting was introduced a very large sum of money was paid by the Government because that was in the days when income tax and surtax were in the region of 85 to 90 or 94 per cent. So for the high earners the Government paid the majority of the investment in the first instance.
We now have a lower maximum rate of tax and there are some people who hope that after the next budget it will be only 50 per cent. This means that everybody who invests in forestry contributes pound for pound towards its cost against the Government's Schedule D assessment. I believe that that is perhaps not a bad thing. But if it is to remain I should like it to he confined to landowners who use their own land to plant forestry. However I do not believe that it will remain and I am doubtful whether it should because the problem of the cost of the scheme to the Exchequer is very difficult to quantify. So the suggestion is that one removes the Schedule D provision and replaces it by ongoing maintenance grants for a number of years. That is easily quantified. A study must be made to ascertain the cost of such a scheme.
The scheme would have to continue for some years and for longer in the case of hardwood planting. But one of its benefits would be that it would fit in with the Government's and the EC's proposed policy on set-aside and the farm woodland scheme. Moreover, it would not discriminate against the smaller farmer who has no interest in writing off his income under Schedule D because he probably does not have very much of an income. But it would help both the larger landowner and the small farmer.
690
I do however consider it essential that the assessment for tax under Schedule B should remain. Otherwise we shall not encourage planting in areas of reasonable economic returns. I also believe that it is essential in major forestry programmes, both public and private, that we fulfil the EC requirement for an environmental impact assessment. In that way all interested parties including the Nature Conservancy Council would have an input into the design of the forestry programme.
Timber products cost us about £5 billion a year in foreign exchange. It is therefore essential that we manage our afforestation programme efficiently. We must give enough encouragement to the people who want to go in for forestry, but we must also safeguard our countryside.
I come from Sweden and one only has to look at the contribution that Swedish forestry makes to the Swedish national economy. In my view it is well managed with a continuous replanting programme. There is limited clear felling and much natural regeneration which creates forests of different ages. We really must look at the whole of our afforestation programme so that we do not deface the countryside but manage to create forests that are natural and look natural. We have a lot to learn.
5.23 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I too would like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Granville on his maiden speech and express the hope that he will drag himself away from the Western Isles in order to be with us from time to time in future. I also wish to thank my noble friend Lord Cranbrook for the excellent way in which he laid the foundations of this very important debate.
The importance of the work of the Nature Conservancy Council can best be seen and measured by our acknowledging that this planet is so far the only place on which physical life is known to exist. Of all the countries on this earth not many possess the varied climate, soil and rich wildlife that we have here. It has taken millions of years to create and it is or should be a cherished part of our heritage, but in the past 150 years too much of it has been destroyed forever.
I wish to put into their context the interesting figures quoted by my noble friend Lord Cranbrook when he mentioned that national nature reserves occupy only 160,000 hectares, of which the Nature Conservancy Council owns only 43,000 hectares. That is in a land area of Great Britain of nearly 23 million hectares of which nearly two-thirds is agricultural if we include the rough grazings; 2.3 million hectares are already covered by forests. That is just over 10 per cent. of the total land area of Great Britain. Most of those forests are conifer forests.
The Nature Conservancy Council, as has been said, is doing a wonderful job in the face of various obstacles, each of which strangely enough is subject to regulation in one way or another by Act of Parliament. These obstacles sometimes give rise to conflicts with public authorities as well as with individuals. But conflicts with public authorities can only be resolved by Ministers. I shall briefly mention

691
those obstacles. There are four of them, speaking in the broad.
There is pollution of various kinds, industrial and urban development, agriculture and forestry. The last three may and generally do cause loss of habitat of wildlife. Pollution was discussed in a short debate on 13th January but I wish to add two points which I consider of some importance. The Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act was passed 37 years ago and much progress has been made under it in cleaning up our rivers. But 10 per cent. of our rivers and canals are still badly polluted and river pollution has been increasing in recent years. Pollution has also been caused increasingly in recent years by farm waste and by overloaded sewage works. These are matters in which the Government can use their influence and provide further resources.
Industrial and urban development is made necessary by our ever-increasing human population. That is a problem which I hope we shall debate before long. We have not debated it fully in your Lordships' House for some years. One reads in the centre pages of The Times this morning that before the end of the century—and that is not far off—room will have to be found in the South-East of England alone for another 1 million families.
Meanwhile we must bear in mind that, although most local planning authorities want to protect their environment, they do not consider themselves bound by the need to protect wildlife. I suggest that our planning procedures should be re-examined so as to require local planning authorities to join with the NCC and others in protecting wildlife.
As regards agriculture, we are entering a new and more hopeful phase in which it will be in our farmers' interests to act upon advice given by the NCC. They seem more willing to do so than they were in the past. The agriculture Ministers will of course have an important part to play in this.
I now come to the NCC's most difficult area of conflict; namely, forestry. No one is against forestry in the right place, although I must say from my knowledge of Scotland especially that we now have much less need for planting more conifers than we had after the last war. I suggest that the highest priority now in the use of incentives to individuals and in government resources must be in restoring plantations in the South of England which were so badly devastated by the hurricane in October and by other gales. That surely must be the highest priority in forestry.
The important factor in forestry is surely to ensure that it is carried out where it does not damage the environment or ruin for ever the habitats of wildlife. That brings one yet again to the best known conflict between nature conservation and forestry, which is the threat to the flow country. That is a matter on which my noble friend Lord Kimball spoke with great local knowledge and, if I may say so, great conviction. I enjoyed his speech very much.
My noble friend Lord Buxton of Alsa has asked me to mention that problem. He is not present this evening because he is studying bird life in the Galapagos. First, he feels—and I agree with him—that the flow country is a unique and separate
692
issue from forestry policy and has little to do with it. Secondly, the flow is internationally recognised as being of supreme and unusual scientific importance. Europeans and others would be shocked if we allowed too much further destruction of it. Thirdly, as my noble friend Lord Kimball said, if the area is left as it is or almost as it is, it has great tourist potential. It gives the prospect of employment. Hotels, bed and breakfast accommodation, garages, shops, wardens, keepers and ghillies will all be needed. Far more people will be needed than would he necessary in afforestation.
Turning to the eloquent speech of my noble friend Lord Sanderson, he told us of the intention of the Secretary of State to resolve the potential conflict in the flow country between, on the one hand, the owners of peatland who wish or may have to sell that land for personal reasons for afforestation and, on the other hand, the Nature Conservancy Council, which wishes to conserve the peatlands. I hope that the proposals of the Secretary of State are not yet firm and binding and that they will not become so until he has considered the further review of the area which is being carried out by the Highland Regional Council. I see that my noble friend is nodding his head and I am thankful.
In the opinion of many people, it would be very unfortunate if the proposals provisionally announced by the Secretary of State were regarded as final. They go too far. Meanwhile I hope that the Government and others will not lose sight of what is said in the report on pages 9, 28, 29 and 37 concerning the importance of the peatlands and the damage that would be done by their destruction for forestry.
In conclusion, I return to the responsibility of Ministers. The conflict between agriculture and conservation will, we hope, recede. However, it is still with us. The conflict between the NCC and forestry interests, public and private, does not show much sign of receding. Ministers and their advisers tend to resolve those conflicts by achieving what my noble friend has called "the right balance". That sounds splendid and it is often used in many contexts. However, I suggest that it is a misused expression on many occasions. It is often used to justify departure from a vital principle so as to yield to popular demand or political pressure. When applied to conflicts over conservation, the expression simply will not do. Too much of our natural environment and wildlife have already gone for ever. Ministers must resolve those conflicts by protecting what is left.
5.35 p.m.
Viscount Ridley: My Lords, the report which we are debating is a most impressive document, as were all its predecessors. The range of subjects which it covers is enormous. I am an enthusiastic amateur naturalist, as, I suspect is, everyone else on the list of speakers. I have read the report with the greatest possible interest. The council deserves high praise for the energy and skill which it has devoted to nature in Britain. The report covers everything from the walrus to something which is called the stinking goosefoot. The restoration of the sea eagle and the large blue butterfly are outstanding successes. I suggest that the council is our most effective and active quango.

693
However. I should like to take this opportunity to make what I hope are a few constructive criticisms of some of the council's work. If what I refer to are sins, they are sins of omission rather than any other kind. First, I suggest that the NCC should use its formidable scientific skills in the future to advise the nation how to control certain species. That should be part of its remit. I find no reference in this or previous reports to the need to reduce numbers of animals or indeed birds. I tread on dangerous ground in that matter. However, are seals too numerous for their own good or for the good of fish stocks? As a Sunday newspaper might say, I think we should be told. How do we stop the steady increase of species like the larger gulls, which do such damage to smaller seabirds? How do we stop starlings which do enormous environmental damage with the mess they make on public buildings?
More often than not, conservation means control, which means reducing unwanted populations because we have so upset the balance of nature that natural controls are not working. That cannot be done without a great deal of scientific evidence to support it. We should look to the NCC for such evidence. We cannot conserve everything or we shall risk losing some of the rare species on which the report so wisely spends so much time. As a further example of my point, perhaps I may suggest that those of us who are still fortunate enough to possess red squirrels would like to know how to stop the spread of the grey variety in our areas. I am not getting involved in politics at all in mentioning that matter!
Secondly, perhaps the most contentious issue facing the NCC is the delineation of SSSI boundaries. I think that there is a natural tendency to declare an area which is far larger than is strictly necessary in order to protect some unusual or rare species. Also, it is often done to protect a species which is on the edge of its range in a particular place but quite common elsewhere. I shall not waste your Lordships' time by giving examples.
In many cases, there may be no harm in doing those things. But there is a real risk of antagonising local people with too many unnecessary restrictions or, more importantly, what people think are too many unnecessary restrictions. When I was the chairman of the Conservation Committee of the National Trust, I dealt with two cases in which we examined problems on the ground. In both cases, it was unanimously concluded that it was the hill farmer concerned who was becoming the endangered species because restrictions on reseeding or numbers of grazing animals threatened to make his farm unviable. In at least one case, a boundary adjustment was made, but not without a great deal of pressure.
There should be a greater willingness to compromise on such details in the interests of the NCC itself and indeed of the people who live in SSSI areas. That policy would also avoid making enemies of people who, though basically sympathetic in nearly all cases, can so easily destroy a rarity or, far worse, abandon the land, leaving the ecology to change permanently for the worse. As other noble Lords have said, conservationists can be arrogant
694
and may all too easily ignore local amateur opinion. Having said that, it is good to know that the National Trust and the NCC have no bones of contention between them at the moment.
I should also like to refer to the success of the services in the field of conservation on lands which they own. The army is all too often blamed for denying access to training areas. Not enough credit is given for the way that rare species or natural landscapes are protected. One does not like to think of the fate of Lulworth Cove or the Lulworth skipper butterfly if that area had been acquired by developers. As it is, the army has preserved both intact since 1917. The Otterburn hills in Northumberland have been protected from forestry by the Royal Artillery. I find no reference in the report to the positive way in which the MoD has approached its responsibilities since the appointment of a full-time conservation officer, consequent on the report which was produced under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford. That responsibility has culminated in the signing in January of this year—which I recognise is since this report was published—of a declaration of interest between the MoD and the NCC which formalises the relationship between the two. I venture to hope that next year's report will expand on that relationship and help us to debate it.
That development is important, if only because no fewer than 5,000 volunteers annually help the MoD in activities to assist the preservation of wildlife on their defence estates. Somewhere or other those estates contain practically every rare or uncommon bird species on our list and a great many plants as well, in some cases in very large numbers. If you happen to be a rare bird it is far safer to nest in the middle of a rifle range than to expose your eggs to collectors or photographers in a national park. Therefore I believe it is right that on this occasion we should pay tribute to the Ministry of Defence for its initiative in this very important work, and we hope that the Ministry will be fully encouraged to continue with it.
Finally, perhaps I may thank my noble friend Lord Cranbrook for introducing this debate in such an excellent way. I am sure that it is a benign coincidence that he has chosen the 59th birthday of the Secretary of State for the Environment, and I hope that we can make this debate an annual occurrence in the future.
5.42 p.m.
Baroness White: My Lords, I too join in the expressions of gratitude to the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, for initiating this debate. On this occasion I am almost tempted to call him my noble friend. I think that we are all much indebted to him.
My specific noble friend on the Front Bench mentioned that on previous occasions in this House I have drawn attention to the entirely legal but often gravely damaging effects—particularly in Scotland, which has been mentioned frequently in this debate, but also in the Principality of Wales, which has hardly been touched upon—of the type of tree planting from which people like Terry Wogan and Cliff Richard enhance their fortunes.

695
I am not a reader of Private Eye and therefore I cannot regale your Lordships with the politically salacious titbits which I understand from my noble friend may be available to you in the current issue by reference to the beneficiaries of the current taxation regime. We owe a debt of gratitude to the Observer newspaper for having undertaken an investigation into this area of dubiety which is beyond the capacity of the ordinary private citizen to undertake and also of most voluntary organisations. Nevertheless, I know that voluntary organisations are very much concerned about the distortion which can occur in forestry policy through a taxation policy which they believe to be perhaps not entirely out of date but almost so.
I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington, has had to leave because I found her speech very interesting. I was glad that she took up the position of the Nature Conservancy Council, which in its current report refers to its earlier recommendation contained in a previous report that there should be a restriction on automatic tax incentives for afforestation and that stricter controls over the planting of conifers should also be introduced. The noble Baroness referred to both those aspects, suggesting that an environmental impact assessment of some kind should be observed in areas where large scale afforestation was being undertaken and that there should also be some possible changes in tax policy.
I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to a document issued recently by the Council for the Protection of Rural England. I speak as President of the Council for Rural Wales but we admire our big brother in England. That report is headed "Budgeting for British Forestry" and includes recommendations for reform of our forestry taxation policy. I am not proposing to quote from it at length, but I should like to recommend it to Members of your Lordships' House who are interested.
The recommendations in the report include a suggestion that all private sector investment in forestry should be assessed for tax under Schedule B. It continues:
"At a time of enormous change in rural policies, with far greater official emphasis being placed on tree planting and the creation of new plantations, it would seem to be essential that the main policy mechanisms are altered now to allow conservation priorities to be integrated into forestry policy and practice".
That is a point of view which would appeal to many of us who work in the voluntary organisations concerned with the protection of our countryside.
I had thought of quoting—but perhaps I should spare your Lordships because there are many speakers still to come—from a money brief which is issued even to very modest people like myself. I may say that I am a basic rate taxpayer and would not benefit at all from tax incentives, even if I had any land on which to plant trees. It is perfectly clear the tax advisers have no hesitation in proposing that for many of their clients forestry is a very good investment. There is no reference whatever to conservation or other amenity considerations. I am absolutely staggered by the number of advantages that one can obtain if one is in the right income group.
696
However, there are others present in the House who know more about taxation than I do, so I wish to turn to another subject which has not been touched on at any length today, and that is marine nature reserves. We have heard many comments about land-based sites of special scientific interest, and the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, referred very briefly to marine concerns. Those of us who sat through the lengthy debates on the Wildlife and Countryside Bill in 1981 will remember that one of the most popular novelties in that piece of legislation was the innovative idea as far as the United Kingdom was concerned of establishing not merely SSSIs and national nature reserves on land but also in appropriate areas marine nature reserves.
That was in 1981. Since then only one reserve has been formally adopted; that is Lundy Island in the Bristol Channel. Various problems seem to have been overcome, not least because the Landmark Trust was in any case I think in ownership as well as in management of that particular small island. Virtually no further progress has been made.
I have made recent inquiries into the position at three Welsh sites which were included in the NCC's list of seven sites which were to be the first to be considered. In my area, the island of Skomer, the Menai Straits between the Isle of Anglesey and the mainland, and Bardsey Island off the Lleyn peninsular have all been under consideration. It was confidently expected that Skomer at least would present few problems, because for some years now a very strong element of voluntary restraint has prevailed among those who frequent the surrounding waters for sport, recreation or study. However, this has not happened; impasse remains. An unbelievable amount of time and effort by the Nature Conservancy Council staff has been consumed in trying to follow faithfully the conditions of the 1981 Act.
Of course it is the sea fisheries committees which have to formulate and administer the appropriate by-laws that affect fishing; it is not the Nature Conservancy Council. There are very obvious difficulties in having two authorities both trying to protect the same area. I know that they endeavour to work in harmony so far as concerns the three sites that I have mentioned but it seems to me that they are fighting a losing battle. No sooner has one problem been resolved than another comes up. For example, divers of various kinds and nature reserves do not associate easily together. I am told that last summer, between early May and late September, 2,727 divers were recorded as active around the little island of Skomer and that there were only five blank days without divers, those being attributed to bad weather.
In considering the desirability of establishing Skomer as a marine nature reserve, more than 200 public bodies, organisations and individuals are recorded as having established an interest in that tiny island. They all have to be consulted and have to agree to any proposals. One of the officers concerned has written:
"We find ourselves in the position where, though we have the acquiescence or positive support of almost all 200 consultees, we are still unable to take the final step because of the opposition of a single group of users, albeit an important group, with whom we would wish to establish a positive and beneficial relationship".

