Sitting of 19 July 1988

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  PRIVATE BUSINESS
    IMPERIAL COLLEGE BILL [Lords]
    Read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.
    ST. GEORGE'S HILL, WEYBRIDGE, ESTATE BILL
    Read the Third time, and passed.
    BRITISH WATERWAYS (No. 2) BILL [Lords]
    Considered; to be read the Third time.

    HARWICH HARBOUR BILL [Lords]
    Order for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second time on Thursday.

Oral Answers to Questions
  EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

    Schools (Commerce and Industry)
    Mr. Favell: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the part which education authorities are playing in the promotion of links between schools and commerce and industry.
    The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mrs. Angela Rumbold): The technical and vocational education initiative, which will be operating in all local education authorities in England and Wales from this September, makes the forging of links between education and local industry a requirement of its projects. In addition, education authorities are now supporting initiatives on many fronts, such as the development of compacts and the secondment of head teachers into industry. All these help to bring the worlds of education and industry closer together and foster mutual understanding.
    Mr. Favell: As there will be 1 million fewer school leavers in 1995, will my hon. Friend continue to impress on go-ahead firms the importance of linking with schools? The important thing to note is that the firms involved are go-ahead, because laggards do not link, but enthusiasts do. Does she agree that there should not be endless meetings at town halls but direct links with schools, where good could be done?
    Mrs. Rumbold: My hon. Friend makes a good point. Today we have published a booklet entitled "Education and Industry: Partners for the Future", which will encourage industry and commerce to get together closely
    930
    with local education authorities and schools to ensure that the links are fostered. There is not much point in industry making links with local authorities unless the authorities are themselves clear about the way in which they wish to proceed with the partnerships. Therefore, it is important that local education authorities should have meetings and have their policies clearly defined before industry and commerce become involved.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: What about the links between commerce and schools in East Sussex, where the local Conservative-controlled county council lost £237,000 of ratepayers' money in a squalid little company that was set up? It lost public money. What are the Government going to do about that? Do they intend to intervene and have some form of inquiry into what happened?
    Mrs. Rumbold: With respect to the hon. Member I suggest that he pursues the interests of his own constituency. The matter that he has raised has absolutely nothing to do with local education authorities and links with industry.
    Mr. Pawsey: To return to the subject raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell), which is genuinely important, what action will be taken to increase the number of business men serving on school governing bodies? Has my hon. Friend had any contact with the Confederation of British Industry and the Association of British Chambers of Commerce to persuade those organisations to get their members to serve on governing bodies?
    Mrs. Rumbold: My hon. Friend raises a most important matter, because at the beginning of the next school year we shall expect to see co-opted members from business and industry serving on our school governing bodies. We have contacted both the CBI and the Association of British Chambers of Commerce and have been holding regional as well as national meetings with them to encourage them to put their members forward as governors of both primary and secondary schools.

    Education Reform Bill
    Mr. Buckley: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will set out the procedures to be used for appointments to bodies to be established under the terms of the Education Reform Bill; and if he will make a statement.
    The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Kenneth Baker): The Bill itself specifies the range of professional expertise and experience to be included in appointments to most of the new bodies, and appointments are made on that basis.
    Mr. Buckley: In the light of the article that appeared in The Observer on 3 July, what criteria are used by the Department for appointment to the bodies held, and is membership of those bodies politically vetted by 10 Downing street?
    Mr. Baker: On the latter question, I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is none whatsoever. I have made many public appointments to the bodies set up in the shadow of the Bill and to many other educational councils, including the National Curriculum Council, the School Examinations and Assessment Council, research councils

    931
    and four curriculum working groups. As far as I am aware, there has been no criticism of partiality, lack of balance or lack of fairness in any of those appointments.
    Mr. Holt: Does my right hon. Friend agree that he is taking a positive step for the future because, in the past, any fool, crank or nanny could get on a board of governors and contribute absolutely nothing to the well-being and education of our children?
    Mr. Baker: I do not appoint governors, but I am glad that more people are coming forward to become governors. My hon. Friend the Minister of State and I very carefully go through the curriculum vitae of applicants for appointments to various bodies, and in some cases we also interview them.
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Given that a Scottish sub-committee of the Universities Funding Council is to be established, does the Secretary of State agree that individuals appointed to that body should have the experience and expertise of having gone through a Scottish university and should have graduated from such a university, rather than from universities in other parts of the country?
    Mr. Baker: I would not necessarily agree with that. Many good Scots have gone to English universities and many good English people have gone to Scottish universities. Last night the House agreed that there would be a Scottish and a Welsh sub-committee of the UFC. I also intend to appoint people with Scottish experience to the main body of the UFC.
    Mr. Fatchett: Is it not now clear that, in relation to testing and appointments, the Prime Minister's Office and, in particular, the unelected and unaccountable Professor Griffiths, are in charge of education policy? Will the Secretary of State confirm that the proposed appointments of John Harvey-Jones and Peter Mortimore were vetoed by the Prime Minister and Professor Griffiths? Is it not now also clear that the criteria used for appointments are not educational, but political? Does he agree that the whole approach is political rather than educational?
    Mr. Baker: Professor Griffiths is an adviser to the Prime Minister, and I am grateful for the support that he gives to the policies that I bring forward. All my appointments are announced publicly. As regards the names that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned, I refer him to the written reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), when she said:
    "It is not the practice to comment further on public appointments of this kind.—[Official Report, 29 June 1988; Vol. 136, c. 234.]
    That is mainly in the interests of the named persons.

    Student Grants
    Mr. Canavan: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the value in real terms of the maximum student grant, expressed as a percentage of the 1978–79 maximum grant.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Robert Jackson): The basic rate of grant payable to students studying outside London is worth 86 per cent. of the corresponding rate in 1978–79.
    Mr. Canavan: Does the Minister accept that the cut in students' living standards is even greater than his figures suggest if we take into account the cuts in students' social security benefits, housing benefit and of course the dreaded poll tax, which is just around the corner? Therefore, will the Minister take immediate steps to restore the student grant to at least the purchasing power that it had in 1978–79, when the Labour party was in power, instead of toying with the idea of either partially or completely scrapping the grant system and replacing it with a student loan scheme? That would prohibit many students from lower-income families from going on to higher education.
    Mr. Jackson: The hon. Gentleman is obviously reflecting deeply on this subject and he might like to consider that since 1979, in spite of, or in line with, the fall in the value of the grant, participation in higher education has increased by 12·9 per cent. and that the number of students in higher education has increased by 18·9 per cent.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will my hon. Friend give the House some information on how our grants compare with those of other countries? Are they more, or less, generous?
    Mr. Jackson: The proportion of the national product that is spent on higher education in Britain is the highest in the Western world. My information is that our grant system is almost certainly the most generous and certainly the most extensive in the Western world.
    Ms. Armstrong: Many people are somewhat concerned at the Minister's logic when he says that the reason why not enough women and people from lower social classes—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Ms. Armstrong:—are getting into higher education is that we are paying them too much. Will he ensure in any review—[Interruption.] I am sorry that Conservative Members are not listening——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a serious matter.
    Ms. Armstrong: Will the Minister ensure that any review that he carries out will make sure that people from low income families whom he has committed himself to getting into higher education will have a greater, not a lesser, opportunity?
    Mr. Jackson: We share the hon. Lady's concern with the widening of opportunity for access to higher education. That will continue to be an important theme for us in the review. The key determinant of access to and opportunity for higher education seems to be the numbers who come into the system. We have recently had the enrolments and the fact is that the Government have now achieved their target of 50,000 additional places by 1990—and we have done so by 1988.
    Mr. Marlow: As my hon. Friend knows well, this House decreed many years ago that the age of majority and independence for young people should be 18. It is therefore totally inappropriate, under those circumstances, that the grant given to individual students depends in any respect on the wealth or otherwise of their parents.

    933
    Before someone else does it—I have asked my hon. Friend to do this before—will he test this thesis before the European Court of Human Rights?
    Mr. Jackson: We are considering the future of parental contribution to student maintenance in the context of our review. Every system that we have studied involves some element of family or parental obligation. I believe that the family is a vital institution. It is reasonable to expect parents to make some contribution to the support of their student children.
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: What is so good about student loans if the Cabinet is vetoing them? Will the Minister confirm that there are now storm warnings in the Department of Education and Science in case No. 10 leaks the student loan document? Why has he now abandoned his unattributable briefings to the press about the virtue of student loans? Will he admit that the real losers are not Ministers' reputations but students, the real value of whose student grants has dramatically fallen over the past 10 years? Will he also admit that there should now be an immediate increase in the level of student support, for the benefit of students and the country?
    Mr. Jackson: As my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) has a later question on that point we should not steal his thunder.

    City Technology Colleges
    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will make a further statement about the financing of city technology colleges.
    Mr. Kenneth Baker: Total planned expenditure on the city technology colleges programme over the years 1987–88 to 1990–91 is £90 million, which includes both capital and recurrent costs. To date more than £25 million has been pledged by sponsors towards the capital costs of establishing CTCs. That is a quite unprecedented response to an education initiative.
    Mr. Banks: If I were a Minister I would wait until I had the money in my hands—[HON. MEMBERS: "The hon. Gentleman is not."] I shall be one day.
    What has happened to the pledge that the right hon. Gentleman made at the Tory party conference in 1986 to set up 20 city technology colleges? Only two have been announced, mostly paid for by the taxpayer, not by business men. Why does the Secretary of State not come to the Dispatch Box and tell the truth for once? The CTCs are a fraud and a failure and owe far more to the ideology of the Conservative party than to the educational needs of our students.
    Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman starts with the improbability of ever being a Minister and moves to the implausibility of not knowing the facts of the case. Seven CTCs have already been announced. I understand that proposals might come forward for one in Docklands. The trouble with the hon. Gentleman is that so much of his career has been dedicated to failure and decline that he cannot be associated with anything like CTCs, which will succeed and expand.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: Will not CTCs add greatly to the diversity of provision in our educational system? Has not such diversity of provision always been the strength of our
    934
    education? Will my right hon. Friend seek to diversify provision within CTCs, and will he confirm that it is difficult to get them established in poor areas, where poor children would benefit from them, because Labour local authorities are so obstructive?
    Mr. Baker: I agree with my hon. Friend. There will be a network of at least 20 CTCs—[HON. MEMBERS: "When?"] Details of several more will be published later this year. I assure the House that they will be there. I have already said that over £25 million has been committed by private sponsors. One of the greatest problems is, as my hon. Friend said, the reluctance of Labour authorities, for political and dogmatic reasons, to provide sites.
    Mr. Straw: As the Secretary of State has now announced a £4 million increase in the amont that is to be spent, to £90 million over three years, has he no sense of shame at the scale of the taxpayer-funded bail out for his lame duck CTC policy? What moral or political principle justifies his spending more next year on a few CTCs for a few hundred children than on the introduction of a national curriculum for 7 million of our children in the state sector?
    Mr. Baker: That is an absurd statement, and the hon. Gentleman knows it. One has to add to the cost of the national curriculum not only the £65 million in the Education Reform Bill, but the ESG money of £75 million, the local training grants for teachers of £60 million or £70 million and also, on the basis that he uses, the cost of running primary and secondary schools. The trouble with the hon. Gentleman is that he is worried and scared that this will be a highly popular and successful programme.
    Mr. Patrick Thompson: Is this not good news, coupled with the recent news on the curriculum of the CTCs, positive compared to the continual whining and whingeing of the Opposition about these matters? We want more encouragement for CTCs, not only from the Government, but from industry, because this is an idea that all of us who believe in variety in education thoroughly support and want to see succeed.
    Mr. Baker: I agree with my hon. Friend, and later today the House will be asked to approve a Lords amendment to the Education Reform Bill to extend the concept of CTCs to involve technology and the arts. That is a popular move. The Opposition do not like CTCs because they will end the monopoly of public free education, which the Labour party is pledged to support.

    Pen Top Safety
    Mr. Janner: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what response he has received to his circular concerning pen top safety sent to all local education authorities; and whether he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Bob Dunn): I am grateful to the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) for his continued interest in this matter. The response to our circular has been good.
    Mr. Janner: Is the Minister aware that the parents of 11-year old Billy Walker, the Leicester boy who died after swallowing a pen top, as too many other children have

    935
    done, have prepared a petition with several thousand signatures which I shall present to the House on Friday? Therefore, when he says that there has been a good response to the circular, they will wish to know what that response has been and what chance there is of its resulting in no more unnecessary deaths from this cause.
    Mr. Dunn: I was not aware of the petition, but I note the hon. and learned Gentleman's point. I can tell him that 32 local education authorities have sent to the Department copies of guidance material that they have issued. A number of authorities have issued to their schools pens with ventilated tops, which carry less risk of asphyxiation if swallowed. I undertake to keep the problem under review.
    Mr. Greg Knight: What is the position in regard to the British standard, and when will it be available?
    Mr. Dunn: I understand from the British Standards Institution that the standard will be published in December this year. It is my intention to write again to local education authorities when the new British standard becomes available.

    University Restructuring
    Mr. Shersby: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what progress has been made by British universities with the targeted programme of restructuring, following his announcement in November 1987 of additional funds for this purpose.
    Mr. Jackson: The £250 million allocated for the three-year restructuring programme is being administered by the UGC. It has already announced an improved scheme for reimbursing premature retirement costs. Other aspects will be firmed up in the light of the committee's analysis of universities' latest academic plans and financial forecasts.
    Mr. Shersby: Will my hon. Friend assure the House that, as a result of the programme, universities will be able to bring their expenditure and income into balance by the end of the public expenditure survey in 1990–91?
    Mr. Jackson: It is the intention of the restructuring programme that that should be achieved.
    Mr. John Evans: Has the Minister seen the statement by the chairman of the vice-chancellors' committee that 10 universities are likely to lose their science facility because of a shortage of funds and escalating costs? One of the universities will be Salford. Is he aware that the loss will be greeted with dismay throughout the north-west? Will he ensure that sufficient funds are made available for the 10 universities, and especially Salford, to retain their science facility?
    Mr. Jackson: I think that the hon. Gentleman is misinterpreting the statement of the chairman of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals. The chairman said that he believed that there was a good case on scientific grounds for a concentration of the resources available for research in the universities, which might reduce the number of science departments in universities. That is his personal view, and it is one that should command respect.

    Rating Reform
    Mr. McAllion: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make additional grants to Scottish universities in the current year to enable them to meet the requirement being placed upon them to provide details on their students to community charge registration officers.
    Mr. Jackson: No, Sir. It is not expected that the community charge will place a significant additional administrative burden on universities.
    Mr. McAllion: The real cost will be the damage that is done to the relationship between Scottish universities and their students. Does the Minister agree with the protest by Edinburgh university court, and its expression of grave concern at being forced to abandon its long-term commitment to treat students' addresses and other personal information in confidence? Will he support the university's offer to the Scottish Office merely to verify student status to poll tax registration officers, thereby removing the requirement on universities in Scotland seriously to infringe the civil liberties of their students?
    Mr. Jackson: I am sure that universities will wish to co-operate in enforcing the law. If students are to be able to claim the 80 per cent. rebate that they are being offered, it will be necessary for them to have a certificate to make that claim.
    Mr. Robert B. Jones: Does my hon. Friend agree that money would be available for this and other purposes if funds from the taxpayer were not being handed over to the National Union of Students, without the consent of the students concerned?
    Mr. Jackson: My hon. Friend knows that the issue of students' unions is under review by the Government. I do not want to anticipate the conclusions of that review.
    Mr. Buchan: Is the Minister aware that universities are keen on obeying the law, but are not keen on becoming part of the police system that has been adopted by the Government, with the invasion of privacy that that involves? The relationship between students and universities will be destroyed, and the universities are saying that they want no part of that. Will he listen to them?
    Mr. Jackson: There is no invasion of privacy involved. We are talking of information that is necessary to enable a tax for local services to be collected. I am sure that the universities will wish to co-operate in that.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Scottish universities are already funded generously, and that they gain more money than the proportion of the Scottish population would justify?
    Mr. Jackson: We have a national system of higher education, and by that I mean British national. I am not aware of the statistics that my hon. Friend brings forward in respect of one part of the country.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the Minister agree that some record might wisely be kept, especially if Northern Ireland students and their parents are subject to double taxation? The parents will be paying rates according to the decision

    937
    of the Government, and when their children come to England or Scotland they will have to pay the community charge.
    Mr. Jackson: I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's argument. It is an important one and we shall be taking it up in the context of the student support review.

    "Strategy for the Science Base"
    Mr. Cousins: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what responses he has received to the consultative document, "Strategy for the Science Base".
    Mr. Jackson: We have received some 260 responses to the Advisory Board for the Research Council's consultative document, "A Strategy for the Science Base". There seems to be widespread support for most of the board's recommendations.
    Mr. Cousins: Does the Minister realise that because he hides behind the vice-chancellors while he cuts the science budget, because he dithers while the research councils are cut and because he has surrendered key areas of research to other departments, the scientific community is losing faith in him and the Government? Or is it that he does not have the guts to meet scientists after such a long time because he has nothing to offer?
    Mr. Jackson: My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State and I have many meetings with scientists—indeed, I spend about a day a week visiting institutions up and down the country, where I meet scientists and have amicable discussions with them. The hon. Gentleman's premise is wrong. There has been no cut. There has been an increase of 6·2 per cent. this year in the funds that are provided for basic science in this country, and since 1979 there has been an increase in real terms of 15 per cent.
    Mr. Dalyell: Among the recommendations for which there is not support, is there a recommendation for premature retirement, and what are the costs of premature retirement that the Minister has in his brief?
    Mr. Jackson: I am not sure about the category to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I shall have to discuss that with him to give him the information that he wants.
    There is general support in the scientific community for the basic philosophy of the ABRC proposals, which envisage an added emphasis on selectivity and concentration in the deployment of science resources.
    Dr. Bray: I am sorry that there seems to be no interest in science strategy from Conservative Members. Is it the Government's policy both to withdraw support from near market research in the Department of Trade and Industry, and for the Department of Education and Science to encourage industrially relevant research? If so, when will the Government sort out their strategy and reply to the ABRC document?
    Mr. Jackson: The Government are considering their response to the ABRC document, which addresses a large, complex and important subject. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the Government are actively reviewing near market research by Government Departments, and he is also right to think that the Government are anxious
    938
    that the considerations of exploitability and economic return on basic and strategic science should be taken into account—[Interruption.]
    Mr Speaker: Order. I ask the House to pay attention to the question.

    City Technology Colleges
    Mr. Pawsey: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what estimate he has made of the number of city technology colleges which could be established if redundant school premises were made available by local education authorities.
    Mr. Kenneth Baker: We plan to set up 20 city technology colleges and so far £25 million has been raised by private sponsors. But some local education authorities, for dogmatic political reasons, refuse to co-operate. That is their loss.
    Mr. Pawsey: Does my right hon. Friend agree that CTCs do much good for the children of our country and are welcomed by Conservative Members? We want even more CTCs to be created. Will my right hon. Frend tell the House what action he will take to put pressure on local authorities that obstruct Government legislation on this issue?
    Mr. Baker: Many Conservative-controlled authorities realise the advantages of CTCs and are co-operating in the programme. No Labour authority has done so yet, but they will come round to it, in two or three years' time.
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: The Minister described the reason for refusing to co-operate over CTCs as political. Would he include the Tory-controlled borough of Trafford, which has just withdrawn its proposal to have a CTC on the site of the former Stretford boys' grammar school? Does he accept that the reason for that is that it was realised how the provision of education in north Trafford would be damaged? Will he guarantee that neither a CTC nor an arts tech will be imposed on north Trafford?
    Mr. Baker: I understand that proposals are being prepared for me that apply to the reorganisation of the whole of secondary education in Trafford and that any consideration of a CTC has been put on one side until all secondary education there has been reorganised. I am sure that the Greater Manchester area will benefit from at least one CTC, if not two.
    Mr. Bowis: If the Inner London education authority continues its dog in the manger attitude to the use of surplus premises for CTCs, will my right hon. Friend enable the London Residuary Body to take that into account in its terms of reference for the disposal of such properties after it succeeds the ILEA?
    Mr. Baker: I do not expect ILEA to come forward with any of its surplus property for a CTC; that would be wishful thinking. However, when responsibility is transferred to the London boroughs in April 1990, some may come forward with proposals because they, too, will see the advantages.
    Mr. Flannery: Is it not a fact that the chairman of the CTC Trust, Cyril Taylor, has criticised the Department of Education and Science and said that it has "woefully underestimated" the cost of building and refurbishing

    939
    redundant schools? Did the Department not similarly underestimate the funds that would be forthcoming from private employers, nearly all of them refused to give money, and is not the whole thing now a complete mess?
    Mr. Baker: If the hon. Gentleman is present for the debate on CTCs in about an hour's time, I shall point out to him the large number of companies—national names—that have supported the CTCs because they recognise the enormous success of the programme. I can confirm that no other education initiative has raised as much money as the CTC initiative has raised over the past 18 months. The sum is £25 million and it will increase to £30 million in the next few months.
    Mr. Madel: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it is perfectly open to local education authorities to use surplus school places for adult or further education rather than going for clumsy closure plans?
    Mr. Baker: I understand what lies behind my hon. Friend's question and I can only reply to him as I replied to him in the debate last night.

    Qualified Teacher Status
    Mr. Steinberg: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received on the consultation document "Qualified Teacher Status"; and if he will make a statement.
    Mrs. Rumbold: My right hon. Friend has asked that responses to this consultation document be sent to the Department by 14 October. Some 24 responses have so far been received, mainly from individuals.
    Mr. Steinberg: The 1984 Department of Education and Science circular dealing with the accreditation of teachers stated that teachers should have two years of quality training. In the new document we find the suggestion of a qualification only to a standard above A-level. Given that it was agreed in 1984 that specialised training was needed for teachers, why, in 1988, do we no longer need specialised teacher training? Is it because the licensed teachers will not be qualified and will fail to raise—indeed, will lower—the standard of education?
    Mrs. Rumbold: No, Sir. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman does not understand the present position as regards teacher qualification, let alone our proposals. The standard route in teacher training is for there to be graduate entry and a year's initial teacher-training. For the non-standard courses there are already five routes for people who are not graduates. Under our proposals, those entering by two of those routes will have to undergo at least two years of teacher training before they can be qualified as teachers—a much more rigorous requirement. Otherwise, they will simply remain as licensed teachers.
    Mr. Hayward: Did not at least one qualified teacher prove that the status of teachers does not need enhancing? Did she not maintain her level-headedness while those around her, particularly her husband, were losing their heads in Zimbabwe?
    Mrs. Rumbold: Perhaps some qualified teachers need in-service training in geography and in field trips before
    940
    visiting the river basins of Africa, such as those of the Limpopo and the Zamebezi. I am glad that a certain lady did not need those qualifications.
    Mrs. Clwyd: Is it not the case that, thanks to the Government's neglect and demoralisation of the teaching profession, there will be the most severe shortage, worse even that at present, in science, mathematics, craft, design and technology and modern foreign language teaching? How can the imposition of unqualified teachers off the streets do anything but lower education standards even further?
    Mrs. Rumbold: Clearly, the hon. Lady has not been listening. We are talking not about the imposition of unqualified teachers but about a qualified teacher force of 90 per cent. of people who have been through our universities and polytechnics, plus having had a year's good initial teacher training. Those who come in through the other routes will be subjected to a much more rigorous test. Those who are currently in the system and who have not been through initial teacher training or any sort of training are already in our schools and cannot be subjected to the training that we are planning for the new group.