697
I return for a moment to the Menai Straits, which is an area that has been subject to systematic biological studies since 1887 and which presents other problems. The straits are bordered by several townships, of which every citizen is certain that he or she is the sole authority and arbiter of what should be allowed to take place. Consequently it has been very difficult to produce a satisfactory consultative document.
Again, as regards Bardsey, it is said that the difficulties with Skomer and the Menai Straits are such that Bardsey has had to be put on the back-burner. There is simply not time to make the effort to embark upon what is an apparently endless process of consulation which never reaches a final conclusion. So, having acquainted myself with the endless problems of Skomer and the Menai Straits, I have come to the conclusion that we surely ought to acknowledge that there is something wrong either in the provisions of the relevant sections of the 1981 Act or in the interpretation so far accorded to them.
Ought we not therefore to press upon Her Majesty's Government that those provisions should be reviewed and if need be revised? The most conscientious efforts have been made to meet the requirements primarily of Sections 36 and 37 of the Act, which I believe that possibly the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, might be able to confirm were inserted into the Bill without perhaps the full consideration that might have been desirable. To continue to take up so much time of so many scientists, officials, voluntary and statutory bodies over so many years is surely unjustified.
The answer to the problem may lie in strengthening the decision-making powers of the respective Secretaries of State. I do not presume to judge. All I know is that this sector is not working well. At the time the Bill was enacted it was greatly welcomed but I hope that we shall now be able to find a more satisfactory way to realise its excellent intentions.
The only other point upon which I wish to touch is one which has greatly disturbed many people in South Wales and it concerns the conflict of interest over the proposed Taff Barrage. I am speaking in the presence of a former Secretary of State for Wales who during his period of office did a very great deal to encourage the development of the economy of South Wales. I know that he is a vigorous supporter of the Cardiff Bay experiment. I am sure that he will recognise that there is still very genuine concern about the effects of the conflict of interest that is taking place there. I understand that some Dutch experts have now been called in to study the highly complex problems of how one builds a barrage across not one but in effect two rivers and so alters the entire ecology of an area in which the ornithological interest is acute. No adequate compromise solution seems yet to have been achieved.
I have been supplied with various notes, naturally enough, some from the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. That organisation is by no means the only one which is particularly concerned with this problem. I do not want to weary your Lordships with the details of what is a very complex situation but in a debate on this very valuable report of the Nature
698
Conservancy Council I think that it would be unrealistic not to mention something which throughout the period covered and still today is causing considerable concern. The report itself and this debate should be of interest to a great many Members of this House, and I again thank the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, for having initiated this discussion.
5.56 p.m.
Lord Rees: My Lords, I should like to begin by adding my congratulations to those that have already been offered to the noble Earl who has introduced this most interesting debate in which such a wealth of experience has already been deployed. The 13th report of the council covers many aspects of country life but, like many other speakers, I want to concentrate my brief intervention on its conclusions concerning forestry. In so doing I must declare an interest as the owner of a small and modest acreage of woodlands and also as chairman of a forestry company.
Page 28 of the report reiterates a point that was made in an earlier paper by the council that automatic incentives for afforestation should be restricted. That question has been taken up of late in the press and elsewhere, as well as in this debate, to the point that some people might be led into thinking that all new planting is tax motivated. Quite unreliable calculations have been made about tax reliefs achieved by named individuals and I think that probably a gross injustice has been done to many.
It is perfectly true that the higher the rates of direct taxation, the more attractive tax reliefs appear. I do not wish to anticipate the Chancellor's budget proposals, but the corollary is that the more the higher rates of tax are reduced, the more the attractions of tax reliefs are reduced also. It is difficult to quantify the amounts conceded in recent years by way of tax reliefs to forestry. A reasonably reliable estimate of the amounts conceded annually by way of tax reliefs is between £10 million and £15 million per annum—a figure which I hope puts the problem into some truer perspective.
Again, if we are to debate the fiscal dimensions of forestry, then in fairness it is right to recall the main tax reliefs special to forestry, which on the whole have existed since the end of the War. First, under Schedule B there is the taxation of woodlands on a conventional basis—and that of course is a relic of the days when agriculture was assessed on the same basis and not on its profits or losses. Secondly there is the postponement of the charge to inheritance tax and the special basis for the calculation of the charge on woodlands.
Thirdly, there is the right to elect to have profits and losses brought into charge under Schedule D, like the profits and losses of any business or profession. The loss relief available in the early years of planting—and as noble Lords like myself who have had experience of planting from scratch will know, there are losses for many years—is no different in kind. I should like to emphasise that point. It is no different from the loss relief that is available, for example, in the early years of a business. Indeed, it is right to point out that in most forms of business but

699
not forestry, it is possible to have another relief under the Business Expansion Scheme.
Therefore, any fair observer who is not concerned to construct meretricious examples based on assumptions which are not easy to check, must recognise that the present system of taxation has drawn into forestry resources which have served to make good, if not totally, the ravages of two world wars. However, it is also fair to observe that the system of tax reliefs has not been sufficient to enable the Government to achieve their target of an annual planting rate of 33,000 hectares a year. Indeed, I have a specific question which I hope my noble friend Lord Caithness will answer when he replies. Is the Government's target for planting still 33,000 hectares a year? If that target is not achieved—and it has not so far been achieved—then what measures do the Government propose to ensure that it is achieved?
I am also heartened by the 24th report of the Select Committee of this House on European Community forestry policy which went very thoroughly into most aspects of the problem. I should like to pay a respectful tribute to the committee's work. In particular the report concluded:
"The committee recommends that the current income tax reliefs in the United Kingdom should continue."
It also recommends the investigation of the possibility of exemption from capital gains tax and of the recent change in the basis of capital allowances.
Speaking negatively, it is possible to predict that any fundamental change in these reliefs must damage the confidence that has been built up by numerous statements of policy by this Government since 1979. I hope that it is not inappropriate to refer to what my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said at the Conservative Party Conference in 1987: we are in the business of planting trees for our children and our grandchildren or we have no business to be in politics at all. Any change, if change is contemplated, in the system of taxation must take into account that—unlike almost any other form of economic activity that I can call to mind—the end product of forestry can at best be produced over one generation and more likely over two or three.
I leave the field of taxation and turn to another proposition of the council in its report; namely that afforestation should be moved away from the uplands. To use the chairman's telling phrase, grant aid for planting woodlands and farmland should be targeted to take forestry off the hill. I very much hope that advantage will be taken of the new scheme by lowland farmers. However, like the Select Committee, I suspect that it will on the whole be the more marginal land in the uplands that will be drawn into forestry. Indeed, if that is not so, it is again unlikely that the Government's planting targets can be met.
While I can certainly understand the views of those who believe that our hills should remain bare and relatively treeless, it has to be recalled that their present appearance—and I speak perhaps with more direct knowledge of Wales than anywhere else—is largely due to the hand of man and to the grazing of sheep. Had the Nature Conservancy Council been set up some years ago it would no doubt have fought vigorously against that process. Indeed, in its report
700
the council recognises that the process of re-afforestation will but restore a long-lost woodland cover to open landscape.
At the same time there is a great deal of what I hope might be described as uninformed prejudice against what are often described by those who I suspect have not appreciated the glories of such pineta as Bedgebury or Benmore as foreign or introduced conifers. In fact the number of native conifers, or indeed broadleaved trees, are extraordinarily few. We have profited as a country by the introduction of exotic species over the centuries.
Beyond that, altitude and rainfall must dictate the kind of tree that can sensibly be planted in any situation. Would that we could all play the role of Capability Brown or Repton with broadleaved trees in the lowlands. Alas it is not given to many of us.
It is not unreasonable to require that new planting should be sensitive to the contours. Rigidly geometric blocks should be avoided. Where possible monoculture should be avoided, and measures should be taken that will attract and not repel wildlife. There are many examples—and I hesitate to inflict them on the House—where such objective has been achieved, even in planting since the War.
The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds has said that, broadly speaking, afforestation replaces the threatened and vulnerable with the commonplace and adaptable. That is attractively aphorismatic but it simply is not true. I hope that in this debate we can find common ground in this House that forestry is an important, I would even say a crucial, national interest. I have in mind in particular what my noble friend Lord Renton had to say, that with the possible exceptions of the Netherlands and Ireland we are still the least afforested country in Western Europe. Forestry, combined with the wood-processing industries that it attracts, produces jobs in areas where other activities are hard to find. If poor agricultural land is to be taken out of production—and that after all is the thrust of European Community policies at the moment— forestry is an obvious alternative land use.
The timescale of forestry is such that if Government targets are to be met, assistance, whether by way of tax reliefs or grants, will have to continue. On all the evidence, in both this country and abroad, tax reliefs are more effective and less expensive than grants, providing planting is undertaken sensitively—and that battle has largely been fought and won by those who care passionately for the environment. The Forestry Commission led the way, I believe with the assistance of Dame Sylvia Crowe. Most of us who have been involved in new planting are alert to those kinds of factors. Both uplands and lowlands can provide ground for more planting.
Finally, a properly administered forestry can continue to make an economic, aesthetic and ecological contribution to the life of this country.
Baroness White: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, did he see the photograph in the Observer of the pattern of afforestation recently carried out in the flow country? If he had done so, I do not think he would be quite so enthusiastic about it. Has he ever lived on the edge of a coniferous forest, as I have?
Lord Rees: My Lords, I come from the County of Monmouthshire, now called Gwent. I have; and I have planted in such country. I have observed the kind of standards that I have been presumptuous enough to enjoin on the House. No, I have not been to the flow country. Yes, I have read the Observer article. I thought most of what it had to say on the fiscal question was meritricious in the extreme. I understand that the noble Baroness does not associate herself with that part of the article at least.
Baroness White: My Lords, I was referring to the photograph.
6.9 p.m.
Viscount Blakenham: My Lords, the chairman of the Nature Conservancy Council writes in his report that we are at the start of a new era for nature conservation. I should say that I am a member of the council and a former chairman of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. I very much support that view.
There is now a much better understanding of the issues involved. The general public is attaching increasing importance to nature conservation and the countryside generally. Television and press are giving nature conservation increasing coverage, and voluntary organisations involved in conservation are continually gaining in weight.
Enormous credit for the improving situation is also due to the Government, first, for bringing in the Wildlife and Countryside Act in 1981 and strengthening it in 1985; and, secondly, for increasing the NCC's grant-in-aid from £12 million to £36 million over a period of four years. That has enabled among other things the bulk of the notifications and re-notifications of the sites of special scientific interest to take place. They have also introduced the concept of environmentally sensitive areas. They have recently provided incentives for the planting of broadleaved woodlands, and have provided the visible moral support that is so necessary if a statutory agency is to operate effectively.
However, much still needs to be done. Threats to our estuaries and few remaining unspoilt places are still increasing. The farm woodland scheme is very welcome, but its use should be discouraged on marginal livestock-rearing land where it could destroy some of the most important remaining areas of semi-natural vegetation. Wider spacing between trees should be encouraged. Indeed, the whole forestry policy needs to be thought through and more clearly defined. Perhaps some debate can take place as to why the government planting target is 33,000 hectares per year.
In its report the NCC identified the peatlands of Sutherland and Caithness as being the most important conservation issue that now confronts us. This is because they are believed to represent the largest single expanse of blanket bog in the world and the largest single area of habitat in the United Kingdom that is of major importance on a world scale. These peatlands should be respected under the Berne Convention, the RAMSAR convention and the EC directive on the conservation of wild birds, to all of which the United Kingdom is a committed party.
702
Sadly, the flow country is not being protected adequately. Substantial areas, as we have discussed this afternoon, are continuing to be planted. The Secretary of State for Scotland recently advised the Forestry Commission to provide planting grants to four out of seven afforestation schemes in the area. In doing so, he wrote:
It seems to us that some new planting needs to take place in Caithness and Sutherland both in order to contribute to the national forestry planting programme and to maintain local employment in forestry and maximise the opportunities for future investment in the wood-processing industry."
That argument could be extended indefinitely. The NCC is worried by the fragmentation of the area that the additional planting is likely to bring about, even if as much as half the total area could be protected through SSSI notification.
I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Granville on his excellent speech. Of course the personal touch is necessary; of course the situation is delicate; of course jobs are vitally important. But a recent National Audit Office analysis suggests that (ignoring jobs more than 25 years distant) forestry job creation in Scotland has cost on average £50,000 per rural job per year. This compares poorly with figures for the Highlands and Islands Development Board, which range from £,000 to £,000 per job created or retained; and it should not be forgotten that some farming, stalking or shepherding jobs are displaced by forestry. A balance of this nature may not in the long run prove the best.
Finally I believe it is vital that if the Government are to play the important role they should in international conservation matters, they must be seen to be respecting international obligations at home, whether they relate to peatbog, Greenland white-fronted geese or pollution. When that happens I believe the new era for nature conservation will clearly have dawned.
6.15 p.m.
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, like my noble friend Lady Robson of Kiddington, I have to crave your Lordships' indulgence because I may very well have to leave in order to try to get back to the flow country where I live. I have an appointment tomorrow and it takes a long time to get up there.
I am very glad to have this opportunity which has been presented by the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, to discuss what is to all of us a most important problem. Whether we are on one side of the fence or the other, the problem is still important.
I have been struck by the fact that nobody has yet spoken up for the most endangered species in the flow country, homo sapiens. I should like to speak up for homo sapiens, sub-species Scotticus, variety Caithness and Sutherland, because by successive regimes and governments he has been very nearly driven out of his native habitat. I say this about the area where I live and I am prepared to back it up with facts.
In the strath of the Thurso River from the confluence upstream where the Little River flows into the main Strathmore water there used to be in 1750, 825 souls living in this barren area of flow ground, moorland and flushes, as they call the rushy bits. By

703
1950 the number had fallen to 75. Today I can count them on the fingers of my hand; there are around a dozen souls living in the area. In conservation parlance there are only two breeding pairs. When I was a boy there were three schools there: there was a a school at Altnabreac, at Dalrigh and at Backlass. These were all within this area of roughly 100 square miles; 64,000 acres.
I must not get my decimal point in the wrong place. I think the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, added a few noughts to the end of his rainfall. My rainfall is 30 inches, not 30,000. At the top end of the River Strath it is 30 inches and at the bottom end it is 28 inches. I imagine that he gets something of that variation on his part of the upper waters of the Naver.
If one attacks any part of the economy up there, one attacks the whole economy, because we need every possible industry. We need forestry, agriculture and fishing and we need atomic energy. They are all bad words. Nobody wants to know the Atomic Energy Authority; nobody wants to know the forester, the farmer, the fisherman who is raping the sea. What are we to do? Well, a few of us make glass—at least your Lordships will take that from us. But perhaps we are adding to the greenhouse effect.
It is important that we are able to keep our economy going in the sparsely populated parts of Scotland, in the so-called flow country. It is important to keep it going because otherwise there will be no facilities there for the people who come up and gawp at the flow once every 17 years, which is the length of time between visits which David Bellamy allows. I think it is very important to make this point during this debate because many people in the Highlands—and I think I quote rightly from the excellent maiden speech of the noble Earl, Lord Granville—"feel the arrogance of the conservationists". They are people who have not looked our way for a generation, have suddenly discovered a flow and have come up to tell us what we must do in the area. They are people who have covered the South of England with rolling red brick and tarmac, who have cut down the forests through which Robin Hood and his merry men used to run, who have despoiled their own countryside so that they have nothing worth making into SSSIs and who want to have 40 per cent. or 50 per cent. of Scotland covered with them so that they can claim to have reached 8 per cent.
Caithness is heavily covered with SSSIs: one can hardly walk for any distance without tripping over one. They are in the most extraordinary places. One of them covers an area where a ditch on a croft became blocked. As a result an area of ground was flooded and it was colonised by some ragged-robins. Lo and behold, it was turned into an SSSI! That is the kind of view which people in the flow country take of such nature conservation.
We believe in conserving nature and we always have. It is there for everyone to come and see. This year the Nature Conservancy Council contacted me in relation to one of the many SSS1s which stand on my land. It asked whether I had any objection if it came to continue its bird count on a particular area. I told the nice young lady who runs that side of its affairs in Dornoch that I had no objection but I
704
should really like them to stop carrying out the surveys because it disturbs the birds so terribly. She said that she would try to make it the last count but that it was rather important because the council wanted to see how the nesting habits had changed from one season to another.
The next communication I received was from the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology, which stated that it wanted to count the same area for the same kind of birds. In addition it wanted to send a man with a pointer dog to run over the ground and count the area more closely. I said, "I wish you would not. I wish you would allow just one count to go ahead and obtain your facts and figures from that". That seemed to me to be a reasonable request. However, a little later I was driving up the hill road past the SSSI and noticed a strange car parked in a lay-by. It was heavily locked and I looked all around. On the seat was a map of the area marking the flow country. I wondered what it was about and whether they were egg thieves, people coming to molest the birds or whoever else.
As I went down towards the lower country I stopped at the first telephone box to ring the police. I gave them the number and told them that the car was parked empty and that at that time of year my natural reaction was that they were egg thieves. I asked the police whether they knew anything about the car. They investigated the matter and told me that there was no known owner of the car and that they wanted to investigate further. I asked whether they wanted me to investigate or to ring the keeper and ask him to investigate or whether they would investigate the matter. The police said, "Leave it with us".
They went up to the area and the person they found was a representative from the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. He was carrying out a count and had not had the decency to let even the police know that he was in the area. That is an example of the interference that goes on with the breeding life of the poor birds because they are supposed to be so interesting. It does no good and it does not help the birds to multiply.
During the debate I was most struck by a suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that flows can provide employment. I have never seen a flow produce employment for anybody except on one occasion. I was driving across a flow in a Weasel and skidded into a dubhloch and became stuck. I then had to find several people to help me pull it out. There is not a great deal of employment to come out of flows and people should not be greatly encouraged to tramp over them because it does them no good.
I was equally struck by the assertion made by, I believe, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, to the effect that a flow that is surrounded by forestry will never survive as a flow. In fact one can drain fairly close to a flow before having any effect on it. I have never been able to make the Nature Conservancy Council understand that fact. A flow is as described by the noble Lord, Lord Kimball. It is a sponge sitting on the stop of a ridge holding water. The ridge is drained and the water runs down it so that the slope comes to the edge of the flow. At that point one changes from hard heather ground to flow ground in a matter of yards. If one were to put a ditch

705
a few yards further in one might drain the ground below but within yards of the ditch there would again be flow. Such is the nature of that kind of peat. There is not a great deal of danger of draining away the flows or removing them altogether if some of the slopes are planted.
That leads on to one of the dangers of the argument about the flow country as a piece. It can stand a certain amount of forestry properly placed within it and that is what we want to achieve. We want to achieve a properly planned strategy of farming, forestry, other forms of tourist recreation and so forth integrated in the areas so as to keep the people there. For that reason I was encouraged to hear the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson of Bowden, suggesting that the Scottish Office is thinking along the right lines of integration and of mixing the different activities on the same piece of land. I believe that to be the key to all that we do in the area.
There is no point in turning a deserted piece of land into a complete desert when it can very well support families and help to support the infrastructure necessary if anyone is to use that land and enjoy it. I hope that in any future strategy the Government will hear in mind that forestry can mix with agriculture and flow country to the benefit of us all.
6.30 p.m.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Cranbrook for introducing the debate and to the Nature Conservancy Council for publishing an attractive, well produced and, above all, readable report. As we have heard this afternoon it is far-reaching and provides a wide field for debate.
I shall restrict myself to two interlocking subjects. I think that there will be groans around the House when I say that the first subject is forestry. The second subject, which has not yet been mentioned, is the preservation of our heather uplands. I believe I should keep off the flows. I know this part of the world because my noble kinswoman comes from there. She happens to be a Sinclair and is therefore a kinswoman not only of the noble Earl who is about to reply to this debate but also of the noble Viscount who has just spoken. I was amazed the first time I saw Caithness. I was taken to see my wife's ancestral burial ground where all the gravestones instead of having crosses on have skull and crossbones. I was then shown a succession of ruined castles all around the coast where I was told that her ancestors and, therefore, the ancestors of the noble Earl and the noble Viscount, spent generations doing the most appalling things to other people, and as far as I can make out, mostly to each other.
The noble Viscount said that the inhabitants of Caithness are an endangered species. I think that the presence of my noble friend on the Front Bench after his week with the Local Government Bill and the very spirited speech from the noble Viscount opposite show that there is a great deal to be said for the survival of the fittest.
To be serious, I should like to take up what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, said; namely, that there should be the rather draconian measure of relieving all tax reliefs on forestry. That
706
seemed to be a reaction to the problems of the flow country. At the risk of upsetting my friends in the NCC and wearing my cap as a member of the Countryside Commission, I should very much like to draw your Lordships' attention to an admirable publication produced by the Countryside Commission entitled Forestry in the Countryside. Indeed the noble Lord, Lord Moran, referred to the letter about it in The Times written by our chairman Sir Derek Barber. Included in this is the evidence which they will presently submit to the agricultual committee in another place. This document contains much common sense.
Forestry is still very necessary in this country but must be mixed. I personally like the idea that we should concentrate more on producing broadleaved trees and there are some very exciting ideas in this pamphlet. I particularly like the idea of a new New Forest which could be something for the 21st century based on what remains—and this was mentioned by the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso—of Sherwood Forest. It could perhaps be something in the Midlands in a large area of population where people can enjoy it; something where there could be forests mostly of broadleaved trees. There could be villages, farms and open spaces. I hope that is something which the NCC might support. It also struck me that this would provide a marvellous opportunity for pop stars and media personalities to invest some of their money instead of receiving a rather bad press for planting more and more conifers in Scotland. They would be popular for providing access to the public in a generally welcomed and beneficial environment. I hope something might happen along those lines.
I now turn to heather uplands. There is a paragraph about the importance of these on page 27 of the report. The heather uplands and moorlands arc a unique part of our heritage. I remember about four or five years ago when rather like the noble Viscount I was approached and asked if I would co-operate in a bird study being carried out, I believe, by the NCC on upland birds and particularly on waders. I readily agreed to do that and it went on for some time. I was telephoned one day by the person in charge of it and he said, "I am sure Lord Swinton that you will be delighted to know that we have come to a very definite conclusion that waders do much better on keepered moorland than unkeepered moorland." I was not surprised. It seemed to me to be as obvious as it could be. However, I have been encouraged in recent years—and I am sure that this will not be the case now—by the general acceptance of conservationists (and here I would exclude some of the more Loony Left of our access pressure groups) that field sports play a very important role in the preservation of the countryside. I agree entirely with what the noble Lord, Lord Moran, said about that.
Perhaps I may just quote very briefly from the first page of the excellent report by the chairman of the NCC where he states:
"Work by the Game Conservancy has shown the wildlife benefits to be gained by providing conservation headlands in arable areas by leaving margins unsprayed".
Of course, that particular example comes as a direct result of the game conservancy's research into why the grey partridge is disappearing. Nowhere is this link between game management and the protection

707
of flora and fauna more obvious and important than on grouse moors.
I think I agree rather more with the noble Baroness, Lady White, than with my noble friend Lord Rees on the value of large blocks of conifer forest. In my experience they provide little environmentally except homes for foxes and carrion crows. I think that waders and other small birds suffer as much as a result of predation from those species as do grouse.
Where we have grouse moors, and where those grouse moors are not oversheeped, we have the happy and attractive heather-clad countryside, particularly in Northern England and Scotland. I am afraid there is not so much in Wales and that may be because in the past there have been too many sheep. I think that what I have said is environmentally sensible and economically it works. However, the moment it is ruined by too many sheep, the heather goes and the pressure is on to plant large blocks of conifers. I do not think that is any good at all.
Perhaps I may just mention very quickly, because time is going on, that I believe that moor management plays a very large part. Bracken spraying produces new areas of heather, and bilberry and is of benefit to all types of wildlife as well as the grouse. A good rotation of heather-burning has much the same effect. Of course, the careful control of various forms of predators is also a benefit to all species of birds.
I could go on for some time on this theme but just in case there are any doubting Thomases in your Lordships' House, or indeed out of it, perhaps I may commend to your Lordships a most excellent and attractive new book called The Fox and the Orchid by Robin Page. I believe that anybody who reads this book, even the most doubting Thomas, would be convinced by the argument I have put forward.
6.38 p.m.
Lord Margadale: I should first of all like to congratulate my cousin Lord Granville. I feel quite proud of him. We had the same grandfather who—and I am sorry to have to say this to the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso—was a Liberal Foreign Secretary to Mr. Gladstone. I should like to congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, for being responsible for starting this debate, and also for his very interesting speech; although I must admit that I do not agree with all of it. If you were a crofter in Islay—and I have been connected with Islay all my life—it would be difficult to believe that everything was quite as happy as it sounds in this Chamber. On one side is the Atlantic Ocean and on the other side is your croft. You possibly have another job to do as well, and life will be quite difficult because of all the restrictions put on by SSSIs. I personally think that there are too many, and that there will be a great difficulty.
I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Moran, on his remarks. He complained that no mention of sporting affairs was in the NCC report. and I thank him for doing so. It is noticeable that books produced by the Nature Conservancy Council, (which is an admirable body) contain virtually nothing on sport as a whole, that means shooting,
708
fishing and hunting which is common in this country and quite within the law. I am glad that that point has been raised today. To turn to fishing, as has already been touched upon, great care must be taken when forestry plantations are planted that too much acidity does not go into the water to kill the spawn. That point is vital for good fishing in this country and particularly in Scotland.
The SSSIs entail very strict controls on owners and farmers. It is important that more detailed explanations should be given to those concerned. In the Isle of Islay (with which I am connected, as I have said) the name of the Nature Conservancy Council is far from popular because it is very difficult for a smallholder or a crofter to understand those complicated matters. I hope that the NCC, which has a difficult and all-embracing job, will ensure that those on the ground know their stuff and can explain it to all concerned. That is vital. If it is not done, it causes a great deal of bad feeling, and the procedure will not work unless the people are fully advised.
With regard to the composition of the NCC, I am sure that it is a very public-spirited body and does all that it can. However, it is rather select in comprising many people who are what I call professors with deep knowledge of their subjects who are not really countrymen. It is very important to have ordinary countrymen represented on the NCC. I would suggest, for example, that a retired keeper or hunt servant would probably know much more of nature on the ground than many of those of greater brain power who now sit on the NCC.
6.42 p.m.
Lord Chelwood: My Lords, I shall not tilt with my noble friend Lord Margadale, who knows that I do not fully agree with his views. He is too big and too great a horseman to take on at this time of night.
I too thank the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, for opening the debate. He was just the right man to do it. I much enjoyed the maiden speech of the noble Earl, Lord Granville—how nice to hear the views of the outer isles in your Lordships' House.
I very much welcome the newly constructed working relationship between the Nature Conservancy Council and the agricultural departments and, for that matter, the National Farmers' Union. For quite a number of years it was a polarised and unhappy dialogue. Therefore, it is a big step forward.
In contrast, I much regret the failure—perhaps we all do—of the conservation bodies, both statutory and voluntary, to see eye to eye with the Forestry Commission and the forestry industry as a whole. All too often they seem to have been at cross purposes. This is highlighted of course by the troubles in the peatlands of Sutherland and Caithness.
With respect, my noble friend Lord Rees was not right about the birds and coniferous forests. Birds like the merlin and the greenshank, which are comparatively rare, are driven right away by heavy coniferous afforestation and are replaced pretty rapidly by hooded crows, coal tits, chaffinches and all kinds of common birds.
I have been very impressed by the international work done by the Nature Conservancy Council

709
(referred to on pages 66 to 70) through bodies such as the IUCN, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, and others. It is trite of course to say that the birds, the bees and the seeds know no boundaries. We all know that perfectly well. Perhaps this is best pointed up by the Arctic tern, which breeds in the Arctic and takes its summer holidays in Cape Town or Wellington. The work that is being done across the countries by the NCC is very valuable and I should like to see it extended.
Talking of birds, I should like in two or three sentences to refer to the EC birds directive of 1979, amended in 1985. I hope to have a chance to open a short debate on it before the end of the year. It really is awful that literally millions of birds, many of them very rare, from goldcrests to golden eagles literally have to run the gauntlet of traps, poison and guns and every kind of hazard that one can imagine in the countries of southern Europe. The directive is widely ignored throughout at least five countries. I think that attention should be given to that, and I hope that we shall have the chance of doing so.
It is very worrying to see the range of proposed developments that continue to threaten our estuaries and coasts. I think of tidal barrages, port extensions, marinas, fish farms and, for that matter, the Channel Tunnel. It is for me equally a matter of concern how the accepted planning procedures—accepted widely on both sides of both Houses—have been short- circuited by Private Members' Bills. I have not seen attention drawn to this recently, but I think that it needs looking at very carefully.
Lord Broxbourne: My Lords, I believe my noble friend means Private Bills.
Lord Chelwood: My Lords, my noble friend is always correct on these procedural matters on which I am quite hopeless; yes, Private Bills.
We have as an international duty under RAMSAR and the EC birds directive to safeguard our estuaries, which harbour huge numbers of feeding and nesting wildfowl and waders. I hope that the advice of the Nature Conservancy Council is being most carefully considered here.
Missing out some points that I would dearly have liked to raise but for which I think there is not time, I wish finally to say a word about the special protection areas and the RAMSAR convention. Here I strike a critical note. I gather that the NCC—I believe that my figures are broadly correct—has decided that some 200 or so sites are suitable for listing as SPA sites. However, of those only 24—that is, about one out of eight—have actually been designated by the Government. Where RAMSAR sites are concerned I believe that well over 100, perhaps even 150 sites, have been listed as suitable for designation by the Nature Conservancy Council and only just over one quarter have actually been designated by the Government. I should say that among the figures that I gave for RAMSAR and SPA sites, 122 sites are common to both lists.
We ought surely to be leaders in this field, but we are beginning to lag behind some of our neighbours in Europe. Therefore, I give the Government nine out
710
of 10 for species protection and only five out of 10 for habitat protection. The Government protect the safe sites where no developments are threatened or which are already designated as conservation areas, but surely designation should be used as a recognition of site importance to protect it against undesirable developments. Unless that is done ahead of the development, very little or even no account may be taken of environmental impacts. I urge the Government to rethink this matter.
As a classic example of laggardyness in this field, perhaps I may ask the Government what happened about the designation of the Wash as a RAMSAR site. I believe that it was four years ago that the Nature Conservancy Council commended this. So far as I know, apart from a couple of rumours, nothing has happened.
It is all too easy to criticise the Nature Conservancy Council—of course it is. It makes its mistakes. I served on it for six years, but not as a boffin, as I think my noble friend Lord Margadale knows quite well. I think that it makes a few mistakes usually through over-enthusiasm. However, I judge that on the whole it has done a very good job. It is the envy of a good many foreign countries. The Government inexplicably starved the Nature Conservancy Council of essential resources for two or three years after the 1981 Act, yet it had to carry out far greater statutory obligations. However—and I end on a happy note—the Government deserve great credit and much thanks for their generous and usually imaginative approach to nature conservation. I am happy to have made a minor contribution to this debate on an excellent report.
6.50 p.m.
The Earl of Stockton: My Lords, it is a measure of the change in attitude that has taken place both in society and in Parliament over the last quarter of a century that this debate has been welcomed by your Lordships from all parts of the House. In it we have had the fine debut of the noble Earl, Lord Granville, and we are all grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, for initiating the subject. I regret that the Statement made earlier has meant that I shall be unable to stay to hear the winding up speeches by the noble Baroness and my noble friend the Minister.
If one goes back just 25 years, things were very different. Farmers were grubbing up hedges in earnest, the drainage of wetlands was still being promoted as a good thing by all but a prescient few, who were frequently regarded as cranks. Gamekeepers still boasted about the number of hawks, foxes, stoats and weasels they slaughtered. In those days forestry meant great swathes of the countryside covered in rank upon rank of conifers; an evergreen army advancing inexorably over an unsuitable landscape.
However within 10 years controls had been introduced on most pesticides. DDT had been banned and the management of the countryside to achieve some compatibility between man and his environment was accepted as the reasonable philosophy.
As the 13th report of the council has shown, improvements both of attitude and policy continue to
benefitwildlife and the environment generally, but I fear that the sands are running out. Much has been said of the problem currently facing the flow country of Caithness and Sutherland by, among others, the noble Lords, Lords Sanderson, Kimball, Renton, Blakenham, Thurso and Swinton and in particular by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, who has obviously made a close study of the problem. I hope that extended to having visited the flow country himself and not just observing it through the eyes of Mr. Bellamy.
I endorse the view that the reckless afforestation of the area surely must be controlled. Perhaps I may also add that, if people want to plant trees, please will they come and do it in Sussex, Surrey and Kent? We are a little short of them at the moment, as my noble friend Lord Renton pointed out. There are good grants for broadleaved species. If they do come, I hope they do not have to blight our landscape with dark conifer woods.
I know that the proponents of forestry in the flow country will claim that by planting up to the central pool sites they are protecting wildlife to an extent. I am afraid that this will not stand up. The research at Coom Rigg Moss National Nature Reserve by Dr. Chapman of the ITE has shown that between 1956 and 1986, during which time the site has become completely surrounded by coniferous plantations, there have been, as he has said, "dramatic changes". The report adds:
"It seems fairly certain that they are linked to the sites' complete envelopment by afforestation."
There is a certain irony in that the traditionally allegedly plutocratic pastimes of shooting, fishing and stalking now seem to be coming back into favour, as pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Moran, and my noble friend Lord Swinton. I confess that, in common with one or two of your Lordships, I also enjoy shooting. A few years ago I had the pleasure of being asked to shoot at Tregaron in mid-Wales. Tregaron is a classic raised bog with flashes of open water. The weather was extremely cold and the hills around were snow-covered. I took my place in the hide on the edge of one of the flashes and waited, above my knees in water.
As the sun sank, it became colder and colder and I was a little surprised to see a scum of ice forming around my waders. The last rays of the sun had turned the mountains pink on the east side of the bog when I heard for the first time in my life the call of the red kites which still nest in the area. In the shadows on the western side of the bog a barn owl systematically worked the hedgerows like a vast predatory moth. Suddenly, out of the sky slid two, four, 10, 20 teal, the wind whistling through their feathers as they side-slipped into the flash. I am happy to say that I was unable to lift the gun. For the next 15 minutes I stood while nearly 200 wildfowl of half-a-dozen species came into my flash. I think that the pleasure of watching them was the best bag I have ever had.
To preserve such places and such moments for all of us is the work of the Nature Conservancy Council. It gives its support and grants to other conservancy groups including the county nature conservation trusts. The umbrella body of these organisations, the
712
Royal Society for Nature Conservation, under the patronage of the Prince of Wales, has been and is still running an appeal named "Tomorrow will be too late".
As a former member of that appeal I make no apology for mentioning it, for every penny donated by us as members of the public frees the resources of the Nature Conservancy Council for other vital work. If we are to retain our widlife, countryside, estuaries, sea shores and, above all, our wildernesses for tomorrow, it is not enough merely for the dedicated professionals of the council and other organisations with government funding to fight and struggle. It is for all of us, country people, town people, businessmen, industrialists and farmers, to care and to show today that we care, for, if we do not, tomorrow will be too late.
6.56 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I should like to begin by thanking the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, who tabled the Motion and enabled us to debate this excellent report. As we know, it is a very wide-ranging subject and tonight I should like to touch upon two aspects. It will not surprise your Lordships that the first of these is forestry and the other is the environmental aspects of less intensive farming and set-aside.
The forestry argument has been covered very ably by a number of speakers. I feel that the issue should not be confused by the tax relief situation. What particular individuals are doing is perfectly legal until the taxation law is changed. It will not surprise your Lordships to know that on this side of the House we feel that this aspect of taxation should be changed. However, it is wrong to pillory named individuals because of the way in which they choose to arrange their taxation affairs.
As I understand it, the acreage which is planted using the tax regime in the area in question is about 8 per cent. of the total. The actual flow area is of the order of 200,000 hectares and of that there are 34,000 hectares which have been or will be planted. That is of the order of 16 or 17 per cent. I understand that in terms of land quality—namely, land which is to be or which has been planted—it has a yield class of 12, which is about the average for most similar areas in Scotland.
I referred to 16 to 17 per cent. of the area which might be planted. There is another statistic and that is of unemployment in the counties which is 16 per cent. We have heard a most impressive speech from the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, which emphasised the importance of employment in the flow country. In the west of Scotland the timber which has been planted has produced an investment of £600 million, which is downstream in the processing plants and so on and which is providing jobs. I shall leave it there as I am afraid of a classic example of conflict which a government have to resolve between the environment, the future timber needs of the country and jobs.
I should like to spend a few moments on the environmental aspects of set-aside and of less intensive farming. I quote from the NCC report at page 7, where it says:

713
"If the ESA scheme proves successful, and we will do all we can to help towards its success, we should like to see its principles made more generally available to farmers, with sufficient financial incentives to provide the option of farming in an environmentally sensitive way and contribute in a modest way to a reduction in agricultural surpluses".
The report continues:
"Crop diversion offers perhaps the greatest opportunity of all for increasing the wildlife value of farmland. Planting trees without careful thought or simply leaving land fallow do not by themselves achieve that goal".
This intention is reinforced by a quotation from the European summit in June of last year:
"Preservation of the environment and the countryside should be an integral part of a more flexible agriculture policy more dynamic and better adapted to the market. The adjustment of the CAP… must also take into account the need to safeguard the social fabric in rural areas".
This relates as much to the future work of the NCC as to the work which is described in the report.
The role of the NCC is to conserve the habitat, the landscape and so on. Our most important natural resource in the countryside is people. I remind your Lordships that farming has lost a total of 72,000 jobs over the past 10 years. There is a superficial analysis that we have had to close down steel mills and coalmines and that the farmers and the farmworkers will have to go through the same trauma. It is possible to close a steel mill or a coalmine with all the problems that that entails.
It is extremely hard to close down a parish and it is impossible to close down a county unless we are to see, as is now being seen in America and Canada, farms actually left void and unworked and the lands and the houses left to dereliction. The land in this country will be farmed but it is a question of the way in which it is done. The NCC has an important role in helping to answer this question.
To give an idea of the size of the problem, an increase of 0·5 per cent. per annum in agricultural productivity will render an additional 2·5 million acres of agricultural land redundant by the year 2000. That is in addition to the acreage that is required to be made redundant now to handle the current surpluses. All of this will have a substantial effect on the environment and the wildlife habitats.
I turn now to set-asides. When I speak in this House, facing the Bench of Bishops and surrounded by stained glass, I often feel that I should have a text. The text for set-aside is not unfortunately in the Bible but is in the book Catch 22 by Joseph Heller. It says:
"Major Major's father was a God-fearing, freedom-loving, law-abiding, rugged individualist who held that federal aid to anyone other than farmers was creeping socialism.… His speciality was alfalfa and he made a good thing out of not growing any. The government paid him well for every bushel of alfalfa he did not grow. The more alfalfa he did not grow, the more the government gave him, and he spent every penny he didn't earn on new land to increase the amount of alfalfa he did not produce".
As the House will know, alfalfa is a funny word the Americans use for lucerne. That quotation is amusing but it has a real and a political significance. I feel that farmers will become extremely exposed politically if, to use a trite phrase, they are paid large sums of money for doing nothing. If this happens, in a few years the furore of this could be compared with the investment in the flow country and we could even
714
see as a result substantial farmers with their names and their photographs in the colour supplements.
I should like to make it clear that set-aside is not an environmental policy. It is a part of the agricultural price policy. Its main function is to control the CAP budget. It has considerable environmental dangers. If land is set aside for fallow it will almost certainly be given the least expensive form of managment. There may be problems with the leaching of nitrates and with soil structure. There is the conflict between the rotation of fallow land for agricultural reasons and the value of permanent fallow for environmental reasons. It will almost certainly be a permanent feature of agricultural policy if the required acreage of redundant land is to be released unless alternative systems of less intensive production can be found.
Your Lordships will know that in America the first set-aside scheme was set up in 1933. Last year, 69 million acres were idle in the United States. We are told that one of the problems with set-aside is that if land is fallow farmers will intensify the production on the rest of their land to make up the difference. It is a matter of simple arithmetic that a reduction in acreage of 20 per cent. requires a yield of 25 per cent. on the acreage that is left. If we knew how to increase our yields by 25 per cent. we would be doing it now and would not be waiting for set-aside.
I turn to the subject of less intensive farming. After 30 years as an agricultural adviser, advising farmers to put on more nitrogen, to reduce their labour force, to use the larger machinery, to increase their production, to intensify their stocking and so on, the remarks I am about to make will make St. Paul on the road to Damascus sound like a beginner. An amendment was put down by the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, to the Farm Land and Rural Development Bill. It was intended to encourage systems of less intensive farming and, as he will know, we on this side of the House were pleased to support him. This subject has been mentioned in the NCC report. It is an alternative to set-aside. It is defined as a reduction in the amount produced on each acre as an alternative to a reduction in the acreage that is actually farmed. If we were able to do that, and maintain the crops, the livestock and the land in work, jobs would be preserved.
Systems of farming in this way are not easier. It is easier to reach for the spray can and the syringe than it is to farm less intensively, which requires a much higher level of technical competence. The example has been given of the grazed fallow and the use of livestock on land which is farmed less intensively. I believe that we are in a minority of one in Europe in opposing this suggestion.
We are told that less intensive farming would be hard to police. Any scheme which we introduce now will be hard to police. We have to recognise a simple point if we are to solve the problem. There are two main ways by which the supply of foodstuffs can be brought more into line with demand. Either farms and farmers can be taken out of production or, alternatively, all farmers could be encouraged to produce less efficiently than technology permits. The future of conservation in man-made landscapes in Europe depends crucially on which of these strategies, or what mix of them, is pursued under the CAP.

715
With all the problems of agriculture and the environment, it is a great pity that a research project which was proposed only recently for major work into the relationship between agriculture and the environment—the physical and social aspects—has been postponed if not cancelled as a result of the cuts in R&D budget for science. I believe that there is an important role for the NCC in conjunction with other bodies in advising and helping farmers to adopt these less intensive systems and to farm in an environmentally friendly way.
In conclusion, there seems now to be a political willingness to redirect agricultural policy and expenditure. This provides perhaps the last opportunity we have to reduce surplus production, to improve the environment, to keep the countryside well farmed, to maintain farm employment and to stimulate the rural economy. There is no single answer. A range of policies and schemes are needed. All of these will impinge on the work of the NCC. I refer to a reduction of the use of nitrogen, organic farming, less intensive farming and the use of graze fallow. There will be some bare fallow which I hope will be managed in an environmentally sensitive way. There is the farm woodland scheme, the reduced spraying of headlands and an increase in the acreage of spring sown cereals. These are some of the ways in which the job could be done.
Farming is a resilient and inventive industry and has responded magnificently to the post-war demands from successive governments to increase production. I am sure that as an industry it will now respond to the range of policies I have suggested, but there must be a proper level of compensation and there must be guidance from government.
7.10 p.m.
Lord Craigton: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Cranbrook for initiating this debate. As he was speaking I wished for the impossible: that his father could have been here to hear him. Many of your Lordships will remember Jock, a wonderful pioneer and fighter for conservation at a time when it was nothing like as popular as it is today.
My noble friend Lord Chelwood mentioned Private Bills. I should like to say something about them because he was worried about them and so am I. Since 1986, there has been an increase in the number of Private Bills that affect SSSIs. It is in all our interests that the NCC's comments should be as effective as possible. The Bills to which I refer are the Hampshire (Lyndhurst Bypass), Felixstowe Dock and Railway, the Falmouth Container Terminal, the Cardiff Bay Barrage, and there are others. That unusual activity has brought into prominence the justification, as my noble friend said, for taking a closer look at the Private and hybrid Bill procedure, as it is now applied.
I shall give four reasons for concern. The procedure can be and has been used—whether intentionally or not, I cannot say—as a means of short circuiting the nation's normal planning system and avoiding the provisions of the Wildlife and Countryside Act; thus taking away the NCC's powers. Examples of such action are the Cardiff Bay
716
Barrage Bill and the Channel Tunnel Bill. Those are examples of the setting aside of Section 28 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act.
There is some conflict here between normal planning procedures and the law of the land, and private legislation. If there has been abuse, or if the mechanism of Private Bills can be used in that way, it must be for Parliament to take some action, initiated by the Minister. I cannot see how the matter can be put right except by Parliament.
Secondly, I should like to ask whether the traditional neutrality of government departments towards Private Bills is still correct in relation to an international obligation where the Government are party to a convention. Is not that issue something that should be pointed out in evidence by the Government, so that the Committee is fully aware of the situation?
My third point provides an obvious improvement for the NCC and should not give the Government any difficulty. The suggestion is that Standing Orders should be amended so that the promoters are required, where a Bill will affect an SSSI interest, to consult the NCC before the Bill is deposited in Parliament.
My last point is that certain projects, liable after July 1988 to environmental assessment when the European Commission directive comes into force, will be exempt if they are put forward in Private Bills. An example is the proposed RAMSAR and protection areas (confirmed as such in an Answer to a Written Question) which are part of the Felixstowe Dock and Harbour proposal. That exemption from an EA is necessary because projects adopted by national legislation are exempt under the terms of the European Commission directive. For that reason, unless something is done, there could be an increase in the number of projects promoted by hybrid and Private Bills.
The NCC recommends that a statement be made by government that any project prepared through a Private or hybrid Bill should, if its nature would qualify under the environmental assessment directive, be accompanied by its environmental assessment when it is tabled. That would do no more than follow the procedure which will be used for Crown developments, which are already exempt under the European Commission directive.
I had intended to talk about RAMSAR sites and special protection areas but those points have been covered by my noble friend Lord Chelwood and I agree with everything he said. Therefore, I shall continue with my last point. I should like to say something about the Government's conservation organisation in Britain. Every ministerial responsibility has, or must have, some form of conservation department. But what is the extent of the co-ordination and co-operation between them? Furthermore, should the D of E have overriding decision-making powers? Should the degree of coordination and control now being achieved by the Health and Safety Executive or the Pollution Inspectorate be applied to our conservation activities as they affect our living things and the best use of our countryside? Is the Government's conservation organization— the NCC, the

717
Countryside Commission, the Forestry Commission and so forth—the best set-up to take the fullest advantage of the opportunities now emerging to make Britain scenically attractive, worthwhile to live in and visit and a safe refuge for the living and material things that we have here and which are our heritage as Britain and as part of Europe?
Furthermore, have we, in the Government's conservation organisation, the best set-up to take the greatest advantage of the growing skills and interests in conservation now available to us through the voluntary conservation bodies and the world of industry and commerce? The whole set-up works—in a way —partly because the various chairmen who live in one another's pockets make it work. But the whole pattern of authority and control has, like Topsy, "just growed". If we started again, the set-up would not look as it does today. How can one do the best for Britain when England, Scotland and Wales seem, in many matters, to pursue their own policy, and when we have at the very top dual control between MAFF and the D of E?
7.17 p.m.
Lord Norrie: My Lords, previous speakers have already outlined the complex and demanding role of the Nature Conservancy Council which was so well illustrated in the 13th report. The role of the NCC is seen by many as a negative force. Nothing could be further from the truth. The NCC has to face up to a number of contentious environmental issues: the future of forestry, the changes of land use and the over-abundance of interest groups competing for influence and resources.
I should like to concentrate on what I consider to be the most important of all those interest groups; that is, the voluntary sector. That sector plays a vital role in the NCC, providing (as it does) its practical conservation arm. Only last April the NCC held a conference called "Partnership in Practice", thereby demonstrating its recognition of the irreplaceable contribution of the voluntary sector.
I should like to tell your Lordships about the role of the British Trust for Conservation Volunteers, of which I am president, to underline the strength of that mutual co-operation. The BTCV is no airy-fairy organisation existing on the ideals of conservation; we actually get our hands dirty. Our reputation for practical conservation is second to none. For example, in the storms of last October I do not have to remind the House that we lost 15 million of our national trees. The scale of that disaster was such that without the skills and co-ordinated efforts of an experienced voluntary sector, the effects of the damage could not possibly have been contained as quickly as they were. We were able to mobilise 4,000 volunteers on 330 sites throughout the storm-battered counties. Many volunteers were on site immediately. They have continued to be on site since then, and will remain on site until our national heritage is restored. Also we are increasingly concerned about the urban environment.
Another example of our close co-operation with the NCC is the Wrens Nest Nature Reserve project in the West Midlands, managed by the Dudley borough
718
council. Here in this urban environment the BTCV has involved local schools and unemployed volunteers from the local community in carrying out woodland management and footpath work. This not only creates an awareness of the vital nature of conservation work in a whole new generation but can also lead to permanent jobs for the unemployed.
In Merseyside the BTCV recognises the special problems of the region's unemployed. We provide transport from the local job centres and our aim is to involve unemployed volunteers in fascinating and constructive projects, in the course of which they receive expert trainng in many practical skills. The NCC's Ainsdale Sand-Dunes National Nature Reserve is an example and the objective is to halt the rapid erosion of the sand dunes along the 50 miles of Sefton coastline. This is being achieved by the planting of marram grass, the erection of chestnut paling stakes and the sea buckthorn windbreaks.
So you can see the the BTCV is working hard to put partnership into practice. We, with other organisations such as the National Trust, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the Royal Society for Nature Conservation and the county nature conservation trusts all make a significant contribution to nature conservation in our country. These organisations manage, on behalf of the NCC, approximately half of our national nature reserves, as well as over 1,700 of their own reserves, half of which are designated as sites of special scientific interest. To put this into perspective, we are talking about an area the size of greater Manchester, Leeds, Birmingham and Bristol, all put together with a few hectares to spare.
His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales said at an RSPB awards luncheon last year:
"I know that the BTCV does a wonderful job all over the country but it is desperately undermanned and sure that masses of young people would really love to make a contribution to their country in this particular way if they were given the opportunity to do so."
To reinforce that fundamental need, the chairman of the NCC made it clear in the 13th report that the voluntary movement as a whole needed to raise its sights and increase the resources at its disposal. While the NCC relies on the dynamism of the voluntary and private sector, the voluntary sector also relies on the NCC for its support, encouragement and for a proportion of its resources—in fact, the basic requirements of a true working partnership.
Therefore I ask the Minister, on behalf of all of us who care for and recognise the critical balance of our environment, to ensure that the NCC is given the necessary resources to carry out essential conservation work. Give us the money and we will do the job.
7.24 p.m.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, I should like to start by congratulating my noble friend Lord Cranbrook upon putting down this debate. I should also like to congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Granville, on his maiden speech. My remarks will be rather dull this evening, I am afraid: I am going to talk a little about the flow country, where I have been.
I am all for employment in the Highlands, but the difficulty with planting, especially with a tree like the