    Local Education Authorities
    Mr. Batiste: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what arrangements exist for monitoring the efficiency of local education authorities; and if he will make a statement.
    Mrs. Rumbold: The Audit Commission and Her Majesty's Inspectorate, through their detailed work in auditing and inspection respectively, play a central part in monitoring the efficiency of local education authorities. In addition, the Government set efficiency targets in critical areas such as staffing ratios and the removal of surplus school accommodation and monitor local authority performance in relation to those targets.
    Mr. Batiste: Is my hon. Friend aware of the growing practice in some Labour-controlled education authorities of allowing councillors to usurp the day-to-day functions of full-time officials? Does that not cause great damage to the efficient running of education in many parts of the country, such as in Leeds at this time? Will my hon. Friend ask for an efficiency audit of the performance of Leeds education authority?
    Mrs. Rumbold: It is deplorable that locally elected members should usurp the position of the professional officers and not take their advice when they are dealing with matters as serious as education. I hope that my hon. Friend will make that clear to the electorate at the local elections so that they ensure that the right sort of people are elected as councillors, who will take professional advice when it comes to such matters as education.
    Mr. Cryer: When the Department of Education and Science examines the efficiency of a city such as Bradford, will it be taken into account that because of the parsimony of the Government Bradford has at least 500 temporary classrooms, which causes enormous difficulties for teachers in maintaining reasonable standards? If the DES is concerned about standards of teaching, why does it not

    941
    give more money to allow proper, permanent extensions to schools in Bradford, to get rid of the shanty-town classrooms that disfigure too many schools?
    Mrs. Rumbold: In 1985–86 local education authorities spent £280 million on the repair and maintenance of primary and secondary school buildings. In 1986–87 the sum had risen to £320 million, an increase in cash terms of 14 per cent. Those amounts represent average expenditure per school of £11,750 in 1985–86 and £13,500 in 1986–87. I am sure that in Bradford those amounts will have been spent according to the priorities of the local education authority.

    Student Finance
    Mr. Allan Stewart: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he now intends to publish his report on student finance; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Jackson: The Government will publish their proposals for the future of student support in a White Paper before the end of the year.
    Mr. Stewart: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that information. Does he agree that both economic principles and international experience point overwhelmingly to the advantages of a combined loan and grant system? Will that be the basis of the Government's response?
    Mr. Jackson: We have looked at the possibility of a top-up loan system, as exists in many other parts of the world. That will be covered in the White Paper that we shall publish before the end of the year.
    Mr. Straw: It has been two years since the review was established, and repeatedly, in leaks and answers to parliamentary questions, the Minister and the Secretary of State have said that the review would be published this month. Why the delay?
    Mr. Jackson: It is a complex subject. When one grasps the nettle, it is advisable to grasp it firmly. It is this Government's intention to grasp that nettle firmly in due course.

    Pupil-Teacher Ratio
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the average secondary pupil-teacher ratio in 1987–88; and what was the comparable figure in 1978–79.
    Mr. Dunn: The average pupil-teacher ratio for maintained secondary schools in England for 1987–88 is not yet available. The average pupil-teacher ratio in 1986–87 was 15·6:1. That was an improvement on 1978–79, when the average pupil-teacher ratio in maintained secondary schools was 16·7:1.
    Mr. Bennett: Does my hon. Friend agree that those excellent figures give the lie to Labour claims that education has been cut? Will he confirm that the Government's expenditure plans will lead to a further reduction in the pupil-teacher ratio?
    Mr. Dunn: Yes. I go a stage further and say that the Government have captured the high ground in the education debate. We shall continue to dictate the terms for that debate for the remainder of this century and well
    942
    into the 21st. The last time that the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) made an original statement was when the midwife thumped him at birth. The only trouble is that she did not thump him hard enough.

    Pupil Costs
    Mr. Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how much was spent per pupil in secondary schools (a) in England as a whole and (b) in Staffordshire, in the most recent year for which figures are available; and what were the comparable figures in 1978–79, at constant prices.
    Mr. Dunn: Local education authorities in England spent an average of £1,035 per secondary pupil in 1978–79 and £1,340 per secondary pupil in 1986–87 at 1986–87 prices. The comparable figures for Staffordshire are £1,040 and £1,255.
    Mr. Knox: Does my hon. Friend agree that those figures show a satisfactory improvement in funding in Staffordshire and in the country at large since the Government have been in power?
    Mr. Dunn: Yes. The Government's strong record is supported by other objective measures. In January 1987 the pupil-teacher ratio was 17·3:1, compared with 18·9:1 in January 1979. Average class sizes in primary and secondary schools have been improving, and there are many fewer classes today with more than 30 pupils.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Marland: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 19 July.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty The Queen.
    Mr. Marland: During her busy day, will my right hon. Friend find time to reflect on the recent misery inflicted on holidaymakers at our airports? Bearing in mind the fact that many holidaymakers have saved for and looked forward to their holidays for the entire year, will my right hon. Friend try to end this chaos, meet the Civil Aviation Authority and ensure that incompetent heads roll?
    The Prime Minister: I am indeed aware and concerned about the delays to holidaymakers, which, in large measure, have been due to actions in other countries. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is meeting the chairman of the CAA today to discuss progress in improving the flow control system, and he has already amended the air traffic distribution rules to allow some limited use of Heathrow by chartered flights. I assure my hon. Friend that finance has not been a constraint on past investment. About £250 million worth of investment is planned for the next five years.
    Mr. Kinnock: Is the Prime Minister aware that the United Nations calculates that since 1981 in the front-line states nearly 700,000 children have died, nearly 200,000 children have been orphaned and millions more suffer

    943
    hunger directly because of the war being conducted by South Africa against those front-line states? Against that background, will the Prime Minister increase support to the front-line states and ensure that that is reinforced by using strong sanctions against the source of the suffering and the slaughter—the apartheid regime of South Africa?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman will perhaps agree that if there were ever to be comprehensive sanctions against South Africa the number of people who would suffer, including children, would be infinitely greater. Calculations have been made about the number of children who would be affected. We give considerable help to the front-line states, especially £50 million to Mozambique, which, perhaps, suffers most of all, and we have given special additional help to build pathways and roadways so that people need not take their goods through South Africa, but have other routes to the ports.
    Mr. Kinnock: The aid given is welcomed, even though over six years it was cut by the Government by 40 per cent. Is the Prime Minister aware that every community, church, trade union, and township organisation in South Africa that is representative of the majority of people continually ask for sanctions—[Interruption.]—that the Commonwealth asks for sanctions and that the leadership of the front-line states calls for sanctions? Does the Prime Minister really think that she knows more about what needs to be done than those who live daily with apartheid and its aggression?
    The Prime Minister: Although the right hon. Gentleman goes on about sanctions here in Westminster, by virtue of his recent visit he will know that the front-line states do not themselves apply sanctions, because they are aware of the devastating effect that they would have on their own economies and on their own peoples, as well as on the black people of South Africa. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to see the calculations made by Operation Hunger in South Africa, supported by the private sector—but which we do a great deal to help—he will know that the effect of comprehensive sanctions would vastly increase the number of starving children to such an extent that it is doubtful whether they could be looked after.
    Mr. Kinnock: The vulnerability of the front-line states is no excuse for inaction by the Government. Is it not clear that, while giving support to the front-line states is right, without it being supported by sanctions against apartheid the Prime Minister earns the reputation of being the appeaser of the apartheid regime that makes war on the front-line states and kills their children?
    The Prime Minister: On the contrary, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, we completely and utterly condemn apartheid. A special sum of some £20 million is allocated to black South Africans to provide them with more education than they would otherwise have. I totally disagree with the right hon. Gentleman about sanctions, as did the previous Labour Government. Unlike him, I am not prepared to stand here comfortably in the House and impose starvation and poverty on millions and millions of black South Africans and black children. He is prepared to do that.
    Mr. Colvin: Further to my right hon. Friend's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West
    944
    (Mr. Marland), will she consider again the possibility of night movements of aircraft from airports in the south-east—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—especially for aircraft in the NNC category, which are the new, quieter, wide-bodied jets, for a test period of 12 months? Will she use her power in Europe to press for a pan-European air traffic control system, backed by strictly enforced no-strike agreements with air traffic controllers?
    The Prime Minister: Night restrictions at Gatwick allow some flexibility to help charter flights. When my right hon. Friend saw representatives of the airlines this morning he noted that they did not raise the question of night restrictions, because the flexibility already allowed there does not alter the commitment to improving the noise climate around airports. As my hon. Friend knows, internationally the responsibility for the co-ordination of air traffic control services in Europe rests with the European air navigation planning group within the International Civil Aviation Organisation, and everything possible is being done to step up that co-ordination. I agree with him that it would be a very good thing, especially for people in Europe, if there were no-strike agreements with air traffic controllers.
    Mr. Buchan: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 19 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Buchan: Does the Prime Minister believe that she knows better than the African people what is good for them? Does she not realise that this is not only a question of sense, but a question of morality? Has she read the report of the international conference at Harare about the treatment, imprisonment and killing of children in South Africa? Has the time not come for her to associate herself with some of the finest leaders in the world and to say, "Enough is enough. We shall not tolerate a country that declares war on its own people. We want sanctions now."?
    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, there is a great difference between what the black South African states say and what they do. They urge comprehensive sanctions, but they do not themselves impose—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister.
    The Prime Minister: They do not themselves impose sanctions from their own countries because of the poverty that that would cause their own people, as well as those in South Africa. I see nothing moral in sitting comfortably in the House of Commons and pronouncing poverty and starvation on many black children and black people in South Africa. That would only make the position worse. I am amazed that poverty and starvation have become Labour party policy on South Africa.
    Mr. David Evans: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 19 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Evans: Will my right hon. Friend take time out of her busy day to confirm that her consular services are properly staffed, particularly in the southern Africa area, in view of the increase in the number of distressed subjects

    945
    in that part of the world? Will she also take time to ask the Zimbabwe Government whether they would commend the lance-corporal who refused to be bullied—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Questions must relate to the Prime Minister's responsibilities.
    The Prime Minister: Our consular services and embassies are well staffed and able to deal with almost any situation. The aid that we give to the front-line states is greatly appreciated, as is the training that we give in Zimbabwe to the armed forces of that country.
    Mr Winnick: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 19 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Winnick: Why was the Prime Minister the only Head of Government of the major European countries who did not send birthday greetings to Nelson Mandela yesterday? Can she answer this question: if she is genuinely against apartheid, which many of us doubt, why is it that on every conceivable occasion she carries out a policy of appeasement towards South Africa in the same way as Neville Chamberlain did with Nazi Germany?
    The Prime Minister: The Government have made it clear on very many occasions, starting at the Commonwealth conference in the Bahamas, that we believe that Mr. Mandela and other political prisoners should be released and that there should be a suspension of violence on all sides. I do not think that the way in which the hon. Gentleman carries on about the matter is likely to achieve the release for which so many of us earnestly wish. I repeat that the front-line states and many black South Africans warmly appreciate the practical help in money terms that we give from this country to help them. That is very much better than the ranting and raving that we hear from Opposition Members.
    Mr. Jessel: Is my right hon. Friend aware that any increase in night flights at Heathrow would be most deeply resented by hundreds of thousands of local residents, who do not see why they should lose one minute of their beauty sleep to enable other people to obtain marginally cheaper holidays—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That was difficult for me to hear, let alone anyone else in the Chamber.
    Mr. Jessel: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the emergency at Gatwick could be resolved by sending charter planes to Stansted, which is under-used, instead of Heathrow, where people living nearby already suffer from noise and congestion of over 700 flights per day?
    The Prime Minister: I heard the word Heathrow and I heard the word Stansted. My right hon. Friend has allowed extra flights into Heathrow to help the charter flights over the temporary difficulties. Of course, that does not alter the noise restrictions at night. With regard to Stansted, the Government traffic distribution rules do not prevent charter flights to Stansted, so operators are already free to use Stansted.
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 19 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Skinner: Is the Prime Minister aware that the level of borrowing in this country at present is reaching frightening proportions, even worse than the Barber boom? Does she understand, that the proportion of family debt has increased since 1979 from 45 per cent. to more than 80 per cent. in 1988—[HON. MEMBERS: "Of what?"]—of residual income after tax? Does she understand that while she is going round the country talking about thrift and prudence, nobody is listening as she continues to operate her pawn-shop economy?
    The Prime Minister: I have two points in reply to the hon. Gentleman. First, the rise in personal debt is matched by increased holdings of financial assets willingly held. Secondly, the whole tone of the hon. Gentleman's question must mean that he is absolutely delighted with the increase in interest rates.

    NEW MEMBER
    The following Member took and subscribed the Oath:
    John Dudley Fishburn, Esq., for Kensington.

Points of Order
3.33 pm
Mr. Edward Leigh: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you, Mr. Speaker, instruct your Chaplain to give spiritual guidance to a confused hon. Member who denies being a Christian on Friday and sings "Jerusalem" on Sunday at the first sign of a gun?
Mr. Nicholas Winterton rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that this is not a frivolous point of order. The hon. Member is a member of the Chairmen's Panel.
Mr. Winterton: During the exchange between the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, from a sedentary position, heard by us all, the hon. Gentleman described the Prime Minister as a hypocrite. [Interruption.] I believe that the standards of the House should be maintained. I understand that that is an unparliamentary word and I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw it.
Mr. Speaker: I did not hear that word but the standard of behaviour during Prime Minister's questions was absolutely disgraceful.

Statutory Instruments, &c.
Mr. Speaker: By leave of the House, I shall put together the Questions on the four motions relating to statutory instruments.
Ordered,
That the draft Grants by Local Housing Authorities (Appropriate Percentage and Exchequer Contributions) (No. 2) Order 1988 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft Advice and Assistance (Assistance by Way of Representation) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1988 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft Advice and Assistance (Scotland) (Prospective Cost) Regulations 1988 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft Parliamentary Constituencies (Scotland) (Miscellaneous Changes) Order 1988 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Durant.]

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
Ordered,
That European Community Document Nos. 4236/86 and 4498/88 on chromium in water be referred to a Standing Committee on European Community Documents.
That European Community Documents No. 9715/87 on electromagnetic compatibility be referred to a Standing Committee on European Community Documents.
That European Community Documents Nos. 5017/87, 6358/87 and 5151/88 on anti-dumping measures be referred to a Standing Committee on European Community Documents.—[Mr. Durant.]

Standard Form of Lease (Leasehold Residential Property)
3.35 pm
Mr. Hugo Summerson: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to introduce a standard form of lease for residential property.
There are millions of flats and maisonettes. Therefore, there are millions of leaseholders throughout the country. Many hon. Members are owners of leases on flats or maisonettes, so they will have experience of being leaseholders. With blocks of flats there is a division of ownership to take account of the fact that inevitably there is a division of tenure. Under our present system, the ownership of blocks of flats is divided into two—the freeholder and the leaseholder. That form of tenure has led to much trouble in the past; there is trouble with it at present; and, I fear, there will be trouble with it in the future.
The Law Commission has recently recommended that the system of leasehold be swept away and that a new strata title system be introduced. That is all very well as far as it goes, but so far it has not got very far. I propose to bring in a standard form of lease which will apply to all new lettings in England and Wales. The standard lease will set out in considerable detail the covenants of freeholders and leaseholders. It will include such items as provision for repairs and insurance. It will set out services and describe their use and the use of the common parts. At present, there is no standard form of lease. The Law Society does not produce one, and the Government could step in, to the benefit of leaseholders.
The Bill has two fundamental objectives. At present, the standard length of lease on a flat is 99 years. On average, a flat is sold every three years. That means that in the process of conveyancing the lease is scrutinised 33 times. It cannot make sense that a lease should be scrutinised so often. These leases are drawn up by firms of solicitors. Every firm will be busy drawing up its form of lease, and every time a flat is sold some other firm of solicitors will be busying checking it. That is all done at the expense of the prospective purchaser. There is great public concern about the costs of conveyancing. A standard form of lease would reduce those costs. The solicitor acting on behalf of the prospective purchaser would cast his eye over the lease and say, "This is the standard form of lease. I know that it is in order. Therefore, there is no need for me to check it."
My second objective is to eliminate defects in leases. At present, they are remarkably common, and I shall give one example. A block of flats in north London was sold at auction last year. In the auction catalogue the defects in the leases were clearly set out as being one of the assets of the lot. That meant that the flats were unmortgageable, which in turn meant that they were virtually unsaleable. As a consequence the wretched leaseholders had to go back to the freeholder and ask him to rectify the defects. That, of course, put the freeholder in an immensely strong position, for he did not have to agree to rectify the leases. In fact, he said, "Of course I will rectify them, but it will cost you X thousand pounds."
A system cannot be right under which a freeholder can grab that kind of windfall gain when he has done nothing to earn it, and when the only reason he is getting hold of

949
it is that his solicitor drew up the leases wrongly in the first place. My standard form of lease would ensure that there were no defects.
There is a precedent. In the case of agricultural tenancies or tenancies for short-term residential letting, it is possible to go to any law stationer and find ready-made agreements that can be bought for a pound or two, and everyone accepts them. What is more, there is a statutory precedent. Part III of schedule 2 of the Housing Act 1980 sets out the bare bones of a lease for former council tenants who wish to exercise their right to buy to acquire the leasehold of their flats.
The objective of my Bill will, I think, prove popular with the many thousands who are busy buying and selling flats. The Bill should reduce the cost of conveyancing, and by cutting out defects it will cut out uncertainty for leaseholders. I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Hugo Summerson, Mr. Paul Boateng, Mr. Chris Smith, Mr. Sydney Bidwell, Mr. Martyn Jones, Mr. Simon Hughes, Mr. Ronnie Fearn, Mr. Robert G. Hughes, Sir John Biggs-Davison, Mr. Nicholas Bennett, Mr. Simon Burns and Miss Ann Widdecombe.

STANDARD FORM OF LEASE (LEASEHOLD RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)
Mr. Hugo Summerson accordingly presented a Bill to introduce a standard form of lease for residential property: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 29 July and to be printed. [Bill 202.]
3.42 pm
Mr. Tony Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have left it until now, when things have quietened down and there are fewer hon. Members in the Chamber. However, the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) is currently in the Chamber. You will recall that before you came in my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) raised a point of order with Mr. Speaker. During that point of order, the hon. Member for Bootle—who is a very honourable and honest man—shouted at my hon. Friend that he thought he was a Fascist. Now would be an appropriate time, with a light House present, for the hon. Gentleman to have an opportunity to withdraw the remark. I am sure that, in the full light of day, he would not like it to be held against him.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I was not in the Chamber at the time, but my recollection is that Mr. Speaker dealt with the matter when it arose.

Orders of the Day
  Education Reform Bill
    2ND ALLOTTED DAY
    Lords amendments further considered.
    Clause 94

      AGREEMENTS FOR ESTABLISHMENT, ETC. OF CITY TECHNOLOGY COLLEGES
      Lords amendment: No. 228, in page 94, line 8, after "of' insert "either—
      (i)"
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this we may take Lords amendments Nos. 229 to 232.
      3.43 pm
      The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Kenneth Baker): I beg to move, That this House doth. agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      This is the last of the school matters set down for further consideration of the Lords amendments before us before we move on to higher education. I am delighted that the Opposition decided to choose city technology colleges for today's opening debate on the Bill. I have no doubt that they will make as big a mess of today as they made of yesterday.
      Yesterday was a fiasco for the Opposition from start to finish. One Opposition Front Bench spokesman said that he wanted the world made free for atheists to teach religion, and later in the evening the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) set out his considered thoughts on the electoral system for grant-maintained schools. He destroyed not only the credibility of his policy, but his personal credibility with one of the worst-thought-out, ill-conceived and absurd proposals.
      The amendment was moved by the Government on Third Reading in the other place following the amendment of my noble Friend Lord St. John of Fawsley on Report in the other place. It will allow the city technology programme to embrace institutions which focus on the application of technology I o the performing and creative arts. Those institutions will be known as city colleges for the technology of the arts.
      The other amendment relating to CTCs was moved by the noble Baroness Blatch. That extended from five to seven years the minimum period of notice before a funding agreement with a CTC can be terminated.
      The case for CTCs is straightforward. There is an urgent need for action in some of our towns and cities. In some of the schools in our inner cities there are high levels of truancy and many young people are achieving much less than they could otherwise do. Many often leave without any formal qualifications. The Government have policies to deal with that ranging from the technical and vocational education initiative to more technology in our schools and our new compact initiative.
      The House may like to know that today we published a booklet entitled "Industry Matters" pointing out the way in which firms and schools should get together across the school system quite apart from the CTC initiative. It is important that schools, industry and commerce should