719
sitka or pinus contorta is that on very poor soil they grow slowly. It is all right if there has been planting in the area for quite a few years, but before full employment can be achieved there have to be trees of a certain height and age ready for thinning so that there is something to sell. one really cannot establish the organisation as regards the ancillary products from the sawmills unless there is a lot of timber in the area—many tens of thousands of acres. That takes a long time.
As regards employment from forestry, I have had a certain amount of practical experience of the countryside generally in Scotland and England. My experience has been that the forestry syndicates use a great deal of their own labour. They do not necessarily employ much labour from the surrounding countryside.
Another point I should like to make regarding the Forestry Commission is that, in my area of the Western Highlands, the commission is not now thinning the plantations; it is waiting to clear fell. That means that the trees end up as spindly sticks 60, 70 or 80 feet high and very susceptible to wind blow. In my area, the Isle of Mull and the Western Highlands, these are chiefly sitka spruce. The trees then go to Norway for pulping because there are no pulp mills, the one at Fort William having disappeared quite a long time ago. So the trees go to Norway as timber and come back to this country as pulp. From the economic point of view, that seems to me to be a bit mad.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, was rather critical of private people planting trees and getting these huge tax rebates, and I have some sympathy with him as regards certain syndicates. On the southern boundary of my estate I have as neighbours a pop group called Genesis, who were brought into this by Fountain Forestry. They had never seen the land but they now have about 15,000 acres there. These have been planted chiefly with sitka spruce. That has done great damage to the wildlife and it has destroyed a small but very good river—mine—as a result of the acidity of the floodwater coming down all the drains. As noble Lords know, if one plants a hill one has to plough it and plant trees in the upturned turf. As I have said before in this House, sitka spruce has a very thick canopy and kills everything under it. True enough, it produces the greatest volume of cubic feet of timber per acre, but it is not at all good for the conservation of wildlife.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, objects to the great tax handouts to private foresters, but I have some sympathy —perhaps it is not a practical sympathy—for the members of these syndicates, which are organised by chartered accountants in London. They get hold of people who have no knowledge of the land, the country or trees. They are largely entertainers. I think it would be better if private landowners received financial support. Indeed they do now, but I can now understand that it is difficult to separate them out from the big syndicates. However, there it is.
I hope that, now that we have overproduction of foods, far more planting will be carried out lower down the hills—in other words, on better ground. In that way far better trees will be grown and we shall be able to grow deciduous trees.
720
I feel that there is far too much planting of conifers. The woods are not thinned and we do not get mature timber. A sitka spruce standing on its own when it is mature at about 80 years old is a very fine tree. But of course today they are planted very close together and they are not thinned by the Forestry Commission. There always used to be two thinnings, but they are not thinned now and I believe that is really rather a waste. A few years ago these trees were being thinned but the first thinnings were never gathered, and that seemed extremely wasteful.
If too much forestry is carried out in an area, it ruins the fishing and is not good for wildlife. The wildlife in the Highlands produces a lot of income, especially hard currency. If there is too much planting, much of the value of the sporting rights will be destroyed.
Some time ago I was asked to address an American foundation, the chairman of which was a Mr Stoddard from Massachusetts. The majority of the people in the foundation were great naturalists. Mr. Stoddard, who, unfortunately, is no longer with us, made the undercarriages for Boeings. He wanted me to explain to the members of the foundation how it was that in this tiny little country of England, and of course Scotland, we had so much wildlife. He expained that in America there was nothing like the same amount of wildlife.
I told the group that we owe our landscape to the system of enclosures which began about 250 years ago, in the early 18th century. I told him that in those days the country was controlled to a great extent by the landowners and that they were extremely knowledgeable in their management of land. They would, for instance, plant a wood and, if they saw a damp patch somewhere inside or outside the wood, they would not plough it up or drain it but would leave it there for birds which liked that habitat. That has continued for the last couple of hundred years and therefore we have a lot of wildlife, which is not the case in many countries today.
I should like to say that I sympathised with my noble friend Lord Stockton when he said that he did not have the heart to fire a shot when he went duck shooting. I too have given up shooting, partly because my eyes are very bad now but also as the result of an experience I had a few years ago. At that time I used to shoot wild geese. One morning, a flock of barnacle geese flew over me. They were flying to the Solway, but one bird dropped out and it came down and settled in a small river by the lawn. I went up to it and saw that it was a young bird, so of course I left it alone. The next morning two geese were flying around honking and I noticed that the young bird answered them. The two geese then went and joined the young bird; they had a great conversation together and then they flew off south. Obviously, those two geese must have been the parents of the young bird. I then vowed that I would never shoot another goose.
I wish to end by saying a few words about conservation. Very few members of the public really understand what conservation is. The public think that it is a few cranks who want to conserve butterflies or certain flora and fauna. But they do not realise that if we do not get our priorities right and if we do not regard conservation as probably the most

721
important priority there is for human beings, we shall not survive. If we neglect conservation, we shall poison the water we drink and the air we breathe and eventually, if we continue in that way, we shall disappear.
7.37 p.m
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, it was about 60 years ago when the Foresty Commission started up. We have had to live through some 50 years when blanket forestry was the order of the day. Therefore it is not surprising that there has been criticism of this tasteless planting and public antipathy to conifers in general. Of course the plantations will continue to grow in that way for another 60 years before we see any difference.
I was interested to see at Eskdale Muir— where I must declare an interest—which is a forest of about 30,000 acres, how large-scale forestry can be planted without the blanket system. In that forest there are very large rides and gaps framing all the rivers and making the most of all the delightful features. I believe that those hills in the Borders are thoroughly enhanced by forestry planted in that way. Furthermore they are far more accessible and the wildlife is much better than elsewhere because wildlife does not like open ground, nor does it like forestry; it likes the mixture between the two.
I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, that it is a great pity that so much forestry is felled for chip when the trees are all the same age and have not been thinned. Softwood would be very much more acceptable if more of it was thinned properly and was then to be taken on as high forest for 30 or 40 years when it could be appreciated. After all, people go, and I have also been, to the West Coast of America especially to see the softwoods such as the grandis, the sitka, the sequoias and all the other great trees. People go to the Black Forest to see the trees and they even go to Norfolk to see the trees there.
If the high forest is well looked after I believe that there will be just as much of an outcry and probably more when the time comes to fell it than there is now to try to stop trees being planted. We must not stop more trees being planted. We need more trees. We produce only 10 per cent. of our requirements. If we want timber for the future, we must find land to grow it on.
I think that the greatest threat to conservation for the future is the proposal put forward by the Common Land Forum for general access. I am a walker and I believe we need more access. I should like to see far more footpaths which are well marked and on circuitous routes. When one goes to a place, one wants to look at a map and see a walk of two miles or four miles which is well marked. But beyond that general access is quite disastrous and it would be particularly so to wildlife.
When a rambler or walker goes off a footpath and into the general countryside, he almost certainly does no harm at all. But if it is a legal right, that right extends not only to the rambler but to the ill-intentioned. There is already a high incidence of tree thefts, poaching gangs and people raising fires either
722
deliberately or by mistake; there is also much vandalism. That is particularly so in areas near conurbations. At present if people are acting suspiciously they can be removed and sent off to the nearest road, for example. If the right of general access is given, such gangs will be able to hang about, doing no harm while they are being watched and doing whatever they wish when they are not. There is much right of access in Derbyshire and the results have been very had for both wildlife and the maintenance of the area.
Another matter which has been mentioned in our debate is field sports. I believe that the maintenance of field sports is not just desirable but absolutely essential. Field sports such as shooting bring business money into the countryside. They are almost entirely responsible for financing the keepering and the maintenance of the countryside.
The keepers who are employed shoot the foxes and the grey squirrels which would otherwise ruin the sycamores and beeches. They kill crows and tend to such matters as heather-burning. Without field sports, there would be no keepers, there would be a lot of vermin and there would be no wildlife. Furthermore, when we have vermin we have no sheep on the moors. A farmer cannot keep sheep if the eyes of young lambs are pecked out by crows and the carcasses are then eaten by foxes. All that results in dereliction. The amount of maintenance needed by places such as the moorlands, which look as if they look after themselves, is not appreciated by people who do not have to look after them.
Finally, perhaps I may consider tax avoidance. We see much unfavourable comment in the press on tax avoidance. There is no doubt that we need more forestry; hence the efforts of the Forestry Commission to get people to plant trees. We then see the pop stars being criticised for doing so. I think the Government ought to say whenever they see a pop star putting money into forestry how successful their policy has been in getting private money invested in the land. After all, trees are no more than a crop. One would not plant corn out of after-tax income. Corn is planted in spring and harvested, with luck, in the autumn—as long as it is not a year like the last one. One plants any crop before tax and tax is paid afterwards. Of course I appreciate the Schedule B difference where the ownership is changed. It would be totally uneconomic to plant forests with taxed income. There would simply be no forests planted and the countryside would be that much worse off.
One sees the pop stars buying farms, running them and often making losses. But that is not highlighted and of course the Government have gone to great lengths to get people to invest in the business expansion scheme, which is a much quicker way of making a lot of money and which does not produce trees for the future.
Before the debate I took advice from accountants concerning the realistic figures for returns. I was told that by the time somebody buys land, plants it and maintains it for a number of years, after five years, and even after tax relief, he will probably just about get his money hack if he sells the land with the trees on it. After 10 years he should get double his money back. Even that is not particularly good. Obviously

723
there must be cases where the return is better. But those figures are interesting.
I was also interested to read a brief which states that a Schedule D investor who claims all available grants can get as much as a 5.8 per cent. return. Big deal! One can find investments with far less risk. Once the trees are planted, they are subject to disease and wind. We all remember the recent hurricane. Many of the trees which the hurricane blew down were investments which had been perhaps 60 or 70 years into their crop.
We have heard the policy of the Labour Party from the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. I was very sorry to hear it. It could do enormous damage to long-term confidence in a crop which is so long in growing. If the Schedule B option was done away with, no one would fell his timber.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt the noble Lord. I specifically did not say that Schedule B was to be abolished but rather the Schedule D release and the opportunity to switch between schedules. If Schedule B is put to replanting, that is quite a different matter.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that clarification. If he is going to do away with Schedule D, then of course there will be no planting in the first place.
In addition to the pop star syndrome, there is a lot of serious planting in forestry estates with 100-year cycles. It is essential that the tax regime should be maintained over long periods. Great care should be taken before tinkering with the tax regime just to spite a few pop stars. Care must be taken not to throw the baby out with the bath water.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I apologise to the House for not being present for a large part of the debate. However, if one belongs to committees, one must contribute to the continuity. In any case, I shall not ask the Minister any questions; I shall merely give opinions which I trust he will digest.
This is a debate on a conservancy report which seems to have concentrated largely on forestry. However, we have had far too much of a conflict between farming and the conservators. In my opinion, that is due mostly to ignorance on the part of the conservators. On the other hand, they may think the same thing about farming interests. It is very important that farming interests should go along with what the conservators are doing. Farmers live in the countryside and make it what it is. They must understand what they are doing and it must be made economic for them. It is quite impossible, with a low farming income—and it is low; at the present time it is only a third of what it was 10 years ago—to expect people to lay out money on pure conservation measures without some return. Indeed, at the present time, we have only five years of a guarantee that money will be forthcoming before the planting of trees and set-aside. Therefore in the long term we need to think a great deal more about how we are to use the surplus land.
I think that an awful lot of nonsense has been talked about forestry and the terrible green blankets
724
that cover the hills and ruin everything. I hate to contradict my noble friend Lord Hunt, but a conifer forest interspersed with larch can look absolutely beautiful. Anybody who takes a run down Deeside in the autumn can see the staggering beauty of conifers properly planted and interlaced with larches and the appropriate proportion of broadleaved trees. It is not true to say that they ruin the countryside; but of course they need planning.
I think that it is quite extraordinary that the Government—and they must look at this aspect again—have cut down the amount of planting by the Forestry Commission just as the commission was achieving its new remit of beautifying the countryside and providing recreational facilities and everything else. And it was doing it extraordinarily well. Suddenly that remit has been cut off in favour of private planting. Private planting has been very successful; but it is going wrong now. I must declare a slight interest because I am chairman of a company of forestry advisers who are experts in the field. It is a small company; it does not do much planting, but it advises. I must say that a lot of the people who are investing their money—pop stars or anyone else—are going to be sorely disappointed with the result. That is because the forestry companies have been scratching around for land in the most unsuitable places.
There has been talk of the flow country. I fully support planting in proper places in the flow country; but I do not support covering it with trees. However, I am absolutely certain that many of the trees in Caithness and Sutherland will blow down when they reach 25 years old. I am also certain that many of the people who are investing are going to be very sorry that they did not put their money into Japanese bonds or something and pay their taxes, because a great deal of the land that is being planted now is quite unsuitable for the job. It will never make money even if the trees last 100 years and get a subsidy every year of that 100 years.
The Government clearly need to rethink their policy. The tax incentives at the moment are not achieving what they were intended to do, which was to make landowners plant land and encourage employment on their estates. What is happening at the moment is that people are putting money in and forestry groups are taking advantage and planting trees in remote places—quite extraordinary places in some cases. The fact is that the only thing that they can do is to move in contractors and pull the trees down.
One can see that going on all over the place. I doubt whether it is giving the value that is needed. The Government need to re-examine the whole situation and see whether they are getting value for the amount of tax that they are foregoing. It would be a very sensible idea for a commission to report in a reasonable space of time. Right now Ministers must admit that the policy is not producing the results that they expected.
7.54 p.m.
Lord Dulverton: My Lords, I had meant to say five-and-a-half minutes' worth of words during this interesting debate, which has turned into something of a forestry debate. If I had known that that would