      951
      work more closely together. I am sure that parties in the House are not divided on that. Since Industry Year in 1986 there has been a growing level of co-operation. It is good for our young people to experience what life after school is like in industry and commerce. Work experience is now a common feature of education for 15 and 16-year-olds.
      Many parents are also worried about the opportunities that are being denied to our children in some of our towns and cities. Therefore, 18 months ago we proposed to establish CTCs. They will provide free education for pupils between 11 and 18 years of age. They will give parents a new choice of school.
      We shall be setting up a network of 20 CTCs, which I am sure will become beacons of excellence. I hope that some of the practices and attitudes and, indeed, the ethos that they are creating will be copied and emulated throughout the education system.
      Mr. Paddy Ashdown rose——
      Mr. Tam Dalyell rose——
      Mr. Baker: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) because he is only dropping in between rounds in the election.
      Mr. Ashdown: The Secretary of State will recall that he set himself the target of 20 CTCs by the end of the decade. In the light of the manifest failure to launch any more than two, and those on somewhat dubious grounds, does he still believe that he will achieve his target? Will he confirm it now?
      Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman could not have been present at Question Time earlier. Seven CTCs have already been announced. The first, in Solihull, will be in operation in about six weeks. Nottingham CTC will be in operation next year, as, we hope, will Middlesbrough. There has also been a commitment for a college in Dartford, Kent, and by Dixons for one in Yorkshire, the site of which will, I hope, be announced shortly. The Philip and Pauline Harris trust has also made a commitment and there are others.
      Mr. Dalyell: Speaking of excellence, given the experience of the past 18 months, where will teachers of maths and physics come from? Is it not a question of robbing Peter to pay Paul?
      Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman, who follows these matters closely, will know that we have a scheme to promote greater recruitment of teachers of physics, maths and craft, design and technology. We had good recruitment levels last year and I hope that they will be better this year. We have also launched a big advertising programme. I am encouraging, through changes in the regulations affecting teacher qualifications, the more mature person or the person with an overseas qualification. In all those ways we are seeking to improve the number of teachers joining the teaching profession with maths, physics and CTC qualifications.
      Mr. Jack Straw: If there is such a great supply of teachers for maths and physics, why has Nottingham CTC found it necessary to pay maths and science teachers 5 per cent. above the national pay scale and offer inducements of up to £7,000 per teacher?
      Mr. Baker: One of the things that the hon. Gentleman cannot stand is that the colleges are independent and make up their own minds about salary levels——
      Mr. Straw: Answer the question.
      Mr. Baker: The colleges know perfectly well that they will be getting the same or equivalent amount of grant per capita or per child as the state-maintained schools in the area. If they wish to pay their teachers more and to make more offers, for heaven's sake what is wrong with that? They will have to make their savings from the rest of their grant and they are prepared to do so. They make their own arrangements. The hon. Member for Blackburn wants a degree of standardisation and formality in such matters which most people find totally unacceptable.
      Turning to the point raised about the lack of sponsors, the hon. Member for Blackburn said first that there has been poor support from industry. When I announced the CTC programme there was just one sponsor—Hanson plc—and I was chided and attacked and it was said that there would never be any other sponsors. But slowly the sponsors grew. We got to £5 million pledged by sponsors; then to £10 million; then to £15 million, £20 million and now to £25 million. That will be rising, I am quite sure, in the next few months to more than £30 million.
      Mr. Tony Banks rose——
      Mr. Baker: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment when I have advanced a little further with my speech. I shall give way to him eventually because I always like giving way to him.
      Mr. Banks: Give way now.
      Mr. Baker: In a moment.
      The plain fact of the matter is that many companies up and down the country want to support the concept of these new schools, but I was told that large companies do not support the CTC movement. Just let me run through the list of some of the supporters. At Nottingham, Mr. Djanogly from Nottingham Manufacturers—one of the great companies in that city—is a substantial supporter of the Nottingham CTC. How about these for unknown companies: Boots, W. H. Smith, British Coal.
      In a radio debate, the hon. Member for Blackburn told me that Marks and Spencer had not supported the scheme. Well, I can tell the House that Marks and Spencer has supported the Nottingham CTC. The hon. Gentleman did not even know that—[HON. MEMBERS: "How much?"] That is for the sponsors to decide themselves and for them to announce. The hon. Member for Blackburn cannot stomach the fact that more sponsors are coming forward, virtually daily, to support the CTCs. Opposition Members do not like appreciation of the success of the programme.
      Mr. Tony Banks rose——
      Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo rose——
      Mr. Baker: I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo).
      Mr. Brandon-Bravo: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. I hope that I am not misjudging the figures, but my recollection of Marks and Spencer's contrioution is that it is for a quarter of a million pounds.
      Mr. Baker: I am not prepared to comment on any figure or any sponsor. That is the line that I have taken. It is up to sponsors to decide how much they wish to give.
      Let us look at the other supporters throughout the country. We were told that we did not have any national names. However, Dixons, which is a household name throughout the country, has announced its support. I shall mention the figure because Dixons has announced it—£1 million. In Middlesbrough, we have £1 million from British American Tobacco, supported—[Interruption.]
      Ms. Hilary Armstrong rose——
      Mr. Baker: Hang on; I am dealing with the hon. Member for Blackburn. Is he going to attack the largest company in the country, apart from the oil and utility companies——
      Mr. Tony Banks: Smoking is a filthy and disgusting habit.
      Mr. Straw: Does the Secretary of State approve of what Mr. Gerald Denis of British American Tobacco stated in The Times Educational Supplement and which he did not deny in terms when he wrote to that paper two weeks later:
      "I do not think anti-smoking campaigns should be brought into the school."?
      Mr. Baker: Health education will be determined by the principal. Does not the hon. Gentleman recognise that British American Tobacco does not sell any tobacco products in this country and that 60 per cent. of the company's activities relate to organisations such as Eagle Star or financial services of one sort or another, and large paperworks?
      Apart from British American Tobacco——
      Ms. Armstrong rose——
      Mr. Baker: The hon. Lady should contain her natural impatience for a moment.
      Apart from British American Tobacco, the other small companies that are helping the Middlesbrough CTC are British Steel—an extremely small company!—Davy McKee and John Hall, one of the great entrepreneurs of the north-east.
      In the case of the Solihull CTC, £1 million was initially put tip by the Hanson Trust. It has now raised a further £1 million because between 30 and 40 companies in the west midlands have contributed. I am confident that Hanson will raise a further £1 million and that demonstrates the success and popularity of the programme. Many other sponsors do not wish to announce their names, but they will do so in time.
      Mr. Tony Banks rose——
      Mr. Baker: The hon. Member for Newham, North-West must contain his natural impatience, but I am happy to give way to him.
      Mr. Banks: I am most grateful to the Secretary of State. Instead of making it up as he goes along, the right hon. Gentleman would convince us more if he answered a simple question: how many sponsors? What we want to know is the number of sponsors. We do not want the Secretary of State simply to say, "A few have promised here, a few will come forward there". How many sponsors, and how much money?
      Mr. Baker: I have already told the hon. Gentleman that £25 million has been pledged. I have given him the names of several sponsors and when the other sponsors wish to announce their names they will do so. I am sure that he will be the first to congratulate them and to move motions at the Labour party conference to thank them for the public-spirited way in which they are planning to provide money from their funds to help to educate children in our towns and cities.
      I hope that I have dealt with the accusations made by the hon. Member for Blackburn, who has also made the absurd claim that, to bolster the programme, we have extended its range to encompass technology in the arts. He should get up to date and find out what is happening in our schools with regard to art, design and technology. Incidentally, I should thank the hon. Gentleman for his unintended assistance, because each time he stumps the country attacking CTCs I am approached by another sponsor. Such sponsors believe that if the Labour party is arguing that CTCs are a bad idea, they must be worth supporting. The hon. Gentleman has turned out to be one of the best recruiting sergeants I could possibly have had——
      Ms. Armstrong rose——
      Mr. Baker: —and here is another.
      Ms. Armstrong: I wonder whether the Secretary of State recognises that many people are seriously concerned that a sponsor wishes to influence the nature of the curriculum. If the sponsor of the Middlesbrough CTC, British American Tobacco, wishes to ensure that there is no no-smoking campaign, will he reject its money?
      Mr. Baker: I assure the hon. Lady that the trustees of the CTC of Middlesbrough will not agree to that. The funding agreement must have my approval, and I assure her that I shall want to know the CTC's health education policy.
      I am surprised that the Labour party has been so cool about support for technology in the arts because its arts spokesman has promoted a great interest in the arts. We must recognise that the arts—not just the performing and creative arts, but the range of design technology—is becoming much more technological. If one visits a music class, it is clear from the advanced music equipment that we are in a world of new technology—the world of music synthesisers and equipment that can compose music. Videos are pure technology and the new industries connected with satellite television are job positive.
      We want a greater concentration on such activities. Certain sponsors have already said that they wish to come forward, but I must disappoint the hon. Members for Newham, North-West and for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) because those sponsors do not wish their names to be known. They want to create colleges that are involved with the performing and creative arts and they want to use technology to improve those creative arts. That must be a good thing. It is happening in some schools in the state maintained sector, and I welcome it. I have seen an extremely good city art and technology college in Newcastle that has a whole range of sophisticated photographic and design equipment. If people want to sponsor CTCs for that, why should we stand in their way? It is an absurdly dog-in-the-manger attitude for the Opposition to adopt——
      Mr. Dennis Turner: The Secretary of State has spoken of sponsors choosing.It may be old-fashioned, but millions of people are happy to have education provided by the state and believe that it should be first rate and delivered by his Department, not handed out in a great big cauldron-like begging bowl into which people are expected to throw their pennies. Rather than supporting the idea of sponsors, many people would like the right hon. Gentleman to get on and tackle the problems in our schools that they want to be resolved.
      4 pm
      Mr. Baker: I do not think the hon. Gentleman has followed the Bill's provisions closely. To begin with, I do not dole out education. The local education authorities provide education around the country. The whole thrust of the Bill is to create greater choice in our education system. The CTCs are one way of doing that; grant-maintained schools are another. I do not believe in the principle that local education authorities should have the complete monopoly on free education in our country. There should be greater choice and variety—that is what we stand for. But the Opposition do not want that; the hon. Gentleman has encapsulated their attitude perfectly.
      It is the old Ford theme once again—"You can have any colour as long as it is black." In other words, people can have any sort of education as long as the Labour party provides and controls it by means of its councillors and unions. That is the choice the Labour party offers, but we are providing much greater choice, which I know the Opposition do not like.
      I come now to the third absurd claim made by the hon. Member for Blackburn. I am more and more surprised that he uses the CTCs in a debate of this sort, because the campaign will be successful. The hon. Gentleman has made the absurd claim that we are spending more on the CTCs than on the introduction of the national curriculum. He made it again at Question Time today. That shows how desperate the Opposition are. The cost to the taxpayer of the CTC programme, which was published in the last White Paper, is about £90 million over the period from 1987 to 1991. That includes capital and current expenditure.
      This should be compared with the costs of implementing the national curriculum. Over three years, £65 million has been allocated by central Government merely to cover additional expenditure. Added to that will be the large amounts of money allocated by education support grants and the LEA training grant schemes. In 1989–90 we expect to spend £30 million on the ESG scheme. Training grant figures are expected to be similar to those for 1988–89, when £22·5 million will be spent in national priority areas, with another £19 million from local priority area funds. That is a total programme of £90 million a year, compared with £90 million on CTCs for the whole period covered by the White Paper. On the same basis that the hon. Member for Blackburn used to make those absurd comparisons, we must add the running costs of primary and secondary schools. The CTCs' £90 million includes the running costs of the schools. That shows how absurd the thinking and approach of the Opposition are.
      Mr. Straw: The figures that the right hon. Gentleman claims are absurd, which are for the preparations for the national curriculum and obviously do not include the day-to-day running of existing schools, came from his
      956
      Department in answers from him. But if that analogy is unfair, will the Secretary of State explain how he justifies the fact that £16 million of taxpayers' money is being used to support the capital building of three schools while the local authorities in the three areas concerned—Middlesbrough, Cleveland and Solihull—have been allocated less than half that figure, £6·8 million, to spend on the capital and improvement works of 845 schools?
      Mr. Baker: We have in no way taken money away from local education authorities to provide the money that we have allocated to the CTCs. There is a separate amount of expenditure in the White Paper under the heading of CTCs. So this has not been at the expense of local education authorities' capital programmes. It comes from the money for the education system as a whole, and it will be money well spent. Opposition Members will see how successful the CTCs will be as the years go by.
      I am not in the least surprised by the political hostility of the Opposition. Their attitude is exactly the same as it was towards TVEI in 1983, when Labour councils up and down the land said that they did not want to touch the TVEI money, which they said was at the expense of the education system—the very argument that we heard a couple of minutes ago. They brushed the idea aside. One or two were prepared to co-operate, but the generality were not. What was even worse, the money came from a Department other than the Department of Education and Science, which made it trebly tainted. It came from the Department of Employment. Now queues of local education authorities are asking for TVEI money. We have seen that it has worked and become a success. I predict that CTCs will do the same.
      Mr. John Bowis: Am I not right in thinking that one of the last local education authorities to come round to TVEI was Lancashire county council, which is Labour-run and encompasses the constituency of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw)?
      Mr. Baker: That is right. I have yet to turn up what the hon. Member for Blackburn was saying about TVEI in 1983. No doubt he could send me the odd press cutting to prove how strongly he supported it and how, with his visionary approach to education, he urged Lancashire county council to grasp the opportunity. If he wants to quote to me the speeches he made in 1983 supporting TVEI, I shall give way to him. He is condemned by his silence. He has gone deaf again.
      The Opposition dislike other things about CTCs, too. For instance, they do not like their independence. The heads of Solihull and Nottingham CTCs display an entirely different approach. In Nottingham the principal has made it clear that he would expect no-strike agreements with his teaching staff. That must stick in the gullet of some Opposition Members, although I do not expect it to stick in the gullets of Opposition Members who are sponsored by Eric Hammond's union. It must be a joy, however, for many parents to hear of a no-strike agreement with teachers.
      The hon. Member for Blackburn said that the whole idea was to build completely new schools and that we should not use old buildings. He said that in a debate with me on the radio—
      Mr. Martin Flannery: A short time ago the right hon. Gentleman said that many of the

      957
      teachers in the CTCs would be earning much above the odds. He has destroyed the negotiating rights of teachers and has been condemned by the International Labour Office for that. The ILO made a point of that, as I mentioned to the Secretary of State in the Select Committee the other day when all the journalists were present. Is the right hon. Gentleman really going to impose his will on the teaching force? Does he not realise that they will fight back at some time if he does so?
      Mr. Baker: That is the last intervention that I shall take. If salaries higher than the main teachers' grade or incentive allowances are offered, they will be offered only on savings that can be made within the recurrent costs of the CTC, and that is up to the CTC.
      Does the hon. Gentleman agree with no-strike agreements with teachers? Will he come out and say that? Many people in teaching are saying it, as are many other unions. The hon. Gentleman is a strong member of the NUT. Will he advise his union to agree with no-strike agreements?
      Mr. Flannery: I profoundly disagree with no-strike agreements. To withhold one's labour in the face of tyranny and of not giving proper negotiating rights is a basic right, and the International Labour Organisation of the United Nations has condemned the Government for removing that right. The Secretary of State is violating international law, and if he expects teachers to go along with that he is dreaming. Therefore, the trade union movement, except for the Electrical, Electronic, Telecommunication and Plumbing Union, will not agree with it.
      Mr. Baker: Many other unions agree with no-strike agreements—for instance, the union that is growing fastest in the teaching world, the Professional Association of Teachers. It is putting on as many members as the NUT is losing. Does not the hon. Gentleman think that that is related to the attitude that he has expressed, that he will willingly look at the prospect of more disruption in our schools?
      I made clear to the hon. Gentleman in the Select Committee, and will do so again, that we shall be entering discussions with the unions after the summer recess to try to determine a better way to work out teachers' pay and conditions. I have made it clear all along that the interim advisory committee is an interim body that is necessary after the collapse of Burnham.
      The hon. Members for Black burn and for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) have both asked about section 12 proposals. It is often said that schools that are running and, for one reason or another, wish to become CTCs should not do so. That is absurd. If schools wish to gain the benefit from the CTC programme, and if their governors wish it, and it is done with the approval of the education authority, why should they not be able to propose to do so? However, any plans to convert existing schools into CTCs require the publication of statutory proposals. All such proposals will be decided upon their merits.
      Should potential sponsors wish to approach local education authorities and school governors with a view to future CTC establishments, they are free to do so. It is entirely for local education authorities to draw up what proposals they wish to publish. There is nothing new about this. Labour Members should think back, if they can recall
      958
      that long ago, to when their party was last in power. The Labour Government advocated comprehensive schools on a huge scale. It became, in effect, Government policy that all schools should become comprehensive. Proposals were coming forward that the Secretary of State of the day had to decide impartially, case by case.
      Mr. Derek Fatchett: The Secretary of State argues that, under section 12, he will be in a position to deal with proposals put to him on their merits. How, after this afternoon's performance, in which he has clearly, with some embarrassment but also with some enthusiasm, put the case for CTCs, can he make a judgment on merit? Is it not clearly the case that the Secretary of State is partial and is using the resources of his Department to support a policy? He cannot make a judgment on the merits of a case.
      Mr. BakerI have today defended Government policy, as Labour Ministers defended Government policy on comprehensive schools for nearly 20 years. In many cases——
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I doubt whether they did so on some narrow amendment from the other place. I hope that the House will now return to the amendment.
      Mr. BakerYou are right, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was drawing a parallel and defending Government policy—it is legitimate for Ministers to do so—I hope vigorously, and on as many occasions as I can. I am surprised that the Opposition have chosen to attack this policy. I am staggered that they have decided to attack this type of school. The first one is to open within six weeks. There is no doubt that it will be highly popular and successful. When parents in the area were canvassed, more than 350 children applied and 180 were selected.
      Let me scotch at once the idea that the pupils were selected on account of ability. The average IQ of pupils admitted to Kingshurst is about 100. The range is from 70 to 124. One cannot get a wider range of IQ differentials in a school than that. We have often heard that parents are committed to education. When the school held its first parents' meeting, more than 300 parents turned up. That shows the commitment of parents, and of the local community and of industry, to these bold imaginative measures.
      What the Labour party does not like is that these schools are independent of local education authorities. They are different. They bring spontaneity, inventiveness and creativity into the education system. If one had tried to spend this sort of money in revitalising and setting up these beacons, one would have got nowhere near doing what the CTCs will achieve. I confirm again that we are on course to set up a network of 20, and we shall have the support of parents and industry in achieving this. The net result will be better education for many children in our towns and cities.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I inform the House that this amendment involves privilege.
      4.15 pm
      Mr. Straw: It is now 21 months since the Conservative party conference in October 1986, when the Secretary of State rashly announced his policy for city technology colleges. He said a moment ago that it was absurd for us

      959
      to claim that this policy was for new schools. So short is his memory that he has forgotten what he said in October 1986. I will remind him. He does not want to hear those words because now he is twisting the policy that had been abandoned as a failure. He said that it was his intention to launch a pilot network of
      "new schools in urban areas, including the disadvantaged inner cities."
      He also said that they would be called city technology colleges. In the 21 months since the Secretary of State's announcement, he has refused to secure any debate in the House about his policy. He manipulated the guillotine in Committee and on Report so that CTCs were crowded out by religious education and religious worship debates.
      Mr. Kenneth Baker: The hon. Gentleman knows that when we were discussing the arrangements for the guillotine, I said time and time again that I was willing to accommodate his arrangements. He will know that, and it has been done time and again.
      Mr. Straw: The Secretary of State makes my point because, having been forced——
      Mr. Alistair Burt: Are we to reveal behind-the-Chair conversations?
      Mr. Straw: It was the Secretary of State who decided to reveal the discussions in the Business Committee over who had arranged the debate for this evening. Yes, we asked for this debate to take place this evening. The Secretary of State says that he is proud to debate it tonight. He had better explain why it was that he proposed that this debate should take place for one hour between the hours of 11 o'clock and midnight yesterday—a time guaranteed to ensure the minimum publicity to something that is embarrassing to him.
      Mr. Kenneth Baker: I was prepared to provide time for this debate at any time at which the hon. Gentleman wished it, and that is what I have done.
      Mr. Straw: I merely draw attention to the fact that there has been no debate on this policy, and there was none in Committee. If the Secretary of State is so proud of this policy, why has he not insisted on a debate? Why did he not come to the House in November 1986 to secure the approval of this House for this policy? The Secretary of State knows that that is because he spoke before he thought. He gave a commitment that he cannot now fulfil. In the glossy pamphlet that he published on 14 October 1986, he gave two commitments that have failed to come about. This policy is therefore a failure. He said:
      "The principle of funding will be that the promoters will meet all or a substantial part of the capital costs of CTCs."
      We know that that simply has not happened. Most—in some cases, almost all—of the cost of CTCs have come from the taxpayer.
      The Secretary of State said something else in this glossy pamphlet, paid for by the taxpayer. He said that the Department
      "is confident that the number of institutions and the number of pupils will build up rapidly thereafter. The Government intends that 20 CTCs should be in operation by the end of the decade."
      The end of the decade is next year. The Secretary of State has admitted to the House under cross-examination that there will not be 20 CTCs in operation by the end of this
      960
      year. There will not be 10, or even five. There will be three and none of those would be in operation but for the bail out paid for by the British taxpayer.
      Mr. Tony Banks: Is it not a fact that the Secretary of State made the announcement at the Conservative party conference to get himself a standing ovation? The reality is that the British taxpayer will have to pay for that ovation. That is the action of a Minister who previously criticised Labour local authorities for the money that they spent on advertising. There cannot be a better example of hypocrisy.
      Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend is right. Public expenditure on the CTC programme has risen tenfold. It is literally out of control. If a local authority had done anything of the sort, it would be rate capped and controlled by the Government.
      Mr. Christopher Hawkins: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You reminded us earlier that the amendments were tightly drawn. It seems, however, that we are having a re-run of the debate on Second Reading. I wonder whether you could guide us——
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I was not in the Chair earlier, but I was following carefully the course of the debate before I took occupancy of it. I think that it is reasonable for me to allow as much tolerance and latitude to the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) as was allowed to the Secretary of State.
      Mr. Straw: I am grateful to the Secretary of State—I am sorry, I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am always grateful to the Secretary of State because he provides us with such good copy. Unlike the right hon. Gentleman, I am trying to ascertain whether his policy has succeeded or failed.
      It was typical of the Secretary of State to resort to cheap, personal attacks on my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) when he opened the debate. He did so because he understood the nature of his own failure. He made an extraordinary suggestion about what happened during a debate last night. The right hon. Gentleman should check the record. What he said about my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish is an untruth. He should check the record and apologise to the House.
      Mr. Brian Sedgemore: Apologise now!
      Mr. Straw: I shall give the right hon. Gentleman the opportunity to do so.
      Mr. Kenneth Baker: If I have said anything that is wrong, I shall withdraw it. I shall have to check the record to see whether that is so.
      Mr. Straw: It is typical of the Secretary of State to speak before he has studied the record. He distorted what my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish had said. He did not have the courtesy or the intelligence to quote the Hansard report in respect of my hon. Friend.
      The Secretary of State described as absurd our proposition that there should be one vote per family in ballots for grant-maintained schools. There was one vote per family in a ballot on a CTC at Riverside school. In that ballot the parents voted overwhelmingly against having a CTC for that school. I look forward to hearing whether

      961
      the Secretary of State will take note that 89 per cent. of the parents who participated in the ballot at Riverside school in Bexley voted against the proposition that there should be a CTC. I give the right hon. Gentleman decent notice that we expect him to say during the debate whether he will take note of that result. As the proposition would fall if it involved a grant-maintained school, will it fall similarly in the Riverside context?
      Mr. David Evennett: The hon. Gentleman has referred to a school in my constituency. Does he agree that parents participated in many ballots about 10 years ago when they wanted grammar schools to be retained? The then Secretary of State for Education and Science, a member of a Labour Government, took no notice of the parents' wishes.
      Mr. Straw: We are not talking about school closures. Every Government and every local authority, of whatever political complexion, would face major and serious difficulties as a result of declining school rolls. We all know that. We are talking about changes in status and whether the Government will follow their own principle of seceding to parents the right to choose. Apparently parents will have a right to choose whether their school, as it were, opts out of local authority control. Such is the imperative of securing 20 CTCs—whether new schools or old, whether in urban areas or rural areas—that the Secretary of State is ready to ride roughshod over parents' wishes, even where nine out of 10 of them object to the idea of a CTC.
      The debate arises only by accident. In the closing hours of the debate in another place, Lord St. John of Fawsley proposed that the concept of a CTC should be widened to embrace what some consider to be the strange concept of a college for the technology of the arts, a concept so odd that Lord Stewart of Fulham said that it would, if implemented, enable children to learn about the role of the crane in a Greek drama but not of the purpose of the drama itself.
      We understand why the Secretary of State has been so embarrassed about the CTC policy and why he has sought persistently to avoid debate on it. It is his Achilles heel. It is a morally degenerate and educationally divisive policy, and a policy which can he seen already to have failed abjectly when reference is made to its original conception. The taxpayer is now having to rescue the Secretary of State's failure, and is doing so on a staggering scale. The right hon. Gentleman promised 20 new schools in urban and deprived areas, where all or most of the capital would be put up by private donors. He promised that 20 such new schools would be in operation by the end of next year. He has failed on every count.
      I accept that the Kingswood CTC will be opened this September. With luck, the CTC in Nottingham may be opened by next September. It is just possible that the CTC in Middlesbrough will also be opened. Of the 26 urban areas identified by the Secretary of State in his press statement on 14 October 1986, CTCs have been announced in only three of them.
      The plan has failed and it has run into almost universal opposition. Mr. Peter Wood is a former Conservative councillor in the west country and a former director of Plymouth chamber of commerce. He is not a Labour councillor who wishes to dismiss the Secretary of State's plan. Mr. Wood is reported in the Friday 20 May edition of The Western Morning News. He said:
      962
      "The idea has now sunk without trace. We earmarked possible sites for the college and needed at least £600,000 to get it off the ground. In the event, we got one pledge of £30,000 from a single company. There has just not been enough commitment from local firms."
      Mr. Bowis: If the hon. Gentleman is so concerned about the low number of CTCs that have "got off the ground" to date, and if he accepts that part of the reason for this is the provision of buildings, or lack of provision, why has he not encouraged his colleagues on the Inner London education authority to provide the necessary premises when we already have the funding on offer from companies? The ILEA, with its dog-in-the-manger attitude, refuses to allow premises to be made available to put the schools therein.
      Mr. Straw: The ILEA has not adopted a dog-in-the-manger attitude. Its attitude is central to our objection to CTCs. My hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) revealed in Question Time that the Conservative authority in Trafford is opposing the proposition to have a CTC in its area. The reason for that is simple. Almost every urban area has suffered disproportionately from falling rolls. The Secretary of State has forced these local authorities to close schools in their areas. They have gone through the trauma of reorganisation. In Cleveland, for example, seven secondary schools have been closed, and there are still 7,000 unused secondary school places in the area. Having gone through the sensitive process of parental consultation and reorganisation, authorities know that if they co-operate in the establishment of CTCs they will undermine science teaching in the other schools because the CTC will pay teachers more and, therefore, recruit more teachers. Secondly, they will destabilise schooling in their areas and force other schools to close.
      I am astonished that Conservative Members, who claim to be economists, do not understand the diseconomies that will arise. The Secretary of State spoke about Kingswood school. I have been to look at Kingswood school and other schools in that area——
      Mr. Iain Mills: It is Kingshurst school.
      4.30 pm
      Mr. Straw: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I have been to Kingshurst school and to the other schools in that area. There is apprehension that the education in those schools could be damaged because the Secretary of State is loading the dice in favour of one privileged school sector and against local authorities.
      The director of Plymouth chamber of commerce said that there was just not enough commitment from local firms. Yesterday I told the House of complaints by the colleagues of the Secretary of State that he is all presentation and not enough properly thought through policy. I can reveal to the House that the Secretary of State starts every week with an hour's meeting at 9.30 on a Monday morning, which is entitled quite simply "Publicity". In the last month he has had one meeting dealing with policy round-up for three quarters of an hour and four meetings—one every week—entitled "Publicity". The right hon. Gentleman's desire for a quick headline is catching up with him. The so-called policy on the CTC's has been seen through not just by the Opposition but by traditional supporters of the Tory party. Apparently, some

      963
      of his ministerial colleagues are outraged by the way in which public funds have been hijacked from deserving projects to bail out this gimmick which has gone wrong.
      Mr. Hawkins: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would help my shallow brain by telling us which amendment he is talking to.
      Mr. Straw: I am talking to Lords amendment No. 230 which amends page 94, line 20 of the Bill and includes the words
      "in the case of a school to be known as a city technology college, on science and technology".
      The Secretary of State should listen to those Conservative Back Benchers who have been offended by the way in which LEA schools in their areas have been starved of funds while a few favoured CTCs will receive millions. The Secretary of State has tried to play a trick on the House and the country by suggesting that the money comes from two separate pots. He ought to talk to his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister who rightly lectures that all public money comes from one source and that we have to make choices. He cannot seriously be trying to suggest that £86 million has been manufactured out of thin air and that if it were not used on the CTCs it would not be available to use on improving the education of the 95 per cent. of children who have to be educated in the state sector. That was a cheap and dishonest point to seek to make.
      The policies have been seen through by businesses—even many of those businesses that give money to the Conservative party. According to the Secretary of State, 1,800 firms have been approached for money for CTCs and in many cases quite unacceptable pressure has been brought to bear on individual business men by the Secretary of State and those acting for him. It has been claimed that the companies owe the Secretary of State a favour. There have been veiled hints of honours for those who cough up and of political retribution for those who do not. Many business men to whom I have spoken thoroughly resent the pressure that has been applied. Even so, of the 1,800 firms approached the Secretary of State has been able to name only 20; what a hit rate that is. He claims that £25 million has been pledged and we should weigh that word with care. Even if the sum is £25 million, £9 million of that will come from the taxpayer in tax relief, because the businesses will get tax relief of 35 per cent. on every pound that they put in. The true figure is £16 million.
      Mr. Tony Banks: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a going rate in contributions to Conservative party funds for the buying of peerages and knighthoods? Does he know the going rate for the donation that one has to make to a CTC to get a knighthood or peerage?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps we may get back to the amendment.
      Mr. Straw: We know that there is a correlation between donations and honours and we shall see whether it applies in this case. Whether or not the Secretary of State tries to deny it in his bluster, almost every major company—especially those concerned about our science base—has boycotted the CTC proposal. ICI, the main company in Middlesbrough, has boycotted the CTC in
      964
      Middlesbrough. IBM has boycotted the CTCs; Shell has boycotted them; BP has boycotted them and Sainsbury has boycotted them. The list goes on.
      It is a mark of the desperation felt by the Secretary of State that he has had to resort to contributions from British American Tobacco—a contribution that gives new meaning to the phrase "It's the tobacco that counts." The Secretary of State did not repudiate what Mr. Gerald Denis told The Times Educational Supplement on 17 June:
      "I do not think anti-smoking campaigns should be brought into the school."
      We know that those who run large companies think that it is not only the tobacco but the money that counts. Mr. Denis thinks that he has bought influence over the running of the CTC. That is what he said to the TES on 17 June. I hope that the Minister of State will clearly repudiate that view in her reply.
      The Industrial Society, which is funded by most of the major companies, has labelled the CTC policy a failure and the director-general of the CBI, which represents almost every major manufacturing company in the country, has described the CTC policy as an irrelevancy.
      The CTC policy, as originally sold by the Secretary of State, has failed. His solution to that failure is simply to raid the Exchequer. Private backers have boycotted the scheme and the taxpayer has been dragooned into rescuing it. If the scheme is such a success, why has the Secretary of State abandoned the condition that all or a substantial part of the funding will be put up by the promoters? What is the reason for that? It is simply an old-fashioned Heathite bail-out of a private operation at the taxpayer's expense.
      According to the TES, £200 million will be put in—£90 million over the next three years. I see that the Secretary of State is leaving us and I am not surprised. More money—£33 million—is to be spent next year on a few CTCs and on preparation for the national curriculum. More civil servants, at a more senior level, are working on CTCs, for a few thousand children at the very most, than on the transfer of ILEA, which will affect 270,000 children in inner London. The Minister may say that it is not true, but I have the answer given to me by the Secretary of State on 13 June which clearly shows that £25,000 a month is being spent directly on the administration of the CTC policy. One grade 5 assistant secretary in charge of a whole branch is working on CTCs. There is one grade 5 HMI and two assistant secretaries with branches alongside in charge of CTC policy——
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not see how this can be remotely connected with the amendments.
      Mr. Straw: With the greatest respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is directly related to the CTC policy. We are talking about how many officials and how many resources——
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The amendments.
      Mr. Straw: Amendment No. 230 goes to the very heart of the CTC policy because it gives the Secretary of State and the House powers to fund CTCs. CTCs cannot be funded without the administration of that funding.
      Mr. Brandon-Bravo: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) says that he is talking to amendment No. 230, but that amendment has nothing to do with funding. It merely

      965
      deals with the curriculum for the CTCs and the CCTAs. He may be talking to some other amendment, but it is not amendment No. 230.
      Mr. Straw: That shows the hon. Gentleman's lack of understanding. One cannot have a curriculum without its being paid for.
      Mr. Brandon-Bravo: The House may be pleased to hear that amendment No. 230 simply says:
      "in the case of a school to be known as a city technology college, on science and technology; or"
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that hon. Members will have read the amendment. It seemed to be for the convenience of the House to have a broad debate on the amendment and that is what we have had, but equally I think that the whole House will recognise that there must be limits. I hope that the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) will recognise the limits that I have set.
      Mr. Straw: Alongside the fact that more officials at a more senior level are devoted to CTC policy than to the transfer of ILEA is the fact that more taxpayers' money is being devoted to the capital costs of just three CTCs than to the capital improvements of 845 schools in the whole of the three local education authorities covered by the three CTCs.
      The Secretary of State seeks to ask why we object to CTC policy. Let me tell him why. It is because it is deeply and desperately offensive to the 95 per cent. of children who are being and will continue to be educated in the state system. It is based on a profound double standard. How does he justify the fact that in Middlesbrough, in Cleveland, that county council is crying out for funds to improve its laboratories and equipment and repair its leaking roofs in schools, yet it has been allocated a tiny amount while one authority is allocated £4 million? How does the right hon. Gentleman cope with the fact that in Nottinghamshire £9 million of state money is going to one school while 514 schools in the county of Nottingham are to receive £2·46 million? If the Secretary of State wants to come back on that and to give me the reason why there is that double standard, I shall he happy to give way.
      Mr. Ken Eastham: The Secretary of State has his head down now.
      Mr. Straw: Of course the right hon. Gentleman has his head down, because he knows that it is indefensible that one school can get £9 million while 500 schools share just £2·46 million. On the one hand, the Secretary of State follows a policy in which the education of the majority of children is supposed to be carried out on the cheap. ILEA is rate-capped and abolished for spending over £2,200 on the education of each secondary pupil. On the other hand, in the assisted places scheme, we find that Government funds can pay up to £5,600 and then that in CTCs—[Interruption.] If the Secretary of State wishes to intervene and to explain the double standards for how one school can get £9 million and 500 get £2·46 million, I shall happily give way. [HON. MEMBERS: "Come on."] Of course, the right hon. Gentleman will not intervene.
      Money is being poured into CTCs. Earlier I asked the Secretary of State why CTCs would be paying their science teachers at least 5 per cent. more than the going national rate and were offering removal and relocation expenses of £7,000——
      Mr. Brandon-Bravo: Where was that?
      Mr. Straw: Nottinghamshire.
      The Secretary of State sought to brush that aside. 'The simple truth is that there are great shortages of science and maths teachers. We all know that. The Secretary of State may try to argue, as he did in his earlier speech, about the need for competition between schools. Competition can work only if it is fair. The Secretary of State has loaded the dice in favour of CTCs and against other schools.
      There is no fixed quantum of knowledge—education is a dynamic. But there is a fixed quantum of science teachers and of pupils. The policy of paying some teachers in a few CTCs will undermine teaching in other schools.
      It is a further sign of the Secretary of State's desperation that the policy has been wholly altered from creating new schools to taking over existing, living schools. [Interruption.] Again, the Secretary of State has been commenting about my speech from a sedentary position. He said that it was an absurd idea for me to claim that there were to be new schools. Let him now explain how the policy has been overturned so that existing, living schools will be taken over to salvage his policy. The nature of that policy illustrates how unfair it is. Haberdashers' Mice's schools have been good, well-run voluntary-controlled comprehensives, happy about their relationship with ILEA. I visited——
      4.45 pm
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's speech is wide of the amendments. I hope that he will now get nearer to the amendments.
      Mr. Straw: I am speaking about the curriculum in the CTCs and my speech is no wider than the Secretary of State's proposition. He said that the policy for CTCs had now been extended to cover existing schools and I am trying to answer that point.
      Haberdashers' Aske's asked ILEA to ask the Department of Education and Science for money to pay for a new science block. The Secretary of State refused less than £1 million. He is now bribing that school to leave the state sector, with £4 million. My hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) will speak about. Downs school, but let me now ask the Secretary of State about the result of the parents' ballot at Riverside school. It is he who has spoken about the need for parents' views to be taken into account. I gave him notice that parents have voted by 89 per cent. to 11 per cent. against turning Riverside school in Bexley into a CTC. Will the Secretary of State respect the parents' wishes? I offer him the chance to intervene. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] The Secretary of State's silence speaks volumes because the simple truth is that he will ride roughshod over the parents' wishes, because they are inconvenient to him.
      There is now the strange idea of a college for the technology of the arts. It is not just Opposition Members who have thought that to be a strange idea. Lord Beloff, a Conservative peer, said this of the proposition:
      "To put forward at the Report stage of a Bill of this kind a suggestion that was not tabled either at Second Reading or at the Committee stage puts Members of this House at something of a disadvantage … But to think that at Report stage, at 9.50 pm, the House of Lords should invent a new kind of School—no one has suggested that this would be a partnership—is asking rather a lot."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 27 June 1988; Vol. 498, c. 1249.]

      967
      At no stage during his speech today did the Secretary of State give us any details about how the school was to operate, what were to be its capital costs, or how much of the capital costs was to be met by the taxpayer, not by private donors.
      This country faces a serious science crisis. We spend less on civil research than any other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development country. The Advisory Board for the Research Councils has said that our policy on science research is at a watershed and slipping in the wrong direction. Half the teachers of maths and physics did not study at degree level the subject that they now teach and 40 per cent. of postgraduates qualifying to teach do not enter the profession. The Engineering Council and the Secondary Heads Association has estimated a shortage of science teachers of 4,000 maths teachers and 2,300 physics teachers.
      To that crisis the Secretary of State's only response is the CTC. The director-general of the CBI said that the idea of CTCs is irrelevant. It is much more likely to be damaging to science teaching as a whole. Some £90 million is to be spent on CTCs over the next three years. How much better could that money be spent on upgrading laboratory facilities in existing schools, on extending in-service training, on improving career prospects and recruitment of science teachers, or on encouraging genuine partnership between business and existing schools? But as ever with the Secretary of State, we are offered a gimmick in place of a policy, which is now being bailed out at the taxpayers' expense. The Secretary of State's CTC policy is a scandal, a fraud and a failure. I oppose the amendments.
      Several Hon. Members rose——
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the House that the debates on these amendments must conclude not later than 6.30 pm.
      Mr. Anthony Coombs: I welcome Lords amendment No. 230, which broadens the scope of CTCs. They will increase choice and diversity in the education system and will provide the skills that are so badly needed in Britain.
      There are three reasons why CTCs should be set up. First, as was realised in America—sadly, it has not been realised by the Opposition—excellence is increased by increasing choice. Parents and children want choice, and that is why, when Kingshurst opened its books for pupils, 4,000 children from as far away as Bristol and Glasgow applied for the 175 places available. It provides a competitive spur for nearby schools. The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) said that Kingshurst will have a debilitating effect on schools in the area, despite the fact that its catchment area is extremely wide. It will take 100 pupils from the Birmingham area, and when one considers that the annual intake to secondary schools in Birmingham is 14,000, to say that Kingshurst is likely to have an effect on schools in the vicinity is to live in cloud-cuckoo-land.
      The extended CTCs will provide a further choice, in our cities and I hope elsewhere, for many children who would otherwise be denied it, irrespective of their race, income and abilities—except for enthusiasm for and commitment to the idea.
      968
      The second reason is that technology—especially technology connected with the arts—is demanded by the jobs market. Professor Charles Handy of the Institute of Personnel Management estimates that, although 50 years ago 30 per cent. of the population were knowledge workers, in 10 years' time the proportion will have increased to 70 per cent. When we realise that 40 per cent. of pupils presently leave school without qualifications and that too many of our pupils do not have a commitment in their fourth and fifth years to what our schools are producing—in some schools near Birmingham 120 of the 270 fifth formers do not attend school at the beginning of their fifth year—making the curriculum relevant, as CTCs will do, becomes increasingly vital.
      We are told about the necessity for engineering apprenticeships. In my constituency engineering apprenticeships are available but, sadly, such are the relations between schools and industry that only 50 per cent. are taken up. In West Germany, 85 per cent. of 16 to 18-year-olds continue in training. In the United States the proportion is 80 per cent., but in Britain it is only 60 per cent., and of them, only one third continue at school. As a result, it should not be surprising—although Opposition Members do not seem to understand it—that Britain produces only 13,500 engineers a year compared with 40,000 in Germany. More importantly, only 4,000 of the former find their way into manufacturing industry.
      Mr. Win Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman is making a fairly interesting point about the lack of training places for young people aged over 16 compared with the position in Germany and the United States. But which Government have disbanded training boards almost wholesale across the country?
      Mr. Coombs: The engineering industry training board has said that funding for engineering apprenticeships, which are available but not taken up, has not declined under this Government. We heard that at a conference last week. CTCs will be another means of resolving the problem of engineering training.
      Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Is the hon. Gentleman asserting that the number of engineering apprenticeships has not declined under this Government? If he believes that, he has been sadly misinformed.
      Mr. Coombs: Last week the engineering industry training board said that the present method of funding engineering apprenticeship and training generally is satisfactory, but that the problem is that school leavers are not taking up those apprenticeships.
      Specialist schools such as CTCs imply commitment, and at Kingshurst the emphasis is not on ability but on the commitment of parents and pupils. As the Secretary of State said, it is significant that the IQs of the children who attend Kinghurst vary between 72 and 128. In the United States, the former Benjamin Franklin school in New York had a 56 per cent. drop-out rate and only 7 per cent. of its pupils went on to further education. Since it was changed into a specialist school for mathematics and science it has attracted 3,000 applicants for 350 places. Half still come from the Harlem area and 95 per cent. of pupils go on to colleges.
      Valerie Bragg, the principal of the CTC in Solihull, said that for her first parents' meeting nearly all the parents turned up, and the 10 who did not sent their apologies.

      969
      CTCs will also encourage commitment from their staff. Although some teachers—not all—may be paid up to 5 per cent. more than average form teachers, at Kingshurst they are expected to do 40 hours of teaching a week, which is on average 30 per cent. more than they would be expected to do in state schools. They will gain 5 per cent. more pay for 30 per cent. more teaching hours, but they are prepared to show that commitment.
      City technology colleges are a recognition of the fact that a specialised technological curriculum will provide commitment, choice and high standards. The hon. Member for Blackburn seems to have learnt that lesson. He is reported to have said that a Labour Government—it will probably not happen during the next 25 years—would not abolish CTCs. We shall be following the German example of specialist schools—the Gymnasium, the Hauptschule and the Realschule—in providing vocational training. Further, CTCs do not cut across the commitment to comprehensive education. Valerie Bragg says that she is a great believer in comprehensive schools, and she believes that, eventually, all schools will go in the direction that her CTC is taking.
      Mr. Morgan: Which of those three categories of German school that the hon. Gentleman referred to as specialist schools are available to all children in Germany? I do not see any resemblance between them and the CTC concept.
      5 pm
      Mr. Coombs: Anyone who has visited a Realschule—I visited the one in Frankfurt which has very close links with the local Höechst chemicals factory—will find that a company's relationship with a local school and its curriculum is similar to that being offered by the CTCs, and that that is the model upon which CTCs have been based.
      CTCs will be consistent with the national curriculum, will provide choice, excellence and the involvement with parents and local industry that parents want. Most of all, they will act as a catalyst for greater choice and opportunity for the children, irrespective of their ability and their ability to pay. They will act as a catalyst for higher standards because of that choice and the resulting commitment. They will tend to bridge the gap that is evident throughout the country between schools and especially manufacturing industry because of the technological curriculum that they will provide. That is yet another and natural continuation of schemes such as the training and vocational education initiative, UBI, Trident and the enterprise programme that have been set up under this Government. I hope that they will be a forerunner of the potential for specialist and magnet schools, whether in the local education authority sector or outside. Those CTCs, especially as expanded for schools offering technology for art, will offer parents a degree of choice, variety and quality in education that they have not been offered hitherto and that the country desperately needs. That is why I shall be supporting the Lords amendment.
      Mr. Tony Banks: I have just received the written reply to my question No. 5 this afternoon, and I want to make sure that it is correct. The Secretary of State's answer is:
      "Total planned public expenditure on the city technology colleges programme over the years 1987–88 to 1990–91 is £90 million, which includes both capital and recurrent costs. To
      970
      date more than £25 has been pledged by sponsors towards the capital costs of establishing CTCs. This is … quite unprecedented".
      I imagine that it probably is—wholly unprecedented. I would not have thought that one would get very much for £25. One might be able to buy a packet of cigarettes, although I do not know whether British American Tobacco would want them smoked around the back of the lavatories in the CTCs. One must assume that there is an error here and, clearly, the Department of Education and Science needs to improve its numeracy.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) has said much of what wanted to say, so I will not detain the House for very long. As hon. Members know, I have to attend a Procedure Committee meeting in a moment and I apologise to hon. Members for not staying to hear the rest of the debate. It is clear from what we have heard this afternoon that the CTCs were nothing more than the Secretary of State going for a cheap round of applause and, indeed, a standing ovation at the 1986 Conservative party conference. One understands that that is the norm at Conservative party conferences. Everyone who is capable of walking, talking and farting at the same time gets a standing ovation. To make sure of a standing ovation the Secretary of State thought he would try to bribe the conference by saying that he would set up 20 CTCs during the decade but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn said, his strategy now lies in ruins at his feet. His fumbling and bumbling during Question Time and when talking on this part of the Bill clearly revealed that.
      I object strongly to the way in which the British taxpayer is being forced to pay out to save Baker's face. It is not a very handsome face and is certainly not worth £90 million of taxpayers' money. That is why we have tabled our amendment (a). If all the money, or a great majority of it—by which I mean 90 per cent.—was forthcoming from private business, the Opposition might see something in it, because it would be a bit of icing on the cake, but the British taxpayer has now to bail out this lamentable failure, this apology of a policy from this apology of a Secretary of State.
      The Secretary of State said that he cannot tell us the name of the companies. Excuse us for believing that he probably does not know the names. It is the cheapest trick in the book to come to the Dispatch Box and say, "I have lots and lots of promises, but, unfortunately, I cannot tell the House what they amount to. I cannot name any of them." The Secretary of State has not the sort of track record that makes us want to take him at his word.
      Mr. Brando-Bravo: Not so loud.
      Mr. Banks: I am speaking loudly, because I hope that I can get it through the skulls even of Conservative Members that what they are defending is a fraud and a con on the British people, because for education these proposals are not worth the paper that they are written on.
      It is now clear that the Secretary of State cannot give straight answers. We did not ask the Secretary of Stale to reveal anything—just the number of companies involved. We cannot therefore believe anything that he says about CTCs and the future funding of them. The Secretary of State is, no doubt, trying to induce various Tory party-inclined business people to give money to save his face and that of the Prime Minister and the Government. He will be saying, "You can see that we do quite proudly by our friends when they stump up money for the