725
be the case, I should have detained your Lordships for half an hour. Perhaps at this stage of the evening I should let everyone off. There has been a certain amount of sense and a good deal of—I do not want to use unparliamentary language—less informed comment than one usually expects from your Lordships' House.
I wish to say a few words on the subject of this debate, which is the NCC. I have a strong interest in conservation on the one hand and in forestry on the other, between which two disciplines bones of contention have appeared.
I should like to spell out my commitment to conservation: I am closely involved with the World Wildlife Fund and the Flora and Fauna Preservation Society, as well as being president of the Gloucestershire Trust for Nature Conservation, among other things. I have been greatly honoured by receiving an award from Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands for contributions to conservation. For a number of years I also served on the Scottish Advisory Council of the NCC. I persuaded it not to abandon its attempts to reintroduce once native sea eagles to Scotland, a project which many members were inclined to stop. I am very pleased that I had enough influence to make it go on, as we know, to success.
This rather egotistical introduction is because some of your Lordships know of my championship of forestry, and I want the House to know the other side of the picture. Thanks be that we have an NCC to guard and guide in the valuing and protecting of our wild creatures, flora and wild places! Its report gives ample evidence as to how it is spreading its wings in pursuing the responsibilities with which it has been charged. Yet there are areas in its spheres of activity that cause me some concern—in some cases grave concern.
One of those concerns, blandly stated—and other noble Lords have touched upon this theme—is that in some cases it is antagonising landowners and professional land managers, who generally speaking have much sympathy towards it. There are constraints in pursuit of such goals of an often undeniably practical nature but of which I regret to say some NCC officers seem to be completely unaware. The intention at the top is good, and I pay tribute to the chairman of the NCC, William Wilkinson, who is having difficulty in passing this down the line of his host of junior officers. I wish that the junior officers, graduates in science or biology straight from university, could undergo perhaps a year's apprenticeship to a practical land agent or land manager on a country estate because there are problems of estate management of which, bless them, they seem to have no idea whatever.
For 20 years now I have directed the management of a Highland estate, half of which is covered by a national nature reserve agreement. I had hoped that we could work together in great sympathy and rewarding collaboration. I am afraid that those hopes have been somewhat dashed, despite genuine efforts on the part of the estate to make positive contributions to the restoration of what had become a devastated Highland area.
726
Other people have praised our efforts to make that contribution, but the reactions from some of the regional officers of the NCC have not been very appreciative. In some cases their thoughts, and the conditions which they try to impose upon us, are not demonstrably related to the advancement of wildlife conservation. So much for that matter. I believe I see sitting in the wings a very senior officer of the Nature Conservancy Council; indeed, I am not sure that the chairman is not there too. Perhaps I may suggest that some apprenticeship be undertaken by its junior officers with practical land managers.
I want to touch very briefly on the flow country, which concerns the very extensive boglands of Caithness about which we have heard something this afternoon. Those lands have recently acquired the designation of flow country. I enjoyed the vigorous speech made by the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, from the other side of the House, although he is not in his place now. He lives in that area and knows a jolly sight more than I do about it. However, I plodded over that country on military exercises during World War II so I know a little of it. I endorse the noble Viscount's definition. It consists of hundreds of thousands of acres with a scattered population and a few wading birds—which I for one value—but precious little else.
The afforestation of parts of what is now called the flow country has been blown into a cause célèbre. The NCC has said that we should stop any more forestry over that vast uninhabited area. The Secretary of State for Scotland has said that we should go on afforesting parts of it. That is the argument. There is masses of land for the comparatively few and charming waders which I so much appreciate. The point about forestry that is sometimes ignored or misrepresented relates to the economic and social arguments. If one builds up a viable forest estate in the flow country, in the course of time one will have a resource which will give much employment, with timber mills, hauliers and forest workers well and gainfully employed and contributing to the national economy, in an area of Britain which is very sparsely populated.
The joint opinion of the Highland Regional Council and the Highlands and Islands Development Board, which have made a study of this question, is this. If planting were to be continued on a comparatively modest scale in that huge area, in a matter of decades—because trees take a long time to grow and I wish that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, realised it and what it costs people to grow them—with a viable forest area of growing trees in various age groups, the final result would be a thousand new jobs in the woods and a thousand new jobs in sawmilling and wood processing. That is the opinion of the Highland Regional Council and the Highlands and Islands Development Board.
On the other hand, if the planting programme were stopped, it would immediately throw 120 men out of work. Worse than that, however, it would rule out the eventual establishment of timber mills in that area. Some noble Lords have referred to the fact that this country has been exporting pulp wood to Scandinavia and bringing it back as much more expensive pulp. Fortunately in other parts of Scotland that situation is being remedied and £600

727
million have been invested in recent years in new timber processing plants in Britain. The Forestry Commission and private planters have been building up a good resource.
I have overrun the time allotted to me to speak. However, I must just point out that, although some people say that forestry only employs men to plant trees and they then go away, that is rubbish. The after-care and subsequent thinning and felling work employs many more men than those required for the initial planting. I hope that I have made my two points and I shall not detain your Lordships further.
8.4 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, the European Year of the Environment has just 30 days to run so this debate will probably be the last on conservation that we shall have during the year. It is therefore very timely and we are grateful to the noble Earl for giving us this opportunity.
Perhaps the House should debate next the Forestry Commission's annual report, because it seems to me that forestry has taken more than its fair share of this debate. I resolved this morning not to mention forestry but it seems I must raise just one aspect of it. I am sure that the Minister will remember that he has been asked by a number of his noble friends to give the Government's present targets for forestry. I should like to go a little further and ask him if he intends to give that figure also to give the reasons for the targets.
I am told that imported timber is cheaper than home grown timber. If that is true, and home grown timber is needed to reduce imports, why is that not the argument about coal? We are told that Britain's next coal-fired power station will be sited near a port so that cheaper imported coal can be used. That may be a very good financial argument but why then does it not apply to timber? Obviously the reasons behind both decisions are not those that have been published. That is the last word that I shall utter on forestry.
I shall be as brief as I can because we have had a very long debate. There are, however, a number of other items in the report of the Nature Conservancy Council which need to be mentioned, some of which have not been touched upon today. Speaker after speaker this afternoon has illustrated that the importance of the Nature Conservancy Council is not in doubt. We have heard from the noble Viscount, Lord Blakenham, that grant-in-aid has increased over the past three years from £12·7 million in 1983–84 to £36·5 million in 1987–88. That reflects the growing importance of the work. The increase is encouraging but it must be viewed against the background of growing development pressures and significant changes in the agricultural scene—matters which were touched upon by my noble friend Lord Carter.
For example, as my noble friend Lord McIntosh said, since the 13th report was printed the urgency of the need to reduce agricultural surpluses has grown and the effects on the countryside could be dramatic. That matter was raised by one or two other noble Lords too. The extensification proposals of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the
728
European proposals for set-aside which are now being discussed can have positive environmental benefits if they are handled in the right way. However, they need to be applied with conservation in mind and that will need positive government backing and encouragement. The Government and landowners will need the advice of the Nature Conservancy Council if they are to take full advantage of the opportunities.
It is essential that the Nature Conservancy Council's resources are reliable and sufficient to perform its task. The thoughtful and constructive speech of the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, suggested that there was an even greater role for the council to play; that point was also made in the speech of the noble Lord. Lord Sanderson of Bowden, when he referred to extended provisions in the flow country. Both those proposals would require a massive increase in the Nature Conservancy Council's funding, and not just the kind of increase that there has been over the past three years but a truly massive increase. I hope that that point will be borne in mind.
The Nature Conservancy Council has the difficult task of implementing the Wildlife and Countryside Act. Other speakers have commented on that task, and the problems associated with re-notification of SSSIs have been discussed. We congratulate the Nature Conservancy Council on completing 80 per cent.—or, as some reports say, 85 per cent. —of the re-notifications, but it is disappointing to note on pages 12 and 93 of the paper that 200 sites were damaged during the period covered by the report.
I understand that the Department of the Environment is currently considering the Nature Conservancy Council's review of the Act. As my noble friend Lord McIntosh said, we hope that there will soon be new measures to make the legislation more efficient. I hope that the Minister can give us some encouragement on the possibility of new legislation or new measures.
Noble Lords will remember that the NCC cannot make an order to prevent damage or destruction of an SSSI. It can only make a request to the Secretary of State and such requests are not always acted upon. For example—and I shall give only one example—in August 1987 a request was refused by the Secretary of State concerning Llandegla Moors SSSI in Clwyd. This is an outstanding heather moorland of botanical and ornithological interest which supports a number of nationally rare and declining species. Heather moorland is now so rare that no more than 1·5 per cent. of Wales supports this habitat. An inappropriate and damaging afforestation scheme was proposed at this site, despite local objections. The Secretary of State's decision in this case holds implications for the future of all SSSIs throughout the country and may appear to be at odds with the general statement of policy and intent on conservation which Ministers have given us in the past.
We are concerned about the future of national nature reserves. Many other noble Lords have mentioned this. The proposal to privatise is not logical against the background of acquisition as a last resort. In the report before us the NCC is quite triumphant that it has acquired a reserve which it can

729
now protect. We know that most of the existing NNRs are in private ownership. As the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, made clear at the very beginning, something like a quarter of them are owned by the NCC. In most cases those in private ownership are managed well and there is no difficulty. But the ones in the ownership of the NCC are in that ownership for very good reasons.
Are the Government now telling us that the final safeguard which we have at the moment will no longer exist? If all 55 of the sites owned by the Nature Conservancy Council are to be disposed of, to whom will they be sold? If it is to be to voluntary organisations, will there be some recognition of the need for these organisations to be supported financially in management and indeed in the initial purchase? I hope that there will be a favourable answer on that.
I should now like to raise the issue of common land, because I do not think it has been mentioned this afternoon. The future of common land is mentioned on page 27 of the report. We still await legislation and a working party is in session hopefully to resolve the remaining problems, mostly I understand associated with the moorlands and the moorland association. The wildlife value of commons is very important. The Royal Society for Nature Conservation gives as an illustration—and I am indebted to the society for the figures—that in Norfolk, excluding the Saltings, 47.6 per cent. of commons are SSSIs. In Suffolk 48.8 per cent. of commons are SSSIs. The wildlife trusts have at least 60 common land nature reserves and so the list goes on. This highlights the need for legislation. There has to be agreement between those organisations concerned to protect wildlife and those which, quite properly, wish to improve public access.
The role of the NCC in continuing discussions is crucial, as will be its advice to government in the end. But there is urgency about the exercise. Every passing year our commons are being reduced by de-registration and development. We urge the Government to give some impetus to finding a solution. I hope that the work of the working party will not be held up by unnecessary antagonisms and that a solution can be found at a very early stage.
The need for the public to have access to the countryside is well established. This has been mentioned by others. The Countryside Commission figures show that 84 per cent. of people in this country visit the countryside at least once during the year and on any given summer Sunday 18 million people go to the countryside for their recreation. The case for giving them more access is clear if only to spread the load and reduce the problems for those who enjoy—if that is the right word—the popularity of public access.
The noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, mentioned the need for paths in forestry. I could not agree with him more. As one who has tried to walk through forestry paths and found them not to exist, I hope that that will be a matter that the Forestry Commission will take up—or indeed private forestry where it is responsible.
730
We should also remember that the whole business of nature conservation is dependent on continuing public interest and support. If the public lose interest in conservation and in the countryside, there would be a very dramatic change in attitude from everyone.
The noble Lord, Lord Norrie, in his interesting contribution, gave us a practical example of the value of public interest. The work of the BTCV has everything to commend it: practical results, education and, perhaps in the end most important of all, those who have taken part in these projects will for the rest of their lives have an interest in and an understanding of conservation work. The BTCV deserves our support.
I wish that there was time to cover more of the many areas that are mentioned in the report. Most of them fortunately have been covered by other noble Lords. I shall therefore end and leave enough time for the Minister to deal with all the questions that he has been asked. However, my final message is this. The Nature Conservancy Council is an essential part of a reasoned approach to the conservation of our natural heritage. We urge again that it is given adequate support.
8.17 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, I should first like to thank the noble Earl. Lord Cranbrook, for giving this House the opportunity to debate this important subject this afternoon, this evening and tonight.
We have had a fascinating debate which is a tribute both to the importance of this subject and to the enormous variety of experience and interest which your Lordships bring to it. I was glad to note the various tributes that have been paid to the NCC's achievements. I should like to add my own tributes and praise to the chairman who has sat gallantly throughout the debate. I very much look forward to working with him in the forthcoming months.
The major role and onerous responsibilities which the NCC has to exercise reflect in no small measure the judgment of this House during the passage of the 1981 Wildlife and Countryside Act. I have also noted, however, the concerns of some of your Lordships, in particular those of my noble friend Lord Granville, whose maiden speech I so much enjoyed, about the way in which the NCC goes about its business. Nobody—and that includes DoE sponsored bodies—is above criticism and if any complaints are made to me I shall certainly look into the details. I cannot, however, answer for the RSPB but I know that my noble friend Lord Blakenham will have noted what the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, said on that point.
More generally, however, I assure your Lordships that Ministers in my department are in no doubt about the major role which landowners and farmers have to play in managing and conserving the countryside and the extent to which it is important that statutory bodies recognise the sensitivities here. It is worth perhaps recognising the sheer volume of work with which the NCC has to deal. Negotiating with over 30,000 owners and occupiers, sometimes not the easiest of people, is a daunting task. The

731
noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, and my noble friend Lord Kimball, are right in saying that it is vitally important that the NCC works effectively in partnership with farmers and landowners. I know that the chairman of the NCC is well seized of this point. I can assure noble Lords that we shall be discussing with him in a constructive way how best the NCC can improve its procedures still further.
My noble friends Lord Dulverton and Lord Margadale will be pleased to know that the NCC recognises the need for its staff to be knowledgeable about country matters and has already modified the training programmes for new recruits to familiarise them with modern agriculture and forestry systems, practices, techniques and policies.
I should just like to mention the good relationships which have been established between the NCC and the NFU. Those of us who took part in the 1981 discussions will remember what an important area of concern this was to all of us. However, I am pleased to say that this morning I have received a letter from the NFU to say how much it values that relationship and to welcome the efforts which the NCC is making in tackling the large workload created by the 1981 Act, particularly on SSSI notification and the negotiation of management agreements.
The Nature Conservancy Council has now been with us in various guises for almost 40 years. However the council only moved to the centre stage after the Wildlife and Countryside Act was passed in 1981.
The NCC has complete freedom to advise government and other statutory bodies. Indeed it is duty bound under the Nature Conservancy Council Act 1973 to provide Ministers with advice on all policies affecting nature conservation. The NCC has established close contacts with all the key departments of state, with MAFF, the Scottish office and the Welsh office, as well as my department. I hope that is of some reassurance to my noble friend Lord Cranbrook.
The 1981 Act was designed to be a flexible instrument to protect nature without preventing natural change and without stultifying agriculture, forestry and other economic activities in the countryside through the imposition of over-bureaucratic controls. The cornerstone of the Act was voluntary co-operation between government and their agencies (including the Nature Conservancy Council) on the one hand, and those who live and work in the countryside— particularly landowners and farmers—on the other. Our objective was to cut with the grain of rural life, and not against it.
We are now in the seventh year since the Act was passed. Before responding to the detailed points raised this afternoon I should like to consider how some of the key sections of the Act have worked.
First, we had to strengthen the NCC itself. In the last year before the Act was passed (1980–81) the NCC's grant from Government was £9·4 million. Since then it has almost quadrupled to £35½ million this year. The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, will be pleased to know that subject to parliamentary approval, there will be a further increase next year to £38·95 million. This has allowed the NCC to improve the effectiveness of its entire operation. That includes
732
research where the NCC has actually increased its expenditure substantially using the additional grant-in-aid that we have made available. My noble friend Lord Cranbrook will note that the research expenditure has more than doubled from £2·3 million in 1984–85 to about £5 million this year. The noble Lord, Lord Moran, can be assured that the NCC has already increased its expenditure outside designated areas in the wider environment. Expenditure this year is likely to be almost three-quarters of a million pounds more than last year.
Above all, these additional resources have allowed the NCC to push ahead with the most ambitious habitat protection programme ever undertaken in this country. Before the Act, there was widespread and justifiable concern about accelerating losses of natural habitat. The traditional warp and weft of the British countryside was under threat. Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) had of course existed since the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act in 1949. By 1981 the NCC had designated over 3,800 of these "old style" SSSIs, but of course they provided no protection against activities such as draining, ploughing or afforestation which are not covered by planning controls. The NCC had powers to make management agreements, but in all that time only 70 had been negotiated.
The "new-style" SSSIs created by the 1981 Act transformed the situation by providing basic protection for all designated sites, and a breathing space in which the NCC could negotiate with any owner or farmer whose activities might threaten the site's important features, and to pay compensation where necessary under a management agreement.
This new framework for the voluntary approach set an enormous challenge. As my noble friend Lord Massereene will remember from our debates in 1981, there were many voices in both the conservation and farming worlds which said that it would fail. The NCC itself was faced with a Herculean task of renotifying every existing SSSI which still merited protection, as well as designating many new ones. It had to undertake thousands of site surveys and negotiations with farmers. But the results have confounded the critics, particularly those siren voices who called for detailed planning controls which would have strangled the prosperity of the countryside on which our wildlife ultimately depends.
By March last year, the NCC had met its 1987–8 target by renotifying more than 80 per cent. of the SSSIs which had been designated prior to the 1981 Act. There are already over 5,000 "new style" SSSIs—more than the entire sum of "old style" SSSIs designated in the 32 years before the 1981 Act. By 1989 about7½ per cent. of the total land surface of England, Scotland and Wales—the cream of our natural habitats—will be protected by SSSI designation.
There will of course continue to be the need to designate new SSSIs beyond that date, for example, those in Caithness and Sutherland to which my noble friend Lord Sanderson of Bowden has already referred when he opened for the Government this afternoon. The position on management agreements has also changed radically. During 1986–7 alone, the NCC negotiated 308 agreements, more than four