      971
      Conservative party. If you put up some money for the CTCs, the odd knighthood or peerage could just mysteriously come your way."
      Mr. Hawkins: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman would enlighten us on which Lords amendment he is speaking to.
      Mr. Banks: The hon. Gentleman knows precisely which one I am speaking to. It is all about CTCs and their funding.
      One can imagine what is being done at the moment, because the Secretary of State is sprawling on the ropes. His policy is in tatters around him and he desperately needs some support. I can imagine him going along to Richard Branson, who seems to the the favourite Conservative-inclined business man at the moment, and saying, "Come on Richard, let us see some of that money and you can have a knighthood or a peerage." I shall watch the honours list very carefully because before long I know that we shall see the Count of Condoms or Lord Johnnie Branson appearing in it—him and his Mates.
      Mr. Hawkins: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether the other place will think that the House has given any serious consideration to its amendments to this part of the Bill.
      Mr. Alan Amos: I believe that the establishment of city technology colleges is perhaps the most exciting, radical and much-needed development in education policy since the second world war. It is interesting, but not surprising, that yet another initiative from the Conservative party helps inner cities and makes what is taught more relevant and useful to the world of work. It gives expression to that part of the 1944 Act relating to a tripartite system, which was never given a chance to succeed.
      The CTCs will have a number of features. They will lead and implement curriculum development in science and technology. They will widen parental choice, raise standards and introduce more competition—competition is a good word—and they will extend diversity and break the monopoly of education provision by often stale, backward-looking and out-of-touch Left-wing local education authorities.
      Mr. Win Griffiths: Which amendment is the hon. Gentleman speaking to?
      Mr. Amos: I am speaking to amendment No. 230—the same amendment as the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) spoke to.
      There is a crying need in this country for closer and more productive links between the education system and the wealth-producing parts of the economy. We simply must have more mobility of personnel and ideas between schools and colleges, industry and commerce and the Civil Service. As a country, we are too inward-looking, resistant to change and demarcated.
      We should, therefore, welcome with open arms, not only the active interest by industry and commerce, but their willingness to invest their money. We should not be suspicious of that partnership, but excited by its possibilities. It represents a logical development of other Government initiatives to ensure that we have a properly
      972
      trained and skilled work force to meet the challenges and opportunities of the next decade. We already have the TVEI and the CPVE. I am happy to confirm what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said earlier about the Labour party's attitude towards the TVEI. When I was chairman of the education committee in Enfield, the council resisted and objected to the idea and rejected the money. It has now changed its mind because it has seen that the system works.
      All too often, economic growth is held back by a lack of skilled manpower. As the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong) knows, the problem of the lack of skilled manpower is already affecting the north-east. Northern Engineering Industries, Procter and Gamble and the Northern Development Company have already identified that problem. Local businesses in my constituency, which borders that of the hon. Member for Durham, North-West, are concerned about that problem and are doing something about it. Business is forging links, through the Northumbria employer network and the Tynedale Enterprise Agency Ltd., with local schools so that the schools can be better aware of the needs of the local economy and businesses can in turn provide school children with more direct experience of the world outside while they are at school. I cannot see why the Labour party does not welcome that initiative with open arms.
      CTCs will be firmly in the state sector. They will be free, open to all pupils and have wide catchment areas.
      Mr. Straw: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Secretary of State, in evidence to the Select Committee, said that CTCs would not be in the state sector, but would be private schools?
      Mr. Amos: They are independent state schools, but, if the running costs and some of the capital costs of those colleges are provided by the state, the colleges clearly have a direct link with the state. It is nonsense to pretend that they are totally independent.
      The CTCs will provide real hope for inner city youngsters to escape from the cycle of educational deprivation and from large, impersonal, bady disciplined comprehensive schools in which the curriculum is neither relevant nor suited to the needs of most of their pupils.
      Ms. Armstrong: It is interesting to note that the hon. Gentleman sees Hexham as an inner city. Will he tell us whether any northern authority has welcomed the initiative and believes that it will meet the need for improved training and skill development in the northern region?
      5.15 pm
      Mr. Amos: Yes, I can confirm that the Northumbria employer network, the Tynedale Enterprise Agency Ltd and the Northern Development Company have welcomed the initiative.
      The establishment of CTCs will bring extra money into the education system. They will remain accountable to the Secretary of State for the way in which they spend their state grant. In effect, they will bring in new people with new ideas and a new style of management. That partnership between local industry and central Government has again brought to life cities that were destined to long-term decline. We should look around the world and broaden our horizons a little.

      973
      We can see a revival based on that partnership in Baltimore, Boston and New England. Those areas have built new economic growth and hope on the basis of the hi-tech industries of the future, instead of trying to reverse the irreversible, long-term decline of manufacturing industry. The sooner we have a CTC on Tyneside, the better. Perhaps I can ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State whether he will consider extending the initiative to rural areas such as Hexham where the need for a highly skilled and professional work force is just as important as in the cities.
      The concept and practice of CTCs are right. As a teacher, I was often saddened to see so many pupils being dragged through watered-down academic courses which we knew had little relevance to their needs, abilities and aptitudes. It was a terrible waste of resources and of youngsters' opportunities. By concentrating on technology and science in those schools, many pupils will be able to use their innate abilities instead of becoming bored and disruptive pupils elsewhere. CTCs may be outside the system, but what is so sacrosanct about a decadent system? I ask Opposition Members to take this opportunity, instead of trying to defend stale old structures and practices. Whereas the Labour party destroys direct grant schools and grammar schools, we are building new city technology colleges.
      Ms. Joan Ruddock: In opening the debate, the Secretary of State spoke about high levels of truancy, lack of qualifications, the need for schools to be in close contact with industry and commerce and the opportunities that were being denied to some children and the concern of their parents about that denial of opportunities. He sought to justify the amendments by reference to those issues. I ask him, therefore, why Ministers are talking to the Haberdashers' Aske's schools in Deptford. I cannot understand how those problems have been identified in those schools in Deptford because I do not believe that they exist there. How will the amendments introduce into the legislation a solution to problems that have not been perceived to be present in schools in Deptford?
      The Secretary of State's original proposals sought to introduce new schools as an addition to the education provision. In Question Time today, we heard about redundant buildings and the need to make use of such buildings. Why, therefore, has he picked two flourishing comprehensive schools to be proposed as a CTC? They are neither empty buildings—heaven forbid—nor do they fall under the category of new provisions.
      On the contrary, in Deptford we are fortunate to have the Haberdashers' Aske's girls and boys schools which the parents, teachers and governors of those schools will defend as schools of excellence. Why, therefore, should we have a CTC?
      Mr. James Pawsey: Does the hon. Lady agree that one of the reasons why my right hon. Friend is pursuing that policy is that Labour authorities are not making available redundant schools? If they were, we would see many more CTCs being created in the areas where they are most needed.
      Ms. Ruddock: The hon. Gentleman seems to suggest that, because the Secretary of State was frustrated in his efforts to get 20 CTCs, he is picking on two good and
      974
      flourishing comprehensives. That is no answer. At the moment, the schools are operational and provide the education that children in my constituency need.
      More important, those two schools are part of a five-school north Lewisham consortium which was set up specifically by the Labour-controlled ILEA to do some of the things about which the Government have spoken so enthusiastically. It was set up to raise standards, to provide sixth-form education for all five schools and to provide opportunities for the most disadvantaged children in my community, and there are many hundreds of those children. In short, the consortium was set up to give young people the benefit of the expertise that could be brought together from five schools.
      Let me explain to the Secretary of State just how it works, in case he has not been able to look into the matter. There is a system whereby the school which is the most excellent and the most expertise in a particular topic offers a sixth-form course to all the children from the five schools. There is a combined revision centre for all the children from the five schools, funded by ILEA—I wonder for how long under this Government. It is genuine community-based education and it is extremely popular with parents.
      I shall use the study of politics as an example. In the lower sixth this year, six children came from Addey and Stanhope school, six children from Aske's boys' school, five children from Aske's girls' school, two children from Deptford Green, and on this occasion none from Hatcham Wood. Will there be any room for the study of politics in the curriculum of the CTCs? If those two Aske's schools, which happen to be the best resourced schools of the consortium, are taken out, what will happen to the three remaining schools? What will happen to their sixth forms? What will happen to the 11 to 18 education that ILEA has attempted to provide in my constituency?
      The Secretary of State spoke about contact with business, industry and commerce. What about the ILEA compact, which I suggest has been more successful in making those contacts than he has been in trying to involve and interest any sector of business or industry in my constituency with regard to funding of the CTCs? Those five schools have coped well with the problem of falling rolls with which we are all familiar.
      Mr. Brandon-Bravo: Will the hon. Lady give way?
      Ms. Ruddock: No. I have very little time.
      The plans to expand the intake of 11-year-olds to the CTCs, which could mean an increase of 30 or even 60 children, would disrupt the partnership between primary and secondary schools in that area. The relationships between primary and secondary schools are extremely good. If the Secretary of State is in favour of parental choice, how will he give real parental choice to the parents of children in about 80 primary schools, whose parental choice will be limited by the removal of two of those secondary schools?
      Mr. Bostock, the chairman of the governors of the Haberdashers' Aske's schools, has been persuaded that the status of a CTC will guarantee the continuation of 16 to 19 provision within the two schools for which he is responsible. Does the Secretary of State justify that with the destruction of the sixth forms of three other schools? Is he confident that the whole project might not result in the closure of one of those five schools? Is it not true that

      975
      there will be increasing selective entry? If the schools are as good as he suggests, there will be competition, and what will happen to the more disadvantaged children who will be limited in their choice of school?
      As for parental rights, will the Secretary of State guarantee that there will be consultation of all the people in my constituency who will be affected? Perhaps he remembers, as I do, that in April the chairman of the governors produced proposals without consultation to close those schools by September this year.
      All the parents in my constituency are deeply worried about this divisive and elitist proposal that goes against all that we have striven to provide in terms of equality and opportunity in my constituency. Furthermore, Mr. Bostock has been led to believe that £4 million of public money might be available for the setting up of a CTC. Is that the case? Is the sum around £4 million? How can he justify that, when the running costs of all five schools in the consortium amounts to about £5 million?
      Our schools are being starved of capital and funding because of the policies of this Government. The ILEA has reduced capitation allowances by nearly 60 per cent. and we have been trying to get Victorian buildings renovated and repaired throughout the years in which the Government have sought to impose cuts on ILEA and on our schools. Indeed, 75 per cent. of the maintenance grant has been cut from a school that I visited last week, yet, remarkably, after all the works at the Haberdashers' Aske's girls' school which were listed to be done and which could not be funded, suddenly two weeks ago an architect was busily inspecting the whole school, not to repair the leaking roof which we have been told could not be afforded, but to make an assessment of just how much money would be needed to set up the school as a CTC.
      It is a horrible proposal because it seeks to steal money from the majority and give it to the minority. I am for excellence. I am a scientist by training and throughout my political career I have argued for the need for more science teachers, more science training and better education for our children. In my constituency, the parents, governors and teachers are all for more resources, more expertise and better educational standards. When I as their Member of Parliament demand those things, I do so on the basis that we want them for all. We do not want to take for some and leave the rest poor. In my constituency, educational standards need real public funding for real equality of opportunity and that is why we oppose the amendment.
      Mr. Evennett: I am grateful for the opportunity to participate in the debate. I welcome the clause which broadens the scope of the CTCs to include the creative arts. I also welcome the Secretary of State's comments on the city technology colleges. In particular, I should like to voice my support for his aims which will benefit the children.
      We must not forget that we are talking primarily about the interests of the children, and, secondly, about parental rights. Those are the central issues to the clauses and to the establishment of city technology colleges. I hope that there will be a city technology college established in Thamesmead which is in my constituency. At present, the matter is before Bexley council, and eventually, no doubt, it will come before my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for his decision.
      976
      In principle, and contrary to the comment of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), there is widespread support for a city technology college in Thamesmead from parents on both sides of the borough divide. The hon. Member for Blackburn mentioned no comments from parents from the Greenwich side of the borough boundary, who at present do not have a very good education system within the borough because it is under the control of ILEA. Large numbers of people in Greenwich write to me or Bexley education authority wanting their children to come across. Therefore, it is not true that parents in Thamesmead do not want a city technology college.
      Mr. Straw rose——
      Mr. Evennett: I shall give way in a moment.
      I also remind the House that a similar poll took place in Thamesmead on the abolition of the GLC, and the results were similar. The Thamesmead Town Trust is running affairs so much better than the GLC did when it existed. People forget about the GLC and they do not regret that it was abolished. Not only are people not aware of what the GLC did but they look positively at what the Thamesmead Town Trust is doing and welcome it.
      Mr. Straw: Are we to understand that, although the hon. Gentleman voted for the idea of a ballot among parents of an individual school where that triggers an opt-out application, he wholly dismisses the result of a similar ballot where the vote was nine to one against having a CTC?
      5.30 pm
      Mr. Evennett: As usual, the hon. Gentleman misses the point. I am talking about parents throughout Thamesmead, not just those concerned with one school. As I tried to explain in an intervention, during the past 20 years in which I have been involved in education, there have been Secretaries of State, including Shirley Williams in the Labour Government, who took no notice of parents who wanted grammar schools. One hundred per cent. of parents voted in favour of the retention of particular schools, but no notice was taken of them. We are talking about the establishment of city technology colleges in areas where there is a need for improved education. A CTC in Thamesmead would be welcomed by the vast majority of parents and would be in the interests of the vast majority of children, and we must never forget that.
      I do not want to dwell too long on Thamesmead, because it is not mentioned in the Lords amendment. However, the debates there reflect what has been going on in debates in this Chamber and in the other place. Many people in Dartford support proposals to establish a CTC there. I understand from the Under-Secretary of State—my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn)—and many other people that there is strong support from teachers, parents and the local authority to establish a CTC in Dartford. I have it on good authority that even the leader of the Labour council has shown some support for the principle of a CTC.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Bob Dunn): There is a minority Labour group in Dartford-that is not quite the same

      977
      thing. I confirm that Councillor Noel Jones, leader of the minority Labour group on Dartford borough council, has welcomed the principle of a CTC in north-west Kent.
      Mr. Evennett: As always, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. It is interesting to note how progressive certain Labour politicians are outside the House; it is a pity that there are not more of them in the Chamber speaking on these issues.
      Conservative Members welcome the opportunity for choice in education. We deplore the standardisation that the comprehensive route allowed. There is choice for parents and children in Bexley. where there are excellent grammar schools and technology colleges, and there is an excellent bilateral school at Erith. We believe in choice for parents and the maximum opportunities for all children.
      One would think from the Opposition's comments that the CTCs are élitist——
      Ms. Armstrong: They are.
      Mr. Evennett: I am sorry that the hon. Lady again refuses to listen. Perhaps she would learn something if she did.
      A CTC in Thamesmead would give all children, across the ability range, an opportunity to attend. At the moment, the majority of children do not have such an opportunity. Conservative Members also believe in excellence in education. We should like education standards to be raised across the board, by giving greater variety and opportunity.
      Much has been said about technology. The hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) talked about politics in schools. We all look for a wide opportunity for study in schools, but there are tremendous shortages in science, creative arts and technology. We must ask the Opposition what alternatives they would come up with to meet this crying need. Unfortunately, it seems from the Labour-controlled education authorities that the Labour party has no suggestions. What is Labour's proposal to meet the need to educate our children for the future? There are no suggestions and no policies. The answer is shrouded in the mists of secrecy. There is the old rhetoric from the Labour Front Bench on what Labour would like by way of more money and so on, but there appear to be no policies to provide skills in science and technology to redress the imbalance.
      Ms. Ruddock: To produce the best scientists and technologists, scientific and technological education must be provided in every secondary school. It should not be provided in just a few at the expense of the many.
      Mr. Evennett: The hon. Lady is known to be wrong frequently on these matters. Why is that education not provided now? I can speak from experience in ILEA and I shall take no lessons from the Opposition. The money was spent in ILEA, but the facilities were not provided. It is no good the Opposition saying that they want simply to provide education for everyone. ILEA has had the money and been found wanting. We must look to the interests of the education of children for the future and to a new approach. CTCs offer a new approach providing the skills of tomorrow.
      I can speak from my constituency experience when I visit people connected with industry and commerce. They are crying out for people to learn the new technologies. We have been too slow in following those routes. That must be
      978
      the fault of the local education authority. We know ILEA's views and the way in which it likes to spend the money, but it does not spend it primarily in the interests of children or in the country's long-term interests.
      Why are the Opposition so against CTCs? They think that they will be successful and that there will be an increased demand for places because the education offered will be of such a high standard. It is interesting that all the proposals and ideas for the future come from Conservative Members. The CTCs are bold initiatives, backed by Government and private finance. They offer an opportunity to move forward to the next century and to look to a better education, one that is relevant to the needs of children—not one that looks to the past and the disaster of the comprehensives. It is only too apparent to those of us who have worked in London schools and who know what is happening on the ground that the vast comprehensives did not work.
      It ill behoves the Labour Front Bench to suggest that the future is to be found in the way of the past, and that we should just carry on in the same old way. That will not do. We want to go forward in the interests of all children. That will not be done by throwing money around, as some London authorities believe.
      Ms. Armstrong: If the hon. Gentleman is so interested in moving forward and not going back to the past, why is he such a staunch defender of A-levels, which most people in most universities say will not provide the skill and knowledge base for the future?
      Mr. Evennett: I am afraid that if I stray down that path I shall be very wide of the Lords amendment.
      We are looking for a better curriculum and for better training and opportunities for children in science and technology.
      Mr. Dunn: Do not the comments of Opposition Members display an indescribable lack of knowledge of the needs of south-east London and north Kent along the riverside? Moreover, do they not understand that many authorities controlled by us see this not as a conflict but as an extra dimension of choice? That point has to be made time and again.
      Mr. Evennett: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It is rather sad to hear the hon. Member for Blackburn speak about a particular school in Thamesmead. Perhaps he should come down to my constituency and the neighbouring one and talk to some parents, because he is not knowledgeable about the area and its needs. The hon. Gentleman is not even listening, which I regret very much, as he is only too willing to use examples from my constituency, but when I try to put him right he is not willing to listen.
      Mr. Straw: I was merely reflecting that Buckhurst Hill county high school, where the hon. Gentleman was educated, has been turned into a comprehensive by a Conservative authority. Is he complaining about that?
      Mr. Evennett: I am not talking about my own school; I am talking about a school in my constituency which the hon. Gentleman named in his speech. I am talking about the needs of my constituents. I do not represent Buckhurst Hill or speak for that authority. I am pointing out that parents in Thamesmead would very much like a city technology college to be established in the area that the

      979
      hon. Gentleman mentioned. As I have said, it is up to the local education authority to make the decision, and I would not dream of commenting on what is done by other local authorities, because I am not involved in them.
      In principle, we are seeking a bold new initiative that has the support of the vast majority of parents who want a better education for their children. Bearing in mind the money spent by the taxpayer, they are not happy with the present system, and that is the reason for the Bill. We are aiming to improve results.
      Sir John Biggs-Davison: The changes affecting the Buckhurst Hill county high school, to which the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) referred, are not the policy of a Conservative authority. They are the policy of Essex county council, which is not Conservative-controlled.
      Mr. Evennett: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me some local knowledge of an area with which I no longer have contact.
      We know why the Opposition do not like the amendment. They do not like change; they do not like choice; they do not believe in excellence; they do not like facts; they do not want to raise standards. They prefer to depress rather than elevate the conditions of our children. I consider their views misguided and inaccurate, and I look forward to a successful CTC network across the country.
      Mr. Ashdown: The House will have listened to the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett) with incredulity. I was intrigued by his speech, which seemed a product more of Conservative party propaganda than of brainwork. He said rather interestingly that it had sprung from his own experience. I thought that that would bear some examination and that it might be worth looking up the hon. Gentleman's entry in Dod. Having done so, I learnt to my surprise that the hon. Gentleman indeed has experience of education. He was a teacher for two years before becoming a Lloyd's underwriter, which he remained for 16 years. The House may comment on such a remarkable translation, but I feel certain that in the hon. Gentleman's speech we heard the voice of the Lloyd's underwriter rather than that of the teacher.
      The idea that the Government are offering greater choice in any part of the Bill—let alone the part dealing with city technology colleges—is fraudulent nonsense. There may be choice for the parents of those fortunate enough to go to the few CTCs that there will be, and I do not pretend that they will not be chosen from across the ability range. But at what cost? The cost has been clearly displayed in the figures and the fact that payment for teachers will come from a different source. The same applies to opting out. A party that masquerades under the banner of choice and freedom is offering choice for the few—the advantaged and the rich—and the devil take the rest.
      5.45 pm
      Mr. Evennett: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, because I always enjoy his performances, but I should like to ask him two questions. First, what experience has he in education? Secondly, as one who has been an ILEA governor-manager for many years, may I ask him what inner city experience he has in education?
      Mr. Ashdown: The hon. Gentleman has asked me a direct question. I have been a member of a local education authority—as he will discover if he cares to look up my biography—for longer than the hon. Gentleman. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"] In Dorset county council. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that someone who has no experience in a specialised range cannot comment? That is nonsense.
      Mr. Evennett: The city technology college is an inner city initiative.
      Mr. Ashdown: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for digging a hole and then conveniently jumping straight into it. The Government said first that the CTC was concerned with inner cities, but they have had to move the goalposts there as everywhere else. When he first thought of this gimcrack idea, the Secretary of State referred to inner cities. That was in his speech, but the Government changed it because it would not work. The Bill has nothing to do with inner cities: it refers to urban areas, and that will be the theme of what I have to say.
      The debate has been wide-ranging, dealing with the Government's policies on CTCs in general. That is as well, because the policy is now revealed as a miserable failure. I might even bring myself to feel sorry for the Secretary of State, given the mess into which he has got himself, but for the fact that the rope with which he has hanged himself consists of two strands of his own manufacture. The first seeks to implement, whatever the cost to children and to education, the ideology of the Conservative party. The second seeks to make practical what was essentially a mere gimmick. During the general election and before, we said that this was a "gimmick a day" Secretary of State. A gimmick a day takes attention away from the other problems of education, but this gimmick is now coming home to roost.
      By any standards—even the Government's own—the policy has manifestly failed. Almost the most interesting question, which the Secretary of State refused to answer, was put to him by me. He had set himself a target of 20 CTCs by the end of the decade. When I asked him to repeat that, he refused. He knows that there is no earthly chance of establishing even five CTCs by the end of the decade. He has told us that the likely figure is three by the end of next year.
      The policy has failed on other counts. The major proportion of the money was to be provided by industry, but we now know that the Treasury will have to provide the lion's share—in some cases, a huge preponderance. The Secretary of State said that the project would be for inner cities. He has now had to move the goalposts to make it relevant to urban areas. The facts—not the rhetoric—that the Government have presented show that they have underestimated the cost of buildings that will be required to put this madcap scheme into operation, and manifestly overestimated the amount that industry is prepared to contribute—a measly £25 million, pledged but not yet delivered. Watch this space, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I suspect that it will be much less than that.
      The scheme is only being rescued by politically sympathetic local education authorities. The measly three that have been established, compared with the 20 that we were promised, have been established only in politically sympathetic authorities.
      Ms. Armstrong: Solihull.
      Mr. Ashdown: Yes, the deprived area of Solihull.
      Does not the Secretary of State find a certain irony in the fact that he has set up the system to bypass the LEAs, yet he cannot bring it into operation without the political co-operation of his political friends in the LEAs that they control? What an irony there is there.
      Mr. Brandon-Bravo: Earlier, the hon. Gentleman spoke about choice for a few. That seems to be a common theme on the Opposition Benches. They believe that if everybody cannot have choice, nobody can have it. That is a foolish point.
      It is true that there is great difficulty in finding sites within inner cities. That is because, in general, they are represented by Labour authorities which are fundamentally opposed to the idea. The citizens of Nottingham are grateful that, by a majority of one, the council is Conservative-controlled so that planning consent has been possible.
      Mr. Ashdown: Sites have not been found in inner cities because industry would not stump up the money to buy them. The Government manifestly underestimated the cost of purchasing those sites. The hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) gave us a clear example of how, when the public are consulted, they are opposed to the scheme. This is an ideological bandwagon that the Government are determined to push through, irrespective of the damage that it does to education.
      Mr. Dunn rose——
      Mr. Ashdown: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to answer the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo), I shall then give way.
      The hon. Gentleman raised a fair point. I do claim that the choice that the Government are offering is fraudulent for reasons that have been well advanced here and in Committee, but it is reasonable to ask whether there is an alternative, and I believe that there is. I am on record as having said in Committee that I do not object to industry sponsorship. I do not object to industry partnership or to bringing in funds from outside. I do not even object to new foundations of schools, provided that they submit to the overall admissions policy and to the quality control operated by the LEA. That is the key point, because that would ensure that the needs of all are met and that those who at the occasional opted-out school, which will essentially be an island school which disrupts education provision for others, do not receive that advantage—if there is an advantage, and I suspect that there will be—paid for at the expense of others who are in less favourable positions. That is the way round the Government's point about how we would offer choice.
      I am interested in one fact about the Government's proposals. I believe that I am right in saying—I am ready to be corrected if the Minister feels that I am wrong—that even for those CTCs that will be opened in September no funding agreement has yet been published. As I understand it, those agreements remain secret. Why? Is it because, once again, the Government intend to move the goalposts and make sure that the Treasury put in whatever money is necessary to make their policy work? To make this impractical gimcrack ideology, which will so damage education, work, they are prepared to use untold amounts of taxpayers' money, taken away from other sections of education.
      982
      It is wrong to say that this is new money. Of course it is not new money. It comes out of the same pot. When millions of pounds are spent on three schools—more than is given for the upkeep and fabric of 847 other schools in the same area—that is nothing less than damaging, divisive and dangerous.
      Mr. Dunn: I want to clarify one point. Earlier, the hon. Gentleman said that the Government's policy has failed miserably. If it has failed, why the excitement? Then he went on to say that this is most damaging to the education system. If it has failed, because in his view the number of colleges is so small, how can it damage the education system? Secondly, how does the hon. Gentleman's interpretation of the legislation and the philosophy of his approach to education differ from that of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw)?
      Mr. Ashdown: I am sure, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you would call me to order if I sought to answer—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] I will answer the hon. Gentleman's question. He knows the answer well. He knows the proposals that we have put forward. As someone who has mastered his brief, he will have read the document that I produced entitled "The Alternative Education Bill". He will know how our policy differs from that of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw).
      The Minister asks why there is such a furore if the policy has failed. Failed though it has, the Government are prepared to push it through at whatever cost to the Exchequer—money that others will be robbed of. The damage will be paid for by those left outside the CTC system.
      Mr. Pawsey: It has not failed.
      Mr. Ashdown: The hon. Gentleman should choose any one of the criteria that the Government have set, either in respect of the Treasury contribution, or the number of schools which are to be established, or the definition about inner cities, and measure how far the Government have got down the line. By any one of those criteria, this is., a miserable failure. The damage that the Minister asked about is being done because the Government are now seeking to drive through, at whatever cost, an idea that was cooked up on the back of a fag packet as a gimmick to get a standing ovation at the Tory party conference.
      We shall vote against the amendment because here was an opportunity genuinely to establish a different kind of school. Here was an opportunity to bring in some new ideas. Here was an opportunity to set a decent framework for a partnership between industry and education, and to do it for the benefit of all within the framework of the admissions policy, the quality control and the curriculum set by the local education authority, but the Government have blown it. They have blown the opportunity and at the same time have damaged the education system. This is a miserable policy which the Government are now propping up at whatever cost. It deserves to die. I regret only that it will die slowly and painfully and expensively for many instead of being killed here in a Division.
      Mr. Mills: I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to the House for having been briefly out of the Chamber to meet some constituents.
      As I have the first CTC in my constituency, I count this as a most important matter. I have listened today to hypertense passion from the hon. Member for Blackburn