733
times the total number in March 1981. There are now over 850 agreements covering more than 48,000 hectares. Another 1,300 agreements are in the pipeline. They do, of course, cost rather more than the £39,000 which was being paid annually before the 1981 Act.
However, payments to farmers and landowners have not risen to the ruinous levels which many of the Act's opponents predicted. This year, total payments under agreements are likely to be £6·8 million, and the NCC expects that to level off in future years at about £11·5 million, when the SSSI programme is substantially complete. I would submit that this is excellent value for money. Indeed I believe it represents less than three-quarters of 1 per cent. of total expenditure on agricultural grants and subsidies in 1986–7.
Further, the SSSI programme has been carried out with the absolute minimum of compulsion and disagreement. In the six and a half years since the Act was passed, Ministers have had to make only 23 nature conservation orders, of which the government was later able to withdraw nine, because agreement was reached between the owners and the NCC. I believe this is a great tribute to landowners, farmers and crofters who have co-operated with the NCC, often in difficult circumstances. Public sector landowners are also playing their part. Last month, the NCC signed an agreement with the Ministry of Defence which will protect wildlife on 682,000 acres of defence land, including 176 SSSIs. As my noble friend Lord Ridley pointed out, it is one of the paradoxes of nature conservation that our military bases are such a haven for threatened species. Indeed one SSSI on defence land in Hampshire is the only single site in Britain where all 12 species of our native amphibians and reptiles can be found.
The SSSI programme as a whole is now proving its worth in preventing our best natural habitat from being damaged. In the year before the Act was passed, the NCC estimated that perhaps 12 per cent. of the SSSIs were damaged. In 1986–87 less than 4 per cent. of SSSIs notified under the 1981 Act suffered any form of damage, and only 1 per cent. came to any serious harm. Not a single new-style SSSI has been lost for the past two years. I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that we recognise the need for positive management and the NCC already has powers to offer payments to owners and occupiers to encourage positive conservation measures.
The success of the SSSI programme is now becoming quite well known and appreciated, even by those who were originally sceptical about the Act. The voluntary approach was also wholeheartedly endorsed by the Select Committee on the Environment in its report on Part 11 of the Act in 1985. Rather less publicity has been given to the NCC's parallel achievement in establishing a network of national nature reserves to bring added measures to conserve those SSSIs which are of national and international importance and allow them to be used for scientific research and education. Since 1981, the NCC has declared 62 new reserves, bringing the total number of NNRs to 233. As with SSSIs, the extra resources we have made available to the NCC have enabled it to step up the rate at which
734
new reserves are established. In 1986–87 10 new reserves were declared.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Cranbrook that the future size of the reserve network is the single most important subject to be addressed in the NCC's current review. We shall expect the NCC to consider a range of options, bearing in mind that all the top-flight sites will in any event be protected by SSSI status. Indeed, most already are. We do not want to pre-empt the outcome of the NCC's review but we must guard against designation for designation's sake. SSSI status provides a basic standard of protection. It may be possible to find other ways of securing positive management as well as establishing NNRs.
Most NNRs are established in co-operation with farmers and landowners, without the need for sites to be taken into public ownership. Almost three-quarters of the total NNR network remains in the ownership of private individuals or voluntary bodies and is managed for nature conservation in agreement with the NCC. I was therefore rather perplexed by the misleading stories which appeared last month in some newspapers which should have been better informed, suggesting that the Government were to insist on privatising national nature reserves. I must say to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, that it is certainly difficult to privatise sites which are already in private ownership! What we have done—and I make no apology for this'—is to ask the NCC to look at the reserves in its ownership, which are the minority, as part of a wider review of NNRs, and consider whether any could be transferred to private or voluntary ownership, under strict safeguards, to ensure the proper conservation of the sites. I hope that that will quell the fears of the noble Lords opposite. At this point, perhaps I may commend to your Lordships a brand-new NCC publication called Site Management Plans, which gives practical guidance on how to look after nature reserves and is particularly intended to help voluntary bodies manage their reserves as effectively as possible. The work was very well explained by my noble friend Lord Norrie, and I am grateful to him for bringing that matter to the attention of the House.
A number of NNRs and other reserves are, of course, already managed successfully by voluntary bodies. I am pleased to be able to announce one particularly important project today. I hope that it will please in particular my noble friends Lord Blakenham and Lord Chelwood. I have today authorised the NCC to offer the RSPB a grant of up to £500,000 for the purchase of one of our last remaining tracts of native pinewood at Abernethy Forest in the Cairngorms. The RSPB will meet £800,000 of the cost. The National Heritage Memorial Fund is to make a substantial contribution, and there is also the prospect of obtaining funds from the European Community—
Lord Chelwood: My Lords, as a former president of the RSPB and with a former chairman—my noble friend Lord Blakenham— sitting beside me, perhaps the Minister will allow me to take the opportunity to say how immensely grateful the society will be for the generous grant in aid towards the purchase of a

735
wonderful area of mountain, moorland and ancient pines.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. He is right to say that this is an exciting project. It will lead to the creation of the largest national nature reserve owned and managed by a voluntary body. It will also help to secure the future of our only endemic bird species; the Scottish crossbill.
I turn from the subject of land to that of water. There is a common link between the two; that is, business sponsorship. I am surprised that none of your Lordships have mentioned that. I wholeheartedly endorse the sentiments of the NCC's chairman, who stated in the report that:
"the future of nature conservation will largely depend on the dynamism of the private sector".
Esso is already supporting NCC's Inventories of Ancient Woodland. RTZ Cement is co-operating with the NCC to establish an arable weed research centre in the Chilterns to cultivate rare wild flowers for research. Last November the NCC published two major reports on seabirds at sea sponsored by BP, Shell and Esso, which will help oil companies working in the North Sea to protect birds such as guillemots, razorbills and puffins. Those are the birds which one may possibily find on marine nature reserves. That was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady White and by my noble friend Lord Cranbrook. We remain committed to the voluntary approach. I consider that the arguments of the noble Baroness, Lady White served only to confirm our belief that marine nature reserves could not operate successfully without the co-operation and assistance of all interests.
We are aware that progress is slow. Consultations are often protracted, but consensus is important. Time spent achieving that is not wasted. Indeed. the success of Lundy indicates that procedures can be made to work. We must not overlook the detailed survey started last year on marine habitats and species. The work is expected to take 10 years to complete and one of the results is expected to be that there will be further identification of potential marine nature reserves.
I turn from the sea to inland waters, a subject raised by my noble friend Lord Renton. I assure him that the growing problems from agricultural pollution and discharges from sewage treatment works are being tackled. Over £700 million is to be spent over the next four years on correcting that problem. Just outside this palace is the River Thames, which is a major success story. Over 100 species of fish are now to be found in the river and it is the cleanest metropolitan river in the world.
I should like now to deal briefly with some of the points raised by your Lordships. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, raised the important point of environmentally sensitive areas. I agree that the 18 areas in the United Kingodm are off to a good start and the take-up by farmers of land considered to be suitable in the first tranche has been as high as 78 per cent. The Forestry Commission has undertaken not to approve any forestry proposals that are incompatible with those features of an area which led to its designation as an ESA.
736
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, raised the subject of agricultural diversification by set-aside and extensification. The consultation document on extensification, issued by the agriculture departments in December, makes it clear that the scheme in the United Kingdom will be designed to fulfil environmental objectives. My department is considering with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food ways in which this can be achieved. The advice of the NCC and the Countryside Commission will be valuable. We are particularly interested in the research that the NCC is carrying out into the management and benefit of conservation headlands. I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Carter, that there is no easy answer.
I turn to deal briefly with forestry because the subject was covered earlier in the day by my noble friend. With regard to the flow country, I believe that the debate today has done a great deal to redress the balance, and I am grateful to the noble Lords who have taken part. In particular I thought that the points raised by my noble kinsman Lord Thurso were relevant to our discussions on the subject. I know the flow country well and have walked over it many times. It is important to note that the balanced approach being taken by the Government in tackling the problem is right.
My noble friend Lord Kimball stressed an important point. In addition to what the Government are doing, there is increasing scope for the NCC to build up partnerships with others as a way forward, even in such a difficult environment as the flow country. My noble friend Lord Rees stressed the importance of forestry as a crop in the countryside and he underlined that sympathetic planting can improve the environment. I am sure that he is right, and that contention was supported by my noble friend Lord Gisborough. I confirm that the target figure of 33,000 hectares per annum, as set out in the farming and rural enterprise package in March 1987, is still our target figure. We shall continue to monitor the situation and if necessary we shall revise the figure.
I turn briefly to the subject of forestry tax. I shall not say anything about tax; it is the close season in view of the forthcoming Budget. However, I was interested to note the comments of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. When I was in opposition, I asked the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, who was replying for the Government, about the present system. He said that it was a sound financial system. Any party can change its mind.
I totally agreed with my noble friend Lord Swinton when he drew to the attention of the House the need to conserve heather moorland. We regret that loss and we are concerned to find ways of reversing the process. We have welcomed the preliminary steps that the NCC has taken in that direction.
Following on logically from moorland are the traditional country pursuits. I agree with my noble friend and, indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Moran, and my noble friend Lord Gisborough, who raised the same points. Traditional country pursuits are eminently compatible with conservation, provided that they are practised sensibly. A great majority of country sportsmen are also the most active conservationists, and I want to see the successful

737
symbiosis continuing. There may be some of your Lordships who will not believe my noble friends and myself, and I should like to commend the book, The Fox and the Orchid, by Robin Page, who highlights the necessity for country sports when it comes to conservation.
I turn to an important point raised by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, which was picked up by my noble friends Lord Chelwood and Lord Craigton; that is, our obligation to international conventions. I was lucky enough the other day to designate a further site as a RAMSAR site. It was the the site at Slimbridge. I was able to designate the Upper Severn estuary, which includes the Slimbridge site, as a wetland of international importance under the convention. That brings the UK total of RAMSAR sites to 33. Only one of the 46 contracting parties to the convention has designated more sites. We are anything but failing in coming forward to comply with the international convention. Indeed, when it comes to special protection areas under the EC directive—and I look forward to the debate which I hope I shall take part in in the future—we have designated 22 sites so far. Needless to say, our record compares very favourably with other EC countries.
I quickly turn to common land to reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, that it remains the Government's intention to promote comprehensive commons legislation at an early opportunity.
I apologise to those of your Lordships to whom I have not replied, but I will of course write to your Lordships.
Perhaps I may conclude by reaffirming our commitment to a balanced and voluntary approach in conserving our wildlife. Indeed I believe we must check any tendency to increase the complexity of the legislation, and guard against devaluing the currency of conservation designations such as NNRs and SSSIs by seeking to use them too widely. We are completely opposed to making a museum out of our countryside. We must continue to march in step with country people who need to make a living—whether from traditional pursuits such as agriculture, forestry and country sports or from new technology and tourism. Now that there is a framework for protection of our wildlife treasures, we must look to individuals, voluntary bodies and commercial sponsorship each to play their full part in supporting the conservation ethic. Success will come through each and every one of us applying that ethic in our deeds, not merely our words.
The Earl of Cranbrook: My Lords, I should like to thank all those who have spoken this afternoon for their support in a long and very productive debate. I congratulate the Minister on his usual brilliant treatment of so many issues that arose from so many directions. His reply was concentrated on the Nature Conservancy Council's success in site protection and in safeguards for habitats. I should just like to reiterate that I do not consider that I am being alarmist when I stress that there is now hard scientific evidence of the vulnerability of the environment in air, land, coastal and marine waters which in many
738
cases is reaching the limit of its capacity to absorb chemical inputs: the impact of current human activity. There are places where no compromise can be reached and where some development can no longer proceed careless of the environmental impact.
I shall also mark today in my diary as being the first time that I heard from my noble friend Lord Craigton mention of the idea that, while the NCC is so ably and effectively occupied with site and habitat protection, nonetheless, and despite the regard for the environment among Ministers and departments which he mentioned, we need an overall environment protection commission which should be modelled perhaps on the Health and Safety Commission. As I say, I mark this day in my diary as the first occasion within Parliament that I have heard this idea, which is being fairly widely mooted outside these walls. Until we reach that day, the Nature Conservancy Council is the sole agency charged with the overall protection and safeguarding of the natural environment. The voice of conservation must be heard —not interpreted as opposition to development but also not in weak compromise, if this is what balance means. This voice must be heard to safeguard a healthy and robust natural environment that can sustain reasonable demands put upon it so that conservation and development go hand in hand.
The chairman of the NCC, Mr. Wilkinson, has fairly recently been re-appointed but the director-general, Mr. Dick Steele, will retire in May. I do not yet know who will take his place. However, I am sure your Lordships would like Mr. Steele to take from us all our warm congratulations on the healthy and vigorous state of the NCC and our recollection of the firm assurances of continuing government support that we have heard from the Minister.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Nutritional Labelling in the EC
8.46 p.m.
Lord Rea Lord Rea rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what is their response to the Coronary Prevention Group's policy document European Community; Barrier or Scapegoat—an Analysis of the United Kingdom Government's position on Nutritional Labelling.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, after a long and interesting debate, we are going to talk about something which seems to be rather complex if one looks at the title of the Unstarred Question but is in fact relevant to what we have just heard. The noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, has just spoken about the healthy and robust natural environment that we wish to see in this country. I speak so that we can ensure that there are healthy and robust individuals to walk about and enjoy that environment. I ask whether the Government are doing as much as possible in this area to ensure that people in this country have healthy hearts.
This Unstarred Question is a sequel to a previous Unstarred Question of three and a half years ago, on 25th July 1984, when I asked the Government for their response to two recently published documents

739
on the prevention of coronary heart disease. These were the Canterbury Report on plans for action to prevent coronary heart disease and the report of COMA, the Committee on Medical Aspects of Food Policy, on Diet and Cardiovascular Disease, both of which had just been published.
There is no need to go over the ground again. Suffice it to say that scientific evidence has increasingly confirmed that coronary heart disease—and from now on I shall call it CHD—is a largely preventable condition. There are several risk factors which are quite widely known by the ordinary public thanks to wide media coverage of the issue which was initiated by the Coronary Prevention Group. I have to declare an interest because I am a member of that group, and a further interest that I should declare is that I am executive chairman of the National Forum for Coronary Heart Disease Prevention, a body which co-ordinates the activities of some 30 organisations which have an interest in the topic.
lRecently the Government have launched the first phase of their Look After Your Heart campaign which last year concentrated on raising public awareness of risk factors. As noble Lords will know, these are smoking, high blood pressure and high blood cholesterol, which occurs most commonly as a result of a faulty diet containing too much saturated fat together with lack of exercise and stress. Tonight we are concerned only with diet, but I suggest that this is probably the basic problem, since the other risk factors operate fully only when blood cholesterol is raised beyond a certain threshold level.
The trouble is that the majority of men, and women past menopause, in northern or Australasian industrial countries have cholesterol levels above that critical threshold level, which is about 5.2 millimoles per litre. The average level in this country is about 6 millimoles. In countries with a mean cholesterol level below 5.2 millimoles coronary heart disease is much rarer. Japan has only one-eighth of our coronary heart disease mortality rate and a mean cholesterol level of rather less than 5 millimoles, despite having all the other risk factors in abundance: they smoke like chimneys, suffer carcinoma of the lung, have high blood pressure, perhaps due to high salt intake in the diet, have at least as much stress as we do and do not take any more exercise. However, their diet contains about half as much fat as ours and, perhaps more important, the fat that they have contains much less saturated fat and more polyunsaturated or essential fat than does ours.
Something that becomes clearer is the importance of polyunsaturated or essential fats in the protective role against coronary heart disease. This is one reason why it is particularly important for us to know the composition of the various fats and oils that we eat and how much of each kind there is in processed food, which in the UK—I find this surprising, but apparently it is true—amounts to as much as 75 per cent.
As will be familiar to many noble Lords, COMA came out with the recommendation that consumption of fat, especially saturated fat, should be reduced, the intake of sugars and salts should not be increased and fibre rich carbohydrates should be
740
increased to compensate for the lower fat intake. For people to follow these suggestions clear labelling of foods is needed so that they can know what they are eating.
Paragraph 2.6.2 of the COMA report states:
"Consultations should take place … which will lead to legislation and to codes of practice to improve public knowledge of the composition of the food".
In another paragraph the report states:
"the percentage by weight of fat and of saturated, polyunsaturated and trans fatty acids in butter, margarine, cooking fats and edible oils should be printed on the container or wrapping in which they are sold. Consideration should be given in addition to providing uniform and more simple labelling codes".
The COMA regulations were strongly supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, when she spoke in support of my Question three and a half years ago. She said:
"This issue of labelling food with helpful and easily comprehensible information is most important. Other countries have gone further than we have. For example, reference has been made to Scandinavia where some foods have symbols like traffic lights with red for danger. I must admit that I would personally welcome something like this for, when I look at the contents of food and the packages that contain it. I often do not know how to interpret the information given".
That statement is by a qualified nurse and academic of superior ability. What hope then has the average consumer if information is not given in a clear, comprehensible and standard format?
What has been the Government's response to these suggestions from COMA? In reply to the question in this House three and a half years ago the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, stated:
"Government action must centre on making available advice about the effect of diet on health and information about what is in the foods that we buy".
He said also that,
"for the Government's part the United Kingdom Health Department and the Agricultural Food Department have already set up a working party with the food industry to study the feasibility and practicality of fat content labelling".
Many of us were quite pleased with that reply and hoped that we would see rapid results.
After quite a long delay, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in February 1986 proposed regulations for the labelling of the fat content of food which would have rendered mandatory the labelling of foods for total and saturated fat content. At that point it seems that the Government had not thought out whether the proposal would be acceptable in Brussels. It appears that legal advice was obtained some time after this which indicated that there would be considerable problems because of EC Council Directive 79/112 of 1978 on the approximation of the laws of the member states relating to labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs for sale to the ultimate consumer.
The Government do not appear to have tested at that stage the provision in Article 15(2) of that food labelling directive. At this stage it is worth quoting Article 15, which in part states:
"Member states may not forbid trade in foodstuffs which comply with the rules laid down in this Directive by the application of non-harmonised national provisions governing the labelling and presentation of certain food stuffs or foodstuffs in general.".
In other words, this would appear to prevent the United Kingdom going ahead with its own