      983
      (Mr. Straw), who could not even get the name of Kingshurst right, and to synthetic indignation from various Opposition Members. Perhaps, on the basis of the degree of almost incoherent opposition to this policy, the opposition of the big and the multi-little, terribly little, Opposition parties, the House will judge that this is a good idea.
      This is an extremely interesting extension of choice, not just ordinary choice, but choice on a technology base in an area which requires the regeneration of its manufacturing technology.
      I use words such as "synthetic", "hypertense" and "incoherent" because Opposition Members do not even seem to realise where the college will be based and the character of the area. Chelmsley Wood and Kingshurst, which I have had the honour to represent for many years, is an extremely deprived area. It is north of the Solihull borough and is quite unlike it. I advise the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong), who has been laughing the whole way through——
      Mr. John M. Taylor: As my hon. Friend's nextdoor neighbour and sharing the borough of Solihull with him, I can endorse every word that he has said. I should like to explain that there is a considerable difference in the nature and texture of the borough between north and south. Every word that my hon. Friend has said is correct. His area needs this choice, and I am glad that it has got it.
      6 pm
      Mr. Mills: I welcome the words of my hon. Friend. Like many hon. Members, we have varied constituencies. I hope that Opposition Members will listen carefully to what I am about to say. Kingshurst and Chelmsley Wood has an extremely high level of unemployment. I do not know whether I need to spell that out. It is an area that in the past has been terribly dependent on manufacturing industry.
      When speaking on this subject, I should declare an interest as one who has worked for 20 years in the car component industry in the area, literally two miles from the school in question, so I do know a little about it. In my career I worked on the shop floor, the design board and eventually as senior manager and I know only too well manufacturing industry's demand for young people emerging from their school education with technological knowledge. I cannot stress how strongly I resent the remarks made by Opposition Members who seem neither to understand the needs of the west midlands and especially the needs of deprived parts of it, nor the need for technology. They have obviously never seen engineering or manufacturing except through a long-distance telescope, probably with the wrong end clapped to their blind eye. That seems the measure of their understanding or misunderstanding of the objectives of the CTCs.
      Mr. Bruce Grocott rose——
      Mr. Mills: I have waited patiently to speak in the debate and am not going to give way. I have already apologised to the House. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      Mr. Grocott rose——
      Mr. Mills: I shall continue. The CTC is based in Kingshurst and will offer a technology-based education.
      What is the test of success? Opposition Members have talked about failure, but what is success? People wish their children to be involved in this new form of education——
      Mr. Grocott rose——
      Mr. Mills: If the hon. Gentleman had listened to the debate on short speeches, he would know why I am making my speech short. I have already taken six minutes and will take four minutes more——
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. We cannot have two Members on their feet at the same time. Mr. Mills.
      Mr. Mills: I shall not give way, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as I wish to be brief.
      If the test of success is demand, why has the school been oversubscribed by parents who wish their children to attend it? The demand is not just in the delineated catchment area, which is much wider than the Solihull borough—a point that has not been mentioned so far——
      Ms. Armstrong: It has.
      Mr. Mills: If that is so, I have missed it. Perhaps the House will forgive me. We should not be trivial about this important experiment. Any change in education will take time, effort and dedication and I congratulate the Government on giving all those things.
      It is ridiculous for Opposition Members to try to diminish the number of industrial sponsors. I should have thought that Opposition Members would have been jumping around their Benches in astonishment at the fact that, to use the Opposition's own terms, the Government have got "capitalist" organisations to dig into their funds. However, instead of doing that, Opposition Members say, "It is not enough." I find that extraordinary. The list of industrial and commercial sponsors ranges from manufacturing to all sorts of industries which are apparently willing to put their hard-earned cash on the nail to create a school that will bring them children or young adults with a technology-based education. That is wildly exciting and should not be diminished. It has been done in 18 months.
      I used the word "synthetic" about Opposition Members. The fact that Opposition Members say that it is a failure to move towards a technology-based education shows that their minds must be paralysed by the need for political opposition and that their minds are feeble and without logic. Opposition Members have an insensate desire to criticise the Government, but there is no logic in their argument. I would say that they are intemperate——
      Mr. Grocott: Answer one question.
      Mr. Mills: No, I shall not give way, knowing your eagerness, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for other hon. Members to be called to speak for 10 minutes, which leaves me about one minute.
      There will be choice for young people and their parents and improvements in deprived areas such as Kingshurst and Chelmsley Wood which have unemployment rates so high as to be tragic, and a need for skills retraining.
      In conclusion, as a member of the Select Committee on Employment, I visited Germany fairly recently for a couple of days to see what is happening there. Its

      985
      apprenticeship scheme, or the "Lehrling", shows that that country, which is supposed to be famous for indifference to change, is changing. The Ruhr and other parts of Germany now have skills training throughout the education system. We have this most exciting experiment, which will give my constituency and the west midlands more young people who are able to move into the factories in which I used to work, with not just knowledge but a knowledge of the ethic and culture of manufacturing industry. That should never be diminished. The experiment deserves to be tried. It has received far more support than we could ever have guessed when the Government launched it 18 months ago in partnership with industry, and with the voluntary interest of industrial companies. That bodes well for the future, for our technology and for the deprived areas of the west midlands.
      Mr. Win Griffiths: Opposition Members have had to listen for too long this afternoon to what is essentially empty rhetoric about the extension of choice. We should look at the real facts. We may have three CTCs by 1990 in the whole of England. There is no talk of one in Wales, Northern Ireland or Scotland at the moment.
      We have been told about the wonderful amount of sponsorship that has been successfully put into the schools, but on the basis of the Secretary of State's answer about the number of companies that have been approached, we find that so far he has succeeded in achieving an interest in providing sponsorship for the city technology college scheme of 0·0101 per cent. recurring.
      The hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett) said that the city technology colleges were about the interests of children and parental rights. I remind him that there will be three schools at an exorbitant cost. The school that is to be created on Teesside will receive £1·5 million from British American Tobacco and £4·5 million of Government money. However, the Cleveland local authority has a capital allocation of £3·6 million. Therefore, more money is being poured into one school than is given to the local authority for the whole of its capital allocation—[HON. MEMBERS: "Disgraceful."]——
      Mr. Tim Devlin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Griffiths: No, I shall not give way because the hon. Member for Meriden (Mr. Mills) refused to give way to my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott). Therefore, I think that it would be better if I got on with my argument.
      Mr. Devlin rose——
      Mr. Griffiths: No, I shall not give way.
      The truth is that Conservative Members——
      Mr. Devlin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman is refusing to give way on the ground that Teesside city technology college is not in my constituency. I can inform the House that it is, in fact, in my constituency, as is one third of Middlesbrough.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has got his point on the record, but it is not really a point of order for the Chair.
      Mr. Griffiths: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I made no claim about which area the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) represents or where the college will be situated.
      The Government have introduced a programme on which they intend to spend £90 million to create a handful of schools in England. If they were truly concerned about the interests of all children they would divert that money to local authorities to help them to provide better facilities in their schools. We are opposed to the divisive nature of the CTCs. We are not against improving technical education, but let us provide such improvement for all children, not just a few.
      Conservative Members have already gone to great lengths to prove that the CTCs are so popular that parents have been turned away. What choice is available to those parents and their children? It would be far better to improve the provision of technical facilities and technical teaching in all our schools than to try to scramble around getting industrial sponsorship for less than a handful of schools.
      I am sure that Conservative Members read the article in The Observer this weekend., which highlighted another problem connected with the creation of CTCs. That article described how the Roman Catholic diocese of Newcastle and Hexham, which is part of the Gateshead municipal borough, is planning to sell one of its schools which is surplus to requirement and said that it will be used as a CTC. Gateshead has just gone through an extremely painful reorganisation process and it has already had to close four comprehensive schools to take account of falling rolls. If a new school is created within that area, the borough will have to consider its present schools and close one of them. What choice will be offered to parents if, as the result of the creation of another CTC, another school is closed? The parents would be forced to send their children elsewhere.
      We must underline to the Government that they have failed in their intention to make "city" technology colleges because none of them is to be located in inner cities. They have failed in their intention to provide industrial sponsorship—it is running at about 15 per cent. compared with the 80 to 90 per cent. that the Secretary of State originally had in mind. Perhaps the Secretary of State would care to tell us exactly where he believes the 25 CTCs, about which he has such confidence, will be created.
      A school that is faced with possible closure may believe that the way out is to apply to become a CTC, or it might consider it better to apply to be a grant-maintained school. Schools will have to consider the additional funding that they may receive. It may be a better option to be a CTC because the Government appear to be indiscriminately providing money for such schools. It is a pity that they are not indiscriminate when providing finance for comprehensive schools to improve their technical and other facilities.
      Thanks to the way in which the Government are demoralising teachers, schools face difficulties with a number of subjects, not only technical subjects—foreign language teaching is in disarray. Surely the Secretary of State would agree that it would be far better to provide more resources to improve our foreign language teaching rather than just concentrating upon technology.
      Conservative Members must come clean because they are trying to create selection by stealth and are trying to go back to the old 11-plus system. The hon. Member for Erith and Crayford referred to that system and spoke of the

      987
      choice between grammar and secondary moderns. It was not a system of choice, but one of selection—the parents had no choice. We want to avoid that. Let us provide money so that all our children can have a good education rather than a few.
      6.15 pm
      Mrs. Ann Clwyd: We are delighted to note that the Secretary of State is back in the Chamber. That means either that nobody turned up for his drinks party or, unfortunately, that he had to cut it short. I congratulate those Conservative Back Benchers who stayed and did not take up his invitation.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) has already said, this is the first opportunity that we have had to exchange our views on this important issue. Prior to today there had been no debate in Committee or in the House about this policy. As my hon. Friend said, the British taxpayer is having to bail out the Secretary of State's project. He has failed on every count and in particular he has failed to explain to us his CTC policy. That policy is a scandal, a fraud and a failure.
      The Secretary of State's performance this afternoon was the performance of a man struggling up to his armpits in sinking sand. The Secretary of State chose to characterise local authorities' refusal to play ball with his half-baked idea as evidence of political dogma. However, ever since he announced his CTC initiative to the cheering hordes at the Tory party conference, he has emphasised that CTCs would be independent of local authorities and would draw heavily on industrial money and support. The hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Amos) still believes that is the case, and I hope that the Secretary of State will take note of that hon. Gentleman's special pleading.
      Unfortunately, for the Secretary of State his grandiose schemes have collapsed about him. The begging bowl went round, but the captains of industry and even the bluest of the blue-chip companies, such as ICI, GEC, IBM and British Gas, refused to put anything in. Several leading firms, such as ICI, have made it clear publicly that they will not support the scheme. It has become painfully obvious that this tarnished idea, which was never discussed with education professionals or negotiated with local politicians, is proving to be a huge political embarrassment.
      In yet another face-saving exercise the Government have moved the goalposts again. More public money is to be pumped in and the awkward local authorities are to be vilified, yet again. The Secretary of State has had to persuade the Treasury to bail him out and private sponsors are expected to foot only 20 per cent. of the bill. The Department's target of £20 million from private sponsorship was meant to represent almost all the capital costs of the planned 20 schemes, but such sponsorship now amounts to less than 10 per cent. of the cost. The rest of the necessary funding—we believe that it amounts to about £200 million—will come from the Treasury. It is unbelievable that any reputable company or local authority would allow the cost of a programme to increase more than 10 times in 18 months without an enormous outcry.
      The taxpayer will receive a bill of £200 million, which is almost half the amount allocated for capital projects to all local authority schools, colleges and polytechnics for
      988
      1988–89. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) explained in her excellent speech how that money could be used to alleviate deprivation in her constituency. To master-mind the whole bizarre affair the Brylcreem boy has brought in his own envangelist, a man in his own image, the fund raiser in chief, Mr. Cyril Taylor—the former brand manager for Gleam toothpaste in the United States of America.
      According to a report in The Independent, Mr. Taylor, who now has his own company and is a former Tory member of the GLC, took the project out of the hands of the civil servants. This is what he said:
      "They had cheques on their desks and not even a bank account to put them in … They don't really understand how the world works."
      It is worth looking at the original promises made in the glossy brochure to which my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn referred. The Secretary of State declared that his initiatives would give parents a new choice of school and create fresh opportunities for the children of our cities. CTCs were to be sited in urban areas, particularly those suffering from acute social deprivation or those which are already the target of inner-city initiatives. The whole foundation of the CTC plan has been shaken by industry's justifiable reticence about getting involved; but our money—public money—is being used by the Secretary of State like Monopoly money so that he can buy his way out of prison and proceed to "Go". As the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) said, as they realise in America, one can increase excellence by increasing choice. What he did not say was that the United States experience of magnet schools, on which CTCs are modelled, is that they cream off the best pupils to the detriment of the rest of the school system. But then the interest rate mentioned in his speech was possibly lower than the exorbitant interest rates charged by his family firm.
      The Secretary of State's launch brochure proclaimed that the CTCs would be sited in areas of acute social deprivation—in deprived areas such as Bexley, Kent and Croydon. So even Tory authorities in well-off suburban areas are being press-ganged into helping the Secretary of State to meet his political targets, with the British taxpayer footing the bill. As The Times Educational Supplement said in an editorial on 17 June:
      "By hook or by crook, he"——
      Mr. Taylor of Gleam toothpaste——
      "is determined to be within sight of the target figure by the end of the year, even if he has to bend the ground rules a bit. Well, quite a lot".
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State may now care to comment on the CTCs proposals for his constituency. Is it true that Kent county council's proposals for the closure and sale of the Downs lower school in Dartford for allegedly educational reasons is nothing but a subterfuge for what is, in effect, a proposal to develop land in the green belt? Could it be true that local business man Geoffrey Leigh has struck a deal with Kent county council that he will fund the CTC to the tune of £1 million if the council puts the lower school on the market and removes the accompanying land from the green belt? Is it not true that this so-called public benefactor, who is chairman of Allied London Properties plc—incidentally, it contributed £6,200 to Conservative party funds last year—controls a multi-million pound property portfolio in the south-east, including an industrial estate that just happens to back on to the Downs school? Is it not true also that Mr.

      989
      Leigh also effectively controls through a subsidiary Sterling Homes Construction, which specialises in housing development?
      I understand that Mr. Leigh protests his innocence by maintaining that his proposals for a CTC are personal and unconnected with his business interests, and I am sure that there are some people in Kent who believe him. But the people of Kent should ask themselves whether it is pure circumstance that within a matter of months the borough of Dartford local plan should propose that the Downs school land and playing fields be taken out of the green belt and that, at the same time, public benefactor Mr. Leigh should turn up with an offer of £1 million.
      Of course, proposals to change the plan must be approved by the Secretary of State for the Environment, so Dartford Tories are in a bit of a quandary. They should recall that it is only a month since the Under-Secretary of State attacked the Secretary of State for the Environment for refusing to allow development on land in north Dartford. I know that, because I have read the hysterical outburst of the Under-Secretary, as reported in The Sunday Times of 12 June.
      The truth is that Dartford is divided over the proposals, despite assurances——
      Mr. Dunn: Perhaps the hon. Lady will tell me what I should say to the leader of the Labour group on Dartford borough council, who has welcomed and endorsed the principle of a CTC in north-west Kent.
      Mrs. Clwyd: We shall not take the hon. Gentleman's word for that: we want to hear the words for ourselves. We also want the answers to the questions that we were asking this afternoon.
      The proposals for a CTC in Dartford show the way forward for other CTCs and set an ugly precedent. Property speculators up and down the land are now eyeing up the land holdings of every prime site school in the country. Their objective is clear. If the land has potential, they will use the Tory party machine to propose school amalgamation or closure, thereby releasing land for development. Despite all the protestations, the CTCs have nothing to do with education. They are the excuse—the pretext—for the selective stripping of education assets, aided and abetted by the Secretary of State.
      The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mrs. Angela Rumbold): One could not fail to mention the speech of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). It plumbed depths that he has hitherto not plumbed. He is known in The Guardian for his lacklustre speeches and lacklustre leading for the Opposition on education matters. Perhaps The Guardian would like to add "ramshackle" to the epithets that it gives his speeches.
      It was nice to see the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) dropping in to give us the benefit of the salad party's attitude to education. I am sorry to say that he missed the prime time that I think he was hoping for, and his message came too late to help the Kensington by-election, in which his party saved its deposit by only seven votes. His arguments were threadbare.
      Conservative Members have been anxious to take part in the debate, mainly because they are so fully supportive of the idea of the city technology colleges. My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) made the most important point—that the engineering apprentices will benefit from the specialist nature of the CTCs for
      990
      young people studying technology. My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Amos) was also right to say that we should welcome the attitude of industry, and especially its real commitment to future generations. He was also right to mention that the TVEI initiative, which was brought in by the Government, was originally refused by many Labour-controlled authorities. Only when it was seen to be something from which they could gain did they come to the Secretary of State and the industry with their hands out grabbing for money. No doubt the same will happen with the CTCs.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) has greatly welcomed the latest initiative of the city technology college in his constituency. I understand from him that there have been no fewer than 45 applicants for the position of head teacher and that all who will participate in the building of the CTC will be local employers from the area.
      I listened carefully to what the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) had to say. I must tell her that my right hon. Friend has not picked any schools. He made it quite clear in his opening speech that it is for the people who are concerned locally and for the individual sponsors to decide whether they want to make proposals to establish a CTC. My right hon. Friend will naturally then be ready to consider any such proposals on their merits.
      I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett) for his open support. He rightly homed in on the point that the Opposition are fearful that this proposal for CTCs will prove a success. It is sad that a party that is supposed to be producing new ideas for education is so and that it cannot do any more than produce the old ideas of——
      It being half-past Six o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order [18 July], to put the Question already proposed from the Chair.
      The House divided: Ayes 320, Noes 201.

      Division No. 421]

      [6.30 pm

      AYES

      Adley, Robert

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

      Alexander, Richard

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Bowis, John

      Allason, Rupert

      Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Amos, Alan

      Brazier, Julian

      Arbuthnot, James

      Bright, Graham

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

      Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

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

      Ashby, David

      Browne, John (Winchester)

      Atkins, Robert

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Atkinson, David

      Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Baldry, Tony

      Burns, Simon

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Burt, Alistair

      Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

      Butcher, John

      Batiste, Spencer

      Butler, Chris

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Butterfill, John

      Bellingham, Henry

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Bendall, Vivian

      Carrington, Matthew

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Carttiss, Michael

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Cartwright, John

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Cash, William

      Biggs-Davison, Sir John

      Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Chapman, Sydney

      Body, Sir Richard

      Chope, Christopher

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Churchill, Mr

      Boswell, Tim

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

      991

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Hind, Kenneth

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Holt, Richard

      Colvin, Michael

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Conway, Derek

      Howard, Michael

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

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

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Cope, Rt Hon John

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Cormack, Patrick

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Couchman, James

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Cran, James

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Critchley, Julian

      Hunter, Andrew

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Curry, David

      Irvine, Michael

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

      Irving, Charles

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Jack, Michael

      Day, Stephen

      Jackson, Robert

      Devlin, Tim

      Janman, Tim

      Dicks, Terry

      Jessel, Toby

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Dover, Den

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Dunn, Bob

      Key, Robert

      Durant, Tony

      Kilfedder, James

      Emery, Sir Peter

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Evennett, David

      Knapman, Roger

      Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Fallon, Michael

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Farr, Sir John

      Knowles, Michael

      Favell, Tony

      Knox, David

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Lang, Ian

      Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

      Latham, Michael

      Fishburn, John Dudley

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Forman, Nigel

      Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Forth, Eric

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Franks, Cecil

      Lightbown, David

      Freeman, Roger

      Lilley, Peter

      French, Douglas

      Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

      Fry, Peter

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Gale, Roger

      Lord, Michael

      Gardiner, George

      Lyell, Sir Nicholas

      Gill, Christopher

      McCrindle, Robert

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      Macfarlane, Sir Neil

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Maclean, David

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

      Gorst, John

      McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

      Gow, Ian

      Madel, David

      Gower, Sir Raymond

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

      Malins, Humfrey

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Mans, Keith

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Maples, John

      Gregory, Conal

      Marland, Paul

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Marlow, Tony

      Grist, Ian

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Ground, Patrick

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Mates, Michael

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Hannam, John

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

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

      Mellor, David

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Harris, David

      Miller, Sir Hal

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Mills, Iain

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Hayes, Jerry

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Hayward, Robert

      Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

      Heddle, John

      Moate, Roger

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

      Moore, Rt Hon John

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Morris, M (N'hampton S)

      Hill, James

      Morrison, Sir Charles

      992

      Moss, Malcolm

      Stevens, Lewis

      Mudd, David

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Nelson, Anthony

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Neubert, Michael

      Stokes, Sir John

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Stradling Thomas, Sir John

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Sumberg, David

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Summerson, Hugo

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Page, Richard

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Paice, James

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Patnick, Irvine

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Patten, Chris (Bath)

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Pawsey, James

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Thorne, Neil

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Portillo, Michael

      Thurnham, Peter

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Price, Sir David

      Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Tracey, Richard

      Rathbone, Tim

      Tredinnick, David

      Redwood, John

      Trippier, David

      Renton, Tim

      Trotter, Neville

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Riddick, Graham

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Viggers, Peter

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Waddington, Rt Hon David

      Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

      Wakeham, Rt Hon John

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Walden, George

      Rossi, Sir Hugh

      Waller, Gary

      Rost, Peter

      Walters, Sir Dennis

      Rowe, Andrew

      Ward, John

      Rumbold, Mrs Angela

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Ryder, Richard

      Warren, Kenneth

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      Watts, John

      Sainsbury, Hon Tim

      Wells, Bowen

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Wheeler, John

      Scott, Nicholas

      Whitney, Ray

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Wilkinson, John

      Shersby, Michael

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Sims, Roger

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Wolfson, Mark

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Wood, Timothy

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Woodcock, Mike

      Speed, Keith

      Yeo, Tim

      Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

      Squire, Robin

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Mr. Robert Boscawen and Mr. Tristen Garel-Jones.

      Stern, Michael

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Buchan, Norman

      Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

      Buckley, George J.

      Allen, Graham

      Caborn, Richard

      Alton, David

      Callaghan, Jim

      Anderson, Donald

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Canavan, Dennis

      Ashdown, Paddy

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      Clay, Bob

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Clelland, David

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Barron, Kevin

      Cohen, Harry

      Battle, John

      Coleman, Donald

      Beckett, Margaret

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Beith, A. J.

      Corbett, Robin

      Bell, Stuart

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Cousins, Jim

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

      Cryer, Bob

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Cummings, John

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Blair, Tony

      Cunningham, Dr John

      Boateng, Paul

      Dalyell, Tam

      Boyes, Roland

      Darling, Alistair

      Bradley, Keith

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

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Dewar, Donald

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      Dixon, Don

      993

      Dobson, Frank

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Doran, Frank

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Martlew, Eric

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

      Maxton, John

      Eadie, Alexander

      Meacher, Michael

      Eastham, Ken

      Michael, Alun

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      Fatchett, Derek

      Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Morgan, Rhodri

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

      Morley, Elliott

      Fisher, Mark

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Flannery, Martin

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Flynn, Paul

      Mullin, Chris

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Murphy, Paul

      Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

      Nellist, Dave

      Foster, Derek

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Foulkes, George

      O'Brien, William

      Fraser, John

      O'Neill, Martin

      Fyfe, Maria

      Parry, Robert

      Galbraith, Sam

      Patchett, Terry

      Galloway, George

      Pike, Peter L.

      Garrett, John (Norwich South)

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

      Prescott, John

      George, Bruce

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Gordon, Mildred

      Radice, Giles

      Gould, Bryan

      Randall, Stuart

      Graham, Thomas

      Redmond, Martin

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Reid, Dr John

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Richardson, Jo

      Grocott, Bruce

      Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Robertson, George

      Haynes, Frank

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Rogers, Allan

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Rooker, Jeff

      Henderson, Doug

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Hinchliffe, David

      Rowlands, Ted

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Ruddock, Joan

      Holland, Stuart

      Salmond, Alex

      Home Robertson, John

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Hood, Jimmy

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

      Short, Clare

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

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

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

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

      Illsley, Eric

      Soley, Clive

      Janner, Greville

      Spearing, Nigel

      John, Brynmor

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Strang, Gavin

      Kennedy, Charles

      Straw, Jack

      Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Lambie, David

      Turner, Dennis

      Lamond, James

      Wall, Pat

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Wallace, James

      Leighton, Ron

      Walley, Joan

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Warden, Gareth (Gower)

      Lewis, Terry

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Litherland, Robert

      Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Loyden, Eddie

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      McAllion, John

      Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Wilson, Brian

      McCartney, Ian

      Winnick, David

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      McKelvey, William

      Worthington, Tony

      McLeish, Henry

      Wray, Jimmy

      McNamara, Kevin

      McWilliam, John

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Madden, Max

      Mr. Frank Cook and Mr. Adam Ingram.

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Marek, Dr John

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Lords amendment No. 228 agreed to. [Special Entry.]
      MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at that hour.
      Lords amendments Nos. 229 to 265 agreed to, some with Special Entry.
      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. At the beginning of the previous debate, when I was out of the Chamber for a short period—I was present for most of the debate—the Secretary of State accused me of seeking a licence for agnostics and atheists to teach religious education. This followed an intervention that I made in one of his speeches yesterday. It is amazing that the right hon. Gentleman should allow 23 hours to pass before taking up the intervention. Having referred to column 817, of yesterday's Hansard, I can say that his attack upon me was based on a grave distortion of what I said. I hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you have received an indication from the right hon. Gentleman that he wishes to withdraw the attack and the distortion, and to explain to the House how he will find sufficient teachers, who are Christians, to administer the legislation.
      Mr. Kenneth Baker: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) takes my remarks as amounting to a grave insult, I shall withdraw. It was meant to be a little joke. It was not meant as an offence to the hon. Gentleman.
      In his point of order the hon. Gentleman referred to religious education teachers. There is a substantial number of teachers who have been trained in religious education but do not teach it. These amount to about 6,000 or 7,000.

    Clause 115

      CONSTRUCTION OF REFERENCES TO LAND HELD FOR THE PURPOSES OF AN INSTITUTION
      Lords amendment: No. 293 in page 113, line 6 leave out
      "payments, subject to such terms and conditions")
      and insert
      ("grants, specifying such particular obligations, and subject to such general guidance"
      Mr. Kenneth Baker: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments to the words so restored to the Bill: Government amendments (a), in page 113, line 6, leave out 'payments' and insert 'grants'.

      (b), in page 114, line 22, leave out 'payments' and insert `grants'.

      (c), in page 114, line 27, leave out 'payments' and insert `grants'.

      (d), in page 115, line 25, after 'any', insert 'grants or other'.

      (e), in page 115, line 32, after third 'the', insert 'grants or other'.

      (f), in page 115, line 33, leave out 'payments made by'.

      (g), in page 115, line 39, a t end insert 'grants or other'.

      (h), in page 167, line 29, leave out 'payments' and insert `grants'.

      6.45 pm
      Mr. Kenneth Baker: We come now to an important amendment relating to the funding of universities. The universities are vital institutions in our society, embodying values of the highest significance. Legislation concerning the universities is rare. Sensitive issues were bound to be raised by the university provisions of the Bill.
      I remind the House that we have sought to give legislative effect to the widely accepted recommendations of the Croham committee. It proved quite difficult, in legislative terms, to provide for the transformation of the University Grants Committee from a body advising the Secretary of State to an executive body directly accountable to Parliament and more distant from the Government. Spelling out for the first time in law the relative powers and responsibilities of the various bodies in this field gave rise to some apprehension in university circles.
      I recognised this concern and, to remove misapprehensions, I proposed a series of clarifications which were accepted on Report and generally welcomed. Specifically these clarifications safeguard institutions' private income, and this was further strengthened in the House of Lords; make clear that the holder of my office may not impose specific conditions on the flow of funds to particular institutions; make any long-stop direction by the holder of my office subject to parliamentary veto; and explicitly empower the funding councils to advise the Government. I am sure that hon. Members who have followed our debates will recall the changes that were made on Report. In addition to that, the Government invited the House of Lords to define a statutory commitment to academic freedom. This was done and later tonight we are accepting that amendment.
      There should be no doubt about the importance of the funding issue. We are considering here the basis upon which the total of some £3 billion of taxpayers' money, voted by the House, is allocated in the public interest in support of higher education in universities, polytechnics and colleges.
      The Croham committee was very clear about the question of public accountability for university funds from the public purse. It called for the council to have an "unambiguous" power to attach
      "conditions to grant, including the positive or negative earmarking of elements of the grants".
      Amendment No. 293, which I am asking the House to disagree to, replaces that power with a much less certain power to
      "make grants specifying such particular obligations, and subject to … general guidance".
      This amendment would call into question the ability of the Universities Funding Council to do what the UGC has always been able to do.
      There has been much debate about the word "contracts", which the Government were not the first to use. The Croham committee used it, too, and put quotation marks around it to show that they were not talking about contracts in the strict legal sense. But nor are the Government. I have given unequivocal assurances that the new funding arrangements must, first, not be excessively bureaucratic; secondly, must respect the distinctive characteristics of higher education; thirdly, must not jeopardise the pursuit of research or scholarship; and, fourthly, must not deprive institutions of the flexibility that they need to seize new opportunities.
      Mr. Dalyell rose——
      Mr. Baker: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me. We have a relatively short time for the debate; however, I shall give way.
      Mr. Dalyell: I have read the Lords debate and consider that it is important to know in what sense the Government are using the word "contracts". Will the Secretary of State at least define the word, as the Government want to use it?
      Mr. Baker: Some seem to have found the whole concept of "contracting"—and I hope hon. Members can hear the quotation marks, which the Croham report uses—at least novel, and perhaps even shocking. But we are aiming for a clearer articulation of features already existing in the present arrangements.
      For the past two years, the University Grants Committee has been agreeing academic plans with the universities. The universities have not resented that and, indeed, in many cases they have welcomed the clarity of the new arrangements.
      I know that the universities recognise that there has to be some balance between institutional autonomy and responsibility for public money. Several of the vice-chancellors have said that to me. The chairman of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals said yesterday:
      "It is obvious that public money coming to the universities must be subject to 'terms and conditions'."
      We have the recent hearings by the Public Accounts Committee on University College Cardiff to remind us of the importance of that assurance.
      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I am sure that the Secretary of State understands that the use of the words "terms and conditions" is the key to the matter which is of the greatest concern to the universities. Will the Secretary of State spell out for the House exactly what he means by the words "terms and conditions"?
      Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman has anticipated what I am going to say.
      The phrase "terms and conditions" is familiar in legislation. It serves a number of purposes here. First, it provides for proper accountability. The funding councils must, as the UGC does now, be able to secure satisfactory financial arrangements to monitor and safeguard very substantial public funds. That is a particularly important issue for the House as the funds in question will be voted here. The Public Accounts Committee will expect the chief officers of the councils to account for these funds.
      Secondly, the funding councils must be able to continue the present practice of earmarking funds for particular uses in the national interest. Recent examples of this are the engineering and technology initiative and the additional resources for university restructuring that were announced by the Government last year. All those require the precise targeting of funds if they are to be satisfactorily achieved. That is why we need the words "terms and conditions" in the Bill. I assure the House that as a matter of course the way in which the funding councils will interpret those words will be developed through consultation. I shall ensure that this is so.
      In brief, the point at issue is that by using ambiguous phrases, such as "specifying such particular obligations" and
      "subject to such general guidance",

      997
      the House of Lords amendment casts doubt on something that Parliament must leave entirely clear. The Universities Funding Council and the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council—for the polytechnics and colleges must be treated in the same way—must be able, first, to require institutions to produce academic and financial plans, secondly, to require them to comply with reasonable accounting procedures and, thirdly, to ensure that money made available for particular purposes is used for those purposes and no others. In plain English, this means that the grants or payments made to institutions must be subject to terms and conditions. The House would be failing in its duty to the funding councils and to the taxpayer if it passed legislation that left such a vital question obscure.
      Mr. Ashdown rose——
      Mr. Baker: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not give way. This is a short debate.
      I am well aware that the Government's proposals for a more explicit basis for higher education funding have helped to spark-off an important and far-reaching debate, especially within the universities, about future funding. We shall listen closely to the debate—as will all hon. Members who follow these matters—and we hope to learn from it.
      It is common ground between the Government and the universities that our institutions of higher education should be more autonomous, that the sources of their funding should be increasingly diversified and that their freedom of operation should be expanded in a more competitive setting in which they will be increasingly responsive to the needs of their students.
      The Government have not yet reached a view about how to build on that common ground. We want the debate about funding in the higher education world to mature and reach practical conclusions. However, I would like to give the universities and other interested parties the assurance that we are interested in the common ground. We want to build on it and we shall not proceed in this matter without meaningful discussions with the leaders of our universities, polytechnics and colleges.
      In the mean time, to remove misapprehensions about the Government's intentions, the amendments in my name substitute the word "grants" for the word "payments", which was one of the changes suggested by the House of Lords.
      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I am sure that the House will be disappointed that the Government have decided to attempt to overturn the amendments made in the House of Lords. If the Government had really wanted to give the academic world the assurance that it sought, it would have been very simple for the Secretary of State to have accepted the amendments. He has not really explained why it is essential that he takes out the words inserted by the House of Lords and replaces them with words that he has selected—unless he believes that there is a fundamental difference. It is that fundamental difference which causes concern outside the House.
      The essential problem for the Government is that the universities represent a challenge to their central monetarist philosophy. The pursuit of learning cannot be fettered by the need to make a profit or to show a financial return. Monetarism is about short-term profit and loss; the
      998
      universities are about the slow, careful training of the intellect and a quest for knowledge and an understanding of the universe.
      Underlying this part of the Bill is the Government's stated aim that universities should receive funding only by way of "contracts". Whether one puts the word in inverted commas or not, the implication is that something measurable and saleable will have to be delivered in return for payments.
      Many have made fun of the way in which a university might have had to draw up a contract with a Newton, a Dalton or a Rutherford, and how they would have fulfilled their contract to defining a natural law. How would a university have drawn up a contract with a Keynes, a Walters or a Minford asking them for an economic theory? I was an undergraduate in the department of commerce and social science at Birmingham university. I wonder how Birmingham university would have drawn up contracts with Henry Maddocks, Alan Walters, Chelly Halsey and Geoffrey Ostergard—an entrepreneur, a monetarist, a socialist and an anarchist? How would Liverpool university have drawn up a contract with Professor Patrick Minford? Would he have been told, "You will produce an economic theory that will lead to the devastation of Liverpool and challenge the whole concept of a university"?
      It is easy to ridicule the idea of such a contract, but implicit in the Government's view of monetarism and in the Bill is the idea that there has to be some obvious financial return. Our debates both in this place and in the other place have been only small skirmishes, but the Bill itself marks a profound disagreement between the Government's monetarist views and the views of those who believe in academic freedom. The assertion that some values and endeavours cannot and should not be reduced to cash register terms is a challenge to the Government and is central to the business of a university.
      After this debate on funding and the debate on ILEA we shall return to the question of academic freedom. The two debates are linked because the amendments raise the question of how accountable to the Government the universities and, by implication, the rest of higher education should be. Governments have a right to demand that all higher education is of high quality and produces work of high quality and that students and employees are treated fairly, hut they do not have the right, and should not demand the right, to control what is studied.
      In Committee, Ministers chided the Opposition when we argued that we wanted the Government to be prescriptive about conditions of employment and about the rights of students to high-quality teaching and supervision, but that higher education should be free from Government directives about what should be studied and taught. I do not see any inconsistency in that. It seems to be absolutely fundamental that the institutions and academics should have that academic freedom to study in the areas that they believe to be right rather than areas prescribed by the Government.
      7 pm
      In the other place, the Lord Chancellor argued that the amendments that we are now discussing, moved by Lord Swann and Lord Adrian, were making a mountain out of a molehill, and that by replacing "payments" with "grants" they were making a trivial change. If it was as trivial as the Lord Chancellor said, why is it that that

      999
      Government are now demanding this change? Either it is of significance or the Government want to send a signal to the whole of higher education. That is what worries me—the Government are sending a depressing signal to higher education.
      The Government do not have the resources or the skill—nor should they—to direct academic endeavour, except at the very margins. Just look at the damage that Lord Joseph did as Secretary of State when he tried to go round telling everyone that science and technology were good and the arts and social sciences were bad. That did not do much good for science and technology. It simply allowed the underfunding in those areas to go on and on, with people believing that that underfunding was because the arts and social sciences were unwilling to relinquish resources. It demoralised the arts and social sciences. It was fundamentally wrong. The then Secretary of State was even trying to address himself to the problems in this country, but there was no evidence that they came down to problems of science and technology. If the Secretary of State was to list the 10 problems that people saw as most pressing, I suggest that perhaps only one could be solved by major scientific endeavour—AIDS. Even that is arguable. It is probably as much of a social problem as a scientific problem.
      Let us look at world food. The problem in Britain and the rest of the world is not that we lack the science to find ways of increasing food production; it is the problem of transferring food surpluses from developed to underdeveloped countries. On environmental destruction, we know enough about the problems of the ozone layer and the destruction of our forests. In the end, however, there is a difficulty in finding political solutions to those problems rather than in having the scientific knowledge. Our housing problem is not because we lack good architects and engineers, but it is a social and political problem of how to obtain the resources to build decent houses for all our people.
      On nuclear and other weapons, Britain is not in a mess because we lack the scientific knowledge to develop weapons—we are good at doing that and we have tremendous scientific skills in producing weapons of destruction. The problem is in finding political ways so that we do not need those weapons in the first place, with the waste of resources that goes with them.
      The Government's thesis that they have been pressing for the past few years, that there should be a major switch of resources from the arts and social sciences to science and technology, is fundamentally flawed. There may be a major argument that the Government should invest far more in science and technology, but it should not be at the expense of other areas.
      Picking areas for research is extremely difficult. What appears to be an esoteric idea today may turn out to have a practical, real value in the future. Let me mention the example of linguistics. In the 1950s and 1960s an awful lot of people dismissed it as having little practical application whereas now, with the application of computer technology, we know that a full understanding of linguistics is fundamental for producing automatic translations and all sorts of other devices. If one talks to some of those who did the first work on lasers, they say that they were sceptical about whether there would be any
      1000
      practical application for their work, but in the end their thirst for knowledge produced something that is of major advantage to us.
      In the Bill, the Government should have set out a charter for higher education—all higher education, not just universities. It should have been a charter, a bill of rights, establishing the concept of academic freedom in statute and establishing funding free from political direction over what is to be studied. Instead, in the clause, we have a mean determination to fetter universities with contract funding and to destroy all that I have mentioned because it is a fundamental challenge to the Government's monetarism.
      I suggest that we vote against the Government amendments and that we assert that we want to preserve higher education from Government control over what is studied. We want to reject their demand for intellectual study that can be controlled by the profit motive. We want intellectual study to be free for the people to enjoy so that they can develop their intellect and the nation can prosper. I hope that the House will reject the Government amendments.
      Mr. George Walden: Three subjects get the incense swirling around the Chamber. One is the arts, another is religion and the third is higher education. We had an example last night—a whiff of incense—on religion, with spiritual this and spiritual that. The antidote to that is to look at some of the latest GCSE papers, in which there is little spiritual talk but quite a lot about the sociology of prisons. We have a similar atmosphere on the arts, where the antidote is to look in some of the cellars of our major institutions, which are full of the rotting ephemera of contemporary art, bought with money voted by the House.
      Higher education is also a subject which tends to lead to much overblown rhetoric, and we have had a taste of it from the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett). But it is not a service to higher education to talk about it in that way. Those whom I have met who run higher education establishments seem to be hard-headed and intelligent people, who do not go in for such talk. They are also fully aware that the drive for more accountability is not confined to this country. It is happening in America and France. The French, with their gift for encapsulating these things in telling phrases, have said that the accountability of universities is the counterpart of their independence. That is basically what we are talking about.
      Despite all the talk by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish about contracts, we must remember that the word "contract" is not in the Bill. Personally, I do not like that word when applied to higher education, for obvious reasons. One cannot contract to have a certain number of philosophers, and so on. But it has always seemed to me from the start that it was legitimate of Croham to talk about the spirit of contract—the contractual spirit—because we need some more of that.
      I am opposed to the Lords amendment because it will take us back to the old days, the lax and unsatisfactory old days, when things were done in a rather hole-in-the-corner way. That was not satisfactory to many of the leaders of our universities. In private, many of them will tell one that. It seems to me that we do not want to return to that system. We should have something clearer, more above board and more comprehensible to everybody.