741
programme of labelling, whether on fat or more comprehensive nutritional labelling. Paragraph 2 of the article states:
"Paragraph I shall not apply to non-harmonised national provisions justified on the grounds of protection of public health.".
It gave a number of other exceptions that are not relevant tonight.
I am still not absolutely sure that the Government have tested out whether the paragraph could be used to justify going ahead alone with mandatory labelling in this country. Legal advice was apparently taken. However, I do not think that the matter has ever been taken to the full EC Commission or debated in the European Parliament.
It would seem to us that the situation in this country, which contains areas with the highest coronary heart disease mortality in the world, should justify using this provision to bring in legislation ahead of the rest of Europe. I gather that legal advice was taken by MAFF on this both here and in Brussels. It was felt for technical or legalistic reasons which are still not clear to me that this special exception could not be used to justify the UK going ahead with mandatory labelling.
I have a letter from Mr. Donald Thompson, a Minister at MAFF, that was sent to Mr. Simon Coombs, the Member of Parliament for Swindon in another place, on 14th January, which said:
"Those provisions in the Treaty of Rome which in certain circumstances allow member states to act to protect public health are, to the extent that the food labelling directive harmonised law, no longer available to member states. Now it is also clear that the derogation for the protection of public health in Article 15(2) of the directive is restricted to non-harmonised provisions.".
Even in writing that is very strange language. I imagine that it sounds just like gobbledegook when listened to.
Common sense would seem to me to say that fat labelling regulations are not standard throughout Europe now. They do not exist in any country in Europe. To say that Article 15(2) is restricted to non-harmonised provisions would seem to me to fit our bill precisely. Even if' we are precluded for a reason that I fear still eludes me although I have read several briefs on the matter, from using this derogation for the protection of public health, there are other ways in which we could perhaps progress. I think that we should be able to look to Article 36 of the Treaty of Rome which is concerned with exceptions to Community law on trade due to public policy issues. Surely matters of public health constitute public policy.
So far I have been talking mostly about mandatory fat labelling because I think that it is the most important factor in the control of coronary heart disease. However, sugar, salt and fibre are also important, as mentioned in the COMA report. Perhaps I may quote from the policy document of the Coronary Prevention Group:
"The directive certainly provides no legal basis for distinguishing, as the UK Government does, between the mandatory labelling of fat content and the voluntary labelling of other nutrients".
It appears to me that the Government have retreated perhaps rather too readily from their original intention to introduce mandatory labelling of fat in the face of this apparent opposition by the
742
EC. Now they propose to include fat labelling in a voluntary scheme for nutritional labelling, which to me appears unnecessarily complex. It is suggested that the main nutrient types are to be labelled in three categories of complexity with two optional additions in category three. It is only this most detailed category that includes the breakdown of fats, carbohydrates and the content of salt and fibre which will be necessary to enable people to follow the COMA recommendations.
The introduction of regulations, even to establish the format of the labelling, let alone to make them mandatory, is not envisaged until the EC decides on a Europe-wide labelling format. This may take years and there is absolutely no guarantee that even the agreed voluntary format which emerges will include the necessary information needed to help people to follow COMA.
I should like to put four specific questions. First, do the Government accept that there exists adequate evidence to establish a link between diet and the development of coronary heart disease? Do the Government accept as a matter of principle that there is a case for mandatory labelling, first, of saturated fat, and, secondly, of sugars, salt and fibre on the grounds of the protection of public health? Thirdly, are they prepared to receive and to consider further legal argument to the effect that nutritional labelling is not yet a harmonised area within the meaning of the food labelling directive, and therefore Article 15(2) of that directive provides a means of introducing mandatory and comprehensive nutritional labelling? Finally, in any event will the Government in their further discussions with the EC press for the same treatment to be afforded the labelling of sugar, salt and dietary fibre as they have been advocating for fats?
I venture to suggest that if Her Majesty's Government energetically pursued their case they might influence EC food labelling policy in a very beneficial way. We could set the standard and the rest of Europe could harmonise with us. If this were the case it would meet with the applause of the populations of many EC countries which also have a major problem with coronary heart disease.
9.3 p.m.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, perhaps I may first of all thank my noble friend for raising this issue this evening and for bringing his professional expertise and knowledge for the benefit of your Lordships' House. Secondly, I should like to make a general comment upon the importance of nutritional labelling quite separate from the specific interests of the Coronary Prevention Group. I do so from my interests as chairman of the all-party parliamentary food and health forum which was meeting earlier this evening.
It is increasingly important in our view that there should be an effective requirement for food labelling. I refer not only to fats, sugars, salt and dietary fibre (which were referred to by my noble friend) but also to additives of all kinds with their E numbers; vitamins, dietary supplements and colourings. There is a growing awareness by the public (and especially by women) of the important link between food and

743
health. The COMA Report followed by the NACKNE Report; the tremendous success of Maurice Hanson's E for Additives, which became a best seller, and the growing number of articles in the women's press and in the press generally on the various aspects of nutrition, have all contributed to creating a great and dramatic growth of interest in what we eat. People want to know and they need to know. They look to the Government to ensure that there is a comprehensive requirement for the labelling of all packaged goods with a guarantee that the information is fully available to them.
Recent research suggests that there is some kind of a link between diet, behaviour and academic performance. This created tremendous interest and produced an immediate demand upon chemists and health foods shops for the sale of vitamins. Recently there have been two trials which have produced some quite impressive information suggesting a link with academic performance and also even a link between good diet and criminality.
I refer only to these because it greatly adds to the general case made by my noble friend and the Coronary Prevention Group for a requirement to label on food manufacturers and upon those who process foods. I pay tribute to the Coronary Prevention Group which has made a great contribution to knowledge and understanding in a variety of different ways. That applies in particular as regards informing Members of Parliament and informing the public. I greatly appreciate the bulletins and the publications which it makes available.
It has sought to follow the recommendations of the COMA Report. My noble friend outlines the recommendations that it made in relation to fats, sugars, salts and fibre-rich carbohydrates. It said that without clear and simple labelling of these nutrients it is almost impossible for the consumer to follow the dietary recommendations of the report particularly with regard to processed foods which constitute some 75 per cent. of the UK diet. Accordingly it is very difficult to see how the recommendations of the COMA Report can be used to justify a policy to introduce mandatory labelling solely in respect of fat content. This is why I started with the broader need for labelling.
My noble friend referred to the correspondence between Mr. Donald Thompson the Parliamentary Secretary at MAFF, and Mr. Simon Coombs who incidentally is also secretary of the all-party parliamentary food and health forum. My noble friend referred to that correspondence and I need not do so myself. It is extremely unsatisfactory that the good intentions of the Government should be frustrated by the Commission. As my noble friend has said, the Government seem to have moved very slowly. I have to ask myself whether it is just due to the attitude of the Commission, or whether the Government have seized upon the attitude of the Commission as a justification for the slow speed with which they have moved.
To follow up the exchange initiated by my noble friend, I should like to put a few questions. First, what is the basis of the opposition from the Commission? Is there some commercial pressure?
744
What reasons are given by other governments for opposing the objectives of Her Majesty's Government? Secondly, what response has there been by the food industry in the United Kingdom since MAFF published its labelling guidelines last July? Thirdly, will the Minister explain to me why the United Kingdom Government cannot proceed to a statutory requirement applicable to goods sold in the United Kingdom? Surely it is clear that the Government and the public wish it. Why should we be held back by the EC? Perhaps Britain's lead would produce a more positive response from other governments.
Perhaps I may conclude by emphasising the importance of this issue. Obviously the coronary prevention unit is concerned principally with coronary heart disease. Heart disease is the most important public health issue in Britain today. Not only is it the nation's leading killer, but the latest international comparative statistics from the World Health Organisation show that Northern Ireland and Scotland have substantially the highest coronary heart disease mortality rates in the whole world. That is a frightening state of affairs, and the Government must respond positively. We look to the Government for action—not just some time but now—in order to protect public health for which they have a responsibility.
9.10 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity that the debate gives me to set out the facts on this issue. Before saying another word perhaps I may assure the noble Lord, Lord Rea, that not only did I listen to his first words concerning the Coronary Prevention Group, but I hope that I have taken its advice over the past 12 months. I have given up cigarettes; I have avoided additives; and have attempted to abandon fat. However, it is (as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Rea. will know) nonetheless an uphill struggle.
The Goverment value the work of the Coronary Prevention Group in trying to combat coronary heart disease. They have studied carefully its recent report entitled European Community; Barrier or Scapegoat? —An Analysis of the United Kingdom Government's position on Nutrition Labelling. The group calls upon the Government to explain what it calls "its present confused position" on nutritional labelling.
Before we get into the legal arguments which are the main points in the document, I should like to state clearly the current position on nutrition labelling and the background to that position. Last July, in response to increasing interest in nutrition labelling, the Government issued guidelines on that subject. The aim is to standardise the presentation of nutrition information where that is given. The food industry, commendably, had responded to consumer interest by providing that type of information, but differences of presentation made it difficult for consumers to compare products and resulted in confusion. Hence the need for our guidelines to which the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, referred, to bring some order to the supermarket shelves. Slightly revised guidelines were issued on 21st January. That revision was in answer to two particular problems which had

745
been put to us. There should no longer therefore be any harriers to widespread adoption by the food industry, and we confidently expect to see that.
The provision of nutrition labelling is voluntary. In the longer term, the Government intend that a statutory format will be prescribed for use where the nutrition information is given. Final decisions on this will not be taken until we have some experience of the uptake by the industry. Moreover, we expect the European Community to discuss proposals for nutrition labelling of food, and it is sensible to await those discussions before we firm up our position. That then is the current position on nutrition labelling generally.
The Government's policy on fat labelling has a different background. It has thus evolved as a separate issue, although of course fat is one of the main nutrients covered by the nutrition labelling guidelines. The Chief Medical Officer's Committee on the Medical Aspects of Food Policy— known colloquially as COMA—produced a report on Diet and Cardiovascular Disease. That report suggested a positive link between the consumption of fat and cardiovascular disease and recommended that the consumption of total fat and especially saturated fatty acids should be decreased. There were also specific recommendations on the labelling of fats in order to assist consumers to follow the dietary recommendations.
The Government have accepted the COMA report. In 1986, we issued proposals for regulations on fat labelling which were intended to implement the relevant COMA recommendations. The reason for the distinction between fat labelling, which we wish to make compulsory, and nutrition labelling, which is voluntary, is quite simple. COMA did not point to direct links between the consumption of any other nutrients and heart disease and made no recommendations on the labelling of other nutrients. There is no scientific or medical evidence accepted by government which would justify compulsory nutrition labelling other than for fat. There is therefore no inconsistency in the Government's approach as claimed by the CPG. The Government's proposals for compulsory fat labelling have been unavoidably delayed. Our initial view was that the COMA report provided us with the basis for introducing such regulations on public health grounds. However, the Commission of the European Community did not accept our interpretation of Community law, as the noble Lords, Lord Rea and Lord Ennals, brought to our attention this evening. It held the view that what was proposed was contrary to the provisions of food labelling directives, and moreover could constitute a barrier to trade. It accepted that the problem existed in respect of the incidence of cardiovascular disease in the United Kingdom—as again has been pointed out in your Lordships' House this evening by the noble Lords, Lord Rea and Lord Ennals—and indeed in other member states of the Community. The commission has said:
"We are therefore examining the situation very carefully with the aim of finding a solution which would be both compatible with Community law and would meet the legitimate health concerns about diet which exist in Europe.".
746
We are continuing to discuss with the Commission a way forward within the framework of Community law. We are led to believe that its proposals for nutrition labelling will include some provision which would allow the UK to introduce compulsory fat labelling. It is hoped that the Commission's proposals for nutrition labelling will be put forward shortly.
The noble Lord, Lord Rea, argues (and I can understand why because this was also initially the Government's view on fat labelling) that the UK can act unilaterally on nutrition labelling. This he says can be justified on grounds of public health because nutrition labelling has yet to be harmonised within the meaning of Article 15(1) of the European Community food labelling directive. However, that is not correct.
There are provisions in the Treaty of Rome which allow member states to take action to protect public health. But to the extent that the food labelling directive harmonised the law, the provisions are no longer available. Compulsory fat labelling would impinge on a harmonised field. Article 3(1) of the food labelling directive gives those particulars which alone shall be compulsory on the labelling of foodstuffs. These particulars do not include nutritional information. The only exceptions to this rule are for specified foodstuffs, not for food in general. Compulsory fat labelling would of course have to apply to the generality of foods. The derogation to act unilaterally for the protection of public health in Article 15(2) of the directive is restricted to non-harmonised provisions. This then is the clear, although complex, legal position.
Those are the reasons why we cannot simply make UK regulations for fat labelling. European Community law is the delaying factor; but I should strongly dispute that the Community is either a barrier or a scapegoat. The Government have on many occasions repeated their commitment to compulsory fat labelling. The European Commission, and indeed some other member states, is sympathetic to our aims. I am therefore hopeful that progress will be made in the discussions with the Commission. This is taking time, but it is important that any proposals are acceptable to all member states. They will wish to be reasssured that any such fat regulations in the United Kingdom will not constitute an unjustified barrier to trade in foodstuffs. If we were to go ahead unilaterally, notwithstanding all that advice, it is extremely likely that we would be taken before the European Court of Justice and because of the supremacy of the directive over UK regulations, those regulations could well be unenforceable.
I should like to base my summing up on the four conclusions of the CPG's report. The first conclusion says:
"The Government has yet to provide a coherent explanation of why it is unable to introduce mandatory labelling of foods for their content of saturated fat, sugar, salt and fibre"—
as the noble Lord, Lord Rea, brought to our attention—
"Its interpretation of Community legislation is flawed and its references to the COMA report are selective".
I hope that I have been able to give a coherent explanation as to why the Government do not intend

747
to introduce compulsory labelling for nutrients other than fat. Our reading of the COMA report is not selective; it is accurate, and the recommendations other than for fat do not justify compulsion.
Conclusions 2 and 3 concern the use of public health grounds for the introduction of both fat and nutritional labelling. I have explained the legal reasons why we cannot bring in regulations in this area using either the public health grounds in the food labelling directive or indeed in the Treaty of Rome. It is a harmonised field and as such member states cannot act unilaterally. To act unilaterally in these circumstances and run the risk of losing in the European Court would be imprudent and unproductive.
748
Finally, I agree with the CPG on the need for clear nutrition labelling which it says requires urgent, decisive action. The Government have acted decisively with the introduction of their voluntary guidelines for nutritional labelling. The food industry has responded positively. We are confident that the guidelines will be adopted by the majority of manufacturers and retailers, who will give in standard format the maximum amount of nutrition information within their resources. This will be of great benefit to consumers, particularly those wishing to monitor or make changes in their overall diet, whether this is for healthier eating generally or more specific reasons such as the avoidance of heart disease.
House adjourned at twenty minutes past nine o'clock.

  SPECIALISED SATELLITE SERVICES
  SPECIALISED SATELLITE SERVICES
  WAR WIDOWS' BENEFIT
  WAR WIDOWS' BENEFIT
  NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL
  NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL
  WAR WIDOWS' PENSIONS: UPRATING
  WAR WIDOWS' PENSIONS: UPRATING