      1001
      Another point which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was inhibited from mentioning, but which may have been on his mind, is this. He and to some extent I were involved together in getting money for higher education from the Treasury. I believe in getting money for higher education from the Treasury because there should be more higher education and more students in higher education. But when one goes along to the Treasury and asks for money, one must put oneself in the place of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He has people asking for money for clear, definite and finite things—for houses, hospitals and the elderly. Therefore, if, through the Government amendment, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State puts himself in a better position to secure more money from the Treasury for higher education, it will be a welcome change. He will be able to do that by demonstrating, through his new funding council and through the new sense of accountability, the achievements of our higher education, which are considerable and which will he even greater when the reforms have gone through.
      I shall therefore vote in favour of my right hon. Friend's proposal. Of course, in some cases the changes and the new funding council will chafe against the softer parts of the system. But perhaps that flesh has become a little too soft. It will soon harden, to no one's disbenefit.
      Mr. Dalyell: May I ask the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) what he thinks the Japanese do when they go to their Treasury? This debate takes place against the background of three times as many people in higher education in Japan as there are here, and look at the Japanese——
      Mr. Walden indicated dissent.
      Mr. Dalyell: The hon. Gentleman is a distinguished orientalist and we can argue that another time. But that is the background to the problem.
      Ministers often give themselves away by the rebukes that they heap on their opponents. Earlier this afternoon, the Secretary of State told the Opposition not to be dogs in the manger. I make no bones about taking the right hon. Gentleman into my manger. It is easy to override objections. The Secretary of State seems to be on a high and thinks that there are no serious objections to his proposals.
      Other hon. Members wish to speak in the debate, so I shall ask only three questions. First, when my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) said in his excellent speech that if the Swann-Adrian amendment was not accepted it would send a depressing signal to higher education, the Secretary of State said sotto voce from a sedentary position "Not at all." I believe that he meant that comment. When he replies to the debate, will he explain why he said that, and why the Swann-Adrian argument is wrong?
      Mr. Hawkins: I shall not try to answer for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State except to say that the Opposition do not seem to have noticed that the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals has welcomed the Government's proposal and has not lamented the death of the Swann amendment. Professor Sir Mark Richmond, the chairman of the committee, said that it welcomed the Government's amendment to the
      1002
      Education Reform Bill substituting the word "grants" For "payments" in clause 115. He went on to ask For clarification of the terms and conditions——
      Mr. Sedgemore: He did riot get it.
      Mr. Hawkins: He certainly did.
      Mr. Dalyell: I have read the letter, too. It would probably be better for everyone if the Secretary of State answered that point rather than for me to take time on it. He may have an answer.
      My second question relates to the earmarking of funds in the national interest. Precisely who will do that and on the basis of what general criteria? That is not a catch question; it is a genuine one. It is extremely difficult to decide what is in the national interest—not only the current national interest but the foreseeable national interest in five or 10 years' time. We are talking about the national interest of the future, perhaps a decade away.
      My third question relates; to tenure. The Secretary of State will know from the Secretary of State for Scotland that on Friday night a group of Lothian Members of Parliament had a long meeting with Sir David Smith, the principal of Edinburgh university, and his senior colleagues. I pass on a matter that greatly worries those representatives of one of the great European universities. It is the question of redundancies. I tried in vain at Question Time to discover from the Secretary of State how much premature redundancy and retirement has cost. I thought that he would have a figure in his brief. I repeat that question and add this: are we sure that it is in the national interest to make redundant semi-compulsorily—that is what it amounts to—people aged 50 or 55 who still have much to give? I know that some of the people who were most successful in teaching me—it may not have been the same for everyone—were within 10 years of retirement. It is a crying waste of talent and is often pathetically sad in human terms that such men and women must retire early from their chosen profession.
      I am appalled that the criterion of success offered by some universities is that they have completed a restructuring plan by achieving so many redundancies. This is a mark of sadness. It is not an act of success, but an act of gross failure of society.
      7.15 pm
      Mr. Timothy Raison: I am glad that Lords amendment No. 294 is now in the Bill. Earlier I and other hon. Members were worried that if the universities were successful in raising money from outside private sources they might lose some of the funding that they might otherwise expect from the Universities Funding Council, and I am glad that the Government have taken that amendment on board.
      On amendment No. 293, although I cannot claim, despite my right hon. Friend's explanation, to understand every nuance of difference between a grant and a payment, his proposal is acceptable to the universities and I am happy to go along with it. I was extremely interested in my right hon. Friend's view that we have not come to the end of discussions on how the universities should he funded. He showed a remarkably open mind and a willingness to consider other ways of setting about this. His remarks were important because now coming to the surface are specific proposals that should be considered carefully.

      1003
      They relate to whether we can apply to the universities the system of choice that has been repeatedly and strongly emphasised in our debates on grant-maintained schools.
      There is a strengthening argument for allowing choice and demand to replace Government in determining which universities will attract more money. That can be done by a simple mechanism—by saying that the fees charged to students should reflect the full cost, but that through a straight grant or a loan the student should be given enough money to pay for them. If we can reach that position, the student will then determine which university will provide more courses and which will provide fewer.
      I am glad that that proposal seems to attract support from some of my hon. Friends, but it will not solve the problem entirely. We must also consider the national interest. The Government should be strengthening special areas of scholarship and learning, including science, but there should be other mechanisms by which they can perform that important role. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred to that when he said that the Government should have the power to launch initiatives or to strengthen areas such as science. The Government could still use the mechanism of the Universities Funding Council if they wanted to confine particular resources to particular areas. The Government could also provide funds through the research councils, which are an important part of their armoury. I do not think that it is possible to conceive of a better way in which to do that than through the research councils. They have a long history and they have been a successful mechanism.
      The picture before us is that raising fees to the full level and then supporting students will give us a chance to allow demand and choice to take effect, but the Government will also have the weapon necessary to strengthen the basic scientific and academic structure of our life, which is important.
      I will touch on one other suggestion, which is to be found in an interesting essay by Professor Elie Kedourie called "Diamonds Into Glass". He talks about the idea that I have just suggested, but says:
      "The Government now spends annually very considerable amounts in direct grants to universities. How then if a capital sum representing the present discount value of, say, ten or fifteen years' subventions were to be given to each university which would be told that henceforth, given such a handsome dowry (or better, alimony) it would have to fend for itself'?"
      In a way, that is a still more radical idea, and I have no doubt that the Treasury would have kittens on a major scale were it to be imposed. That is an example of the sort of new thinking that would help to restore to universities their historic independence, which should be valued highly, but at the same time they should be given the opportunity to meet the needs of the modern world.
      I repeat that I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has shown a willingness to think about new ideas. The process will not end with the passage of the Bill, and I look forward to his next instalment.
      Mr. Ashdown: I shall be brief, because I want to ask the Secretary of State only three questions. I join the right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) in welcoming Lords amendment No. 293. The Secretary of State is right in saying that the Croham report mentioned contracting.
      I direct the Secretary of State's attention to the debate in the other place on 28 June 1988 when, at column 1404,
      1004
      the Lord Chancellor—contrary to what the Secretary of State said—said that there was no difference between a grant and a payment. He went on about that at some length and wondered why there should be a debate on the matter at all. There appears to be a difference of opinion between the Secretary of State and the Lord Chancellor. The Lord Chancellor believes that the entire question was somewhat arcane as there is no difference in meaning. Perhaps the Secretary of State or the Under-Secretary will say who is right.
      Croham was concerned about the extent of the terms and conditions and the proportion of contracting that the Government would nominate. We must delve into the Government's mind to discover precisely what they intend. If they intend to use a small proportion of those funds legitimately to direct, guide and steer, that is perfectly acceptable. If, on the other hand, they intend to use the larger proportion, as the right hon. Member for Aylesbury said, to diminish the choice and freedom of universities and their autonomy, we should be more worried. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will tell us the proportions that the Government have in mind. Will he give an undertaking that it will always be the much smaller proportion that is used in the way suggested by the Secretary of State?
      My second question relates to Croham's recommendations, because Croham mentioned the nature of the Government's determination. It would be acceptable, I think, to most reasonable minds if the Government used funds to direct positively—for example, to bring new blood to university teaching or to open a new university department. We can see why that might happen, but we need assurances that the Government will not use funds negatively—for example, by saying that money can be provided if a troublesome course is closed down. If the Government's determination is used positively, that would be fine, but used in a form that would cause universities to close down, to remove academics or to close down departments, it would be a genuine limitation on the freedom of universities, which I regard as important—and the Secretary of State has said is important.
      It is unfortunate that the Secretary of State would not let me intervene, but I hope that he will now answer my third question. We must find out what is in the Government's mind. Are they carrying forward custom and practice more effectively in this legislation or is there to be some fundamental change in the nature of universities? I would rather not have to ask that question, but I must do so, because the Under-Secretary of State has caused a considerable furore—and rightly so—in academic circles by the words he used in The Times Higher Educational Supplement. His words were quite chilling. I shall quote them and then ask the Secretary of State whether he agrees with them. If he does, we have good reason to be suspicious that the Government have more sinister reasons for their amendments, as they want completely and fundamentally to alter the nature of our universities. The Under-Secretary of State said:
      "Academics should stop cowering in the secret garden of knowledge and get to grips with the real world, since knowledge for its own sake is no longer the prime concern".
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Robert Jackson) rose——
      Mr. Ashdown: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I rather hoped that he would allow the Secretary of State to tell us whether he agrees with those words.
      Mr. Jackson rose——
      Mr. Ashdown: I shall give way when I feel that it is right to give way. I rather hoped that the hon. Gentleman would allow the Secretary of State to say whether he agrees with those words.
      Mr. Jackson: The Secretary of State will make his own speech, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will also read to the House my letter in the following week's issue correcting that misreporting of my remarks.
      Mr. Ashdown: That report was reported in the Lords Hansard of 28 June. I notice that that was uncorrected. I accept what the Minister says, but I hope that he will take time in his speech to explain to the House, unequivocally and in crystal clear words, what has been the correction to that sentiment. If underlying his and the Government's motives are sentiments such as those, I believe that we should be suspicious about those words.
      Mr. Jackson: It is a matter for the hon. Gentleman's own sense of honour whether he——
      The Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) has resumed his seat.
      Mr. Robert Rhodes James: Behind this brief amendment lies a real and deep concern about the relationship between the Government, especially the Department of Education and Science, and the universities under the terms of reference of the new Universities Funding Council.
      The Secretary of State, especially in accepting the bulk of Lords amendments Nos. 294 and 293, has come a long way to recognising and meeting those concerns. I regret that he is not accepting amendment No. 293 in full, as I had hoped.
      I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden). As the Secretary of State knows, Lords amendment No. 293 had the very strong support and endorsement of my eminent constituent, Lord Adrian. Although I do not always support the amendments of my constituents in the other place, as Lady David well knows, I regard this amendment as reasonable and fair.
      My right hon. Friend has met all the major concerns of the universities about the original Bill, for which we are grateful, but I remain puzzled why he has rejected this one. I have listened to his arguments carefully, because, although this amendment is minor, it would give the UFC a greater independence of judgment, which it should have. It would be a pity if the considerable progress that has been made by my right hon. Friend's very responsive attitudes to the concerns of higher education might be in any way overshadowed by his opposition to part of Lords amendment No. 293. Although it is late in the day, I ask him to reflect further on the powerful argument deployed in its favour. I acknowledge that the concerns about centralised Government control over the universities are real and important. If the Secretary of State cannot reverse his decision tonight, I hope that he will reflect on the matter and realise that our worries are genuine and should be considered.
      1006
      7.30 pm
      When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was a Back Bencher—we still regard him as one of us—he made a famous speech in which he warned us about the tightrope between sycophancy and rebellion. I have tended to fall off that tightrope on to the rebellious side rather than the sycophantic side, but I should like to emphasise to my right hon. Friend that I am deeply appreciative of the advances that he and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State have made towards meeting the concerns of higher education generally and not simply of the universities. That is why I regret my right hon. Friend's opposition to the Lords amendment. I also add my gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Mr. Durant) who, although a Whip, has been very co-operative.
      I believe that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is wrong to reject the Lords amendment, and I hope that he will understand that I cannot support him in the Lobby on this matter.
      Mr. Sedgemore: I agree with almost everything that I he hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) said, although I think that he was characteristically too generous to the Secretary of State.
      One of the reasons why I rise is that it is an absolute delight to take part in any debate on the universities because they always end up with the Secretary of State wriggling and squirming and making a shameful retreat. He tried to reassure us over the question of contracts. He said that, like Croham, he was not concerned with legal contracts. My understanding of a legal contract is that it is simply an offer and acceptance usually made subject to certain terms and conditions. I cannot see that there is much difference between the contracts that he has in mind between the Universities Funding Council and the universities, and ordinary legal contracts.
      Sir Mark Richmond says that he is worried about the way in which the phrase "terms and conditions" will be imposed. Unless the Secretary of State's words are qualified by the Under-Secretary of State, the simple answer is that the terms and conditions can be imposed at any time, in any field and unilaterally by the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State may adopt his traditional argument, am giving these exceptional powers to the body and it will never use them badly." It might not use them badly in the early years, but, when the crisis comes, how will it use them then? When there is a shortage of money, will it impose the terms and conditions in spheres that the Secretary of State did not outline? If he intends to limit the terms and conditions to the few cases of which he spoke, why does he not put that in the Bill instead of asking us to accept that the UFC will always act in a particular way?
      The other reason why I have risen to make a short contribution is that, as the hon. Member for Cambridge said, basically our political system does not work. We have an all powerful Executive which usually acts in an arrogant and, occasionally, in a politically corrupt fashion. We have a Parliament which is powerless to correct the uses and abuses of the power of the Executive. Outside bodies and institutions have been rendered almost impotent. One could say that that has happened with almost the whole of the Bill, but it has not happened with any of the debates on the universities. The Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals has wielded power and influence. Not to put too

      1007
      fine a point on it, it has given the Secretary of State a drubbing, kicked him from pillar to post, twisted his arm, crushed his goolies, made him look silly and made him grovel. It has done that over his ideas on contracts, grants and payments by the UFC, academic freedom and over his attempt to control the administration of the universities and the development of ideas.
      Some people, even in this House, resent the power of the CVCP. They resent the fact that it has helped the Opposition to put the case for academic independence clearly. They resent the influence that the committee has had over the House of Lords. They resent the way in which it has gathered together the support of the intellectual elite in this country and they resent the way in which it has got the media on its side, but, in the words of the Prime Minister—I am sure that the hon. Member for Cambridge agrees with me—we should rejoice at what the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals has done. We should rejoice in the amendments that it has encouraged Members of the House of Lords to bring forward, and we should contrast the way in which the universities have stood up and fought for very fine ideals with the almost pathetic way in which the polytechnics have fought for nothing during the progress of the Bill and appeared to want to rush into the arms of the Secretary of State.
      The universities and the CVCP recognise that there is nothing in this life so important as the development of an idea. The Opposition have recognised throughout the discussions on the Bill that there is nothing so important as the development of an idea. Even their noble Lordships have recognised that there is nothing so important as the development of an idea. Surely it is right that, at last, the Government should tonight try to recognise that and accept the amendments that the House of Lords has put forward.
      Mr. Michael Latham: I share several of the reservations expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) and I shall say why in just two minutes.
      The part of my right hon. Friend's opening speech with which I most agreed was when he talked about the importance of the universities, the greatness of the institutions and how vital they are to our national life. That needs saying and believing over and over again because they are essential to our national life. That is why my instinctive feeling was to support the Lords amendment that my right hon. Friend is asking us to reject.
      However, when my right hon. Friend referred to the Public Accounts Committee, he led me to think again and I shall listen carefully to what he says later. He said that the wording of the amendment tabled by Lord Adrian would not be sufficient to give powers to the UFC to be able to satisfy the PAC of its duty as accounting officer. I should like my right hon. Friend, or my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, to explain why that should be so because, as a member of the PAC, I attach great importance to that matter. Only a few weeks ago, the permanent secretary to the Department of Education and Science, Sir David Hancock, spoke to the PAC about the university college of Cardiff where a scandalous situation has occurred. I asked Sir David:
      1008
      "Is it your view and of the Department that these affairs have been handled incompetently and negligently?"
      Sir David replied:
      "Those are strong words to use on a public occasion."
      I asked him:
      "Which would you prefer to use?"
      He replied: "Yes."
      I later asked Sir Peter Swinnerton-Dyer whether it was satisfactory that members of staff should be allowed to retire on full pension when they had acted incompetently and negligently. Sir Peter replied:
      "No, I do not regard it as satisfactory."
      I do not regard it as satisfactory either.
      I want to be sure, if my right hon. Friend wants me to vote with him—as I said, my instinctive feeling was to support Lord Adrian—what it is about Lord Adrian's amendment that would not give adequate powers to the UFC and adequate powers of scrutiny to the PAC. If my right hon. Friend can satisfy me on that, he will perhaps have my support.
      Dr. Keith Hampson: My right hon. Friend and I have always seen eye to eye on the essential worth of universities in this country. I have never believed that the Government have sought fundamentally to change the relationship between the Government and universities. However, we must accept that there is deep suspicion in the university world about the Government's motives. That is at the heart of what has been happening in the other place. That concern is compounded when, on the one hand, the Lord Chancellor says that the amendments are an irrelevance and do not make any difference and, on the other hand, Baroness Hooper says that they do and that they deny powers to the UFC which it would otherwise have had.
      We must strike a balance and it would be wrong for the UFC to have fewer powers than the UGC. It is important that the new body has the ability to undertake contracts, because that could be an inventive and stimulating way of funding certain parts of higher education. However, we do not want higher education to be on a narrow-funded basis—on the basis of contracts, whether for research, teaching or the provision of what the state happens to believe is in the national interest.
      We need to preserve the universities system. The essence of the block grant scheme was to stimulate initiative and inventiveness at the academic level. We must support that fundamental. I do not see that the amendments will make any difference. Whether we call it a grant or a payment, we must keep the balance. There must be a certain amount of discretion at local university level to be productive, creative and innovative. At the same time the Government, or the funding council acting on behalf of the Government, must be able to produce a direction in certain areas and to stimulate a new way for the universities and polytechnics to meet those targets.
      I end with one plea. I cannot see how it makes any sense for the Government to rationalise subject provision—we have a whole series of subject reviews—and at the same time to deny the tenure that academics currently hold if they switch to other universities as a result of those subject reviews and Government-initiated rationalisation. I urge that those academics who are obliged to move to other universities as a result of the Government's own subject rationalisation at least keep the tenure that they currently hold or there will be no incentive for them to move.
      Mr. Spencer Batiste: We all subscribe to the principle of academic freedom. It is implicit in the definition of academic freedom that a balance is struck between the needs of the individual academic, the needs of his department, the needs of the university and the needs of the Government in funding the work involved.
      It is essential that the Government have a right to earmark money for particular activities within universities. I understand that the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals accepts that there are technical weaknesses in amendment No. 339 that would prohibit the earmarking of money. I hope that my brief contribution will direct my right hon. Friend to address that problem.
      Mr. Kenneth Baker: The debate has been interesting because it has highlighted quite a lot of important points, in particular the relationship between the Government and the new UFC and between the UFC and its powers over the funding of universities.
      First, there are certainly changes. I was asked what the changes would be. The most important change on funding is that the UFC is more distant from Government. The UFC will have more non-academic members, and over the years I certainly expect it to become more independent.
      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Who appoints them?
      Mr. Baker: I, or the holder of my officer, will appoint them. Nonetheless, the idea of a UFC with more outside members has been welcomed by both sides of the House.
      I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) for what he said about the need for the Lords amendment to be set aside. I certainly recommend to the House that that should be done. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) as I think that he meant it as a compliment to me when he said that I was a Back Bencher at heart. It is certainly not my intention for the arrangements that will operate in future to reduce the autonomy of the universities. I have made it clear that I should like the universities to move to a more autonomous position.
      I was asked why the universities would not be depressed. I do not believe that the universities would be depressed by this measure because many of them welcome the clarity that comes from the arrangement of the UGC over the past few years for agreeing to academic plans. They would also welcome the clear clarification in the changes that we are recommending. The Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals has said in a press release that it welcomes the proposed terms and conditions which would produce a degree of certainty for earmarking funds, particularly for the engineering and technology incentive and for the restructuring funds which I secured from the Treasury. I must say to my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham) that the clear advice that I have is that it would be very difficult for the Public Accounts Committee to operate a scrutiny and hold the UFC to account if it did not have terms and conditions.
      I was asked about the nature of the contract. Again, contracting was not an idea devised by the Government. I refer again to paragraphs 5.14 and 5.16 of the Croham committee report:
      "Both the grant definition by the UGC at the end of the distribution exercise"——
      It being a quarter to Eight o'clock, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order [18 July], to put the Question already proposed from the Chair, that this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
      The House divided: Ayes 301, Noes 206.

      Division No. 422]

      [7.45 pm

      AYES

      Adley, Robert

      Day, Stephen

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Devlin, Tim

      Alexander, Richard

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Allason, Rupert

      Dover, Den

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      Dunn, Bob

      Amos, Alan

      Dykes, Hugh

      Arbuthnot, James

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

      Evennett, David

      Ashby, David

      Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

      Atkinson, David

      Fallon, Michael

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      Farr, Sir John

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Favell, Tony

      Baldry, Tony

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Batiste, Spencer

      Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Fishburn, John Dudley

      Bellingham, Henry

      Forman, Nigel

      Bendall, Vivian

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Forth, Eric

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Biggs-Davison, Sir John

      Franks, Cecil

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Freeman, Roger

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      French, Douglas

      Body, Sir Richard

      Fry, Peter

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Gale, Roger

      Boswell, Tim

      Gardiner, George

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

      Gill, Christopher

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      Bowis, John

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Brazier, Julian

      Gorst, John

      Bright, Graham

      Gow, Ian

      Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

      Gower, Sir Raymond

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

      Browne, John (Winchester)

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Gregory, Conal

      Burns, Simon

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Burt, Alistair

      Grist, Ian

      Butcher, John

      Ground, Patrick

      Butler, Chris

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Butterfill, John

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Carttiss, Michael

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Cash, William

      Hannam, John

      Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

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

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Chapman, Sydney

      Harris, David

      Chope, Christopher

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Churchill, Mr

      Hawkins, Christopher

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

      Hayward, Robert

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Heddle, John

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

      Colvin, Michael

      Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

      Conway, Derek

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Hill, James

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Hind, Kenneth

      Cope, Rt Hon John

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Cormack, Patrick

      Holt, Richard

      Couchman, James

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Cran, James

      Howard, Michael

      Critchley, Julian

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

      Curry, David

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

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

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      1011

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Patten, Chris (Bath)

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Pawsey, James

      Hunter, Andrew

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Irvine, Michael

      Portillo, Michael

      Irving, Charles

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Jack, Michael

      Price, Sir David

      Jackson, Robert

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Janman, Tim

      Rathbone, Tim

      Jessel, Toby

      Redwood, John

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Renton, Tim

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Riddick, Graham

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Key, Robert

      Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

      Kilfedder, James

      Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Rost, Peter

      Knapman, Roger

      Rowe, Andrew

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Rumbold, Mrs Angela

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Ryder, Richard

      Knowles, Michael

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      Knox, David

      Sainsbury, Hon Tim

      Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Lang, Ian

      Scott, Nicholas

      Latham, Michael

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Sims, Roger

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Lightbown, David

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Lilley, Peter

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

      Speed, Keith

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

      Lord, Michael

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Lyell, Sir Nicholas

      Squire, Robin

      McCrindle, Robert

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Macfarlane, Sir Neil

      Stern, Michael

      MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

      Stevens, Lewis

      Maclean, David

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

      Stokes, Sir John

      McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

      Stradling Thomas, Sir John

      Madel, David

      Summerson, Hugo

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Malins, Humfrey

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Mans, Keith

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Maples, John

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Marland, Paul

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Marlow, Tony

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Thorne, Neil

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Mates, Michael

      Thurnham, Peter

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Tracey, Richard

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Tredinnick, David

      Mellor, David

      Trippier, David

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Trotter, Neville

      Miller, Sir Hal

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Mills, Iain

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Viggers, Peter

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Waddington, Rt Hon David

      Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

      Wakeham, Rt Hon John

      Moate, Roger

      Walden, George

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Waller, Gary

      Morris, M (N'hampton S)

      Walters, Sir Dennis

      Morrison, Sir Charles

      Ward, John

      Mudd, David

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Neale, Gerrard

      Warren, Kenneth

      Nelson, Anthony

      Wells, Bowen

      Neubert, Michael

      Wheeler, John

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Whitney, Ray

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Page, Richard

      Wilkinson, John

      Paice, James

      Wilshire, David

      Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

      Wolfson, Mark

      Patnick, Irvine

      Wood, Timothy

      1012

      Woodcock, Mike

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Yeo, Tim

      Mr. Robert Boscawen and Mr. Tony Durant.

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      NOES

      Allen, Graham

      Fraser, John

      Alton, David

      Fyfe, Maria

      Anderson, Donald

      Galbraith, Sam

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Galloway, George

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Garrett, John (Norwich South)

      Ashdown, Paddy

      Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      George, Bruce

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Barron, Kevin

      Gordon, Mildred

      Battle, John

      Gould, Bryan

      Beckett, Margaret

      Graham, Thomas

      Beith, A. J.

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Bell, Stuart

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

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

      Grocott, Bruce

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Hardy, Peter

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Blair, Tony

      Haynes, Frank

      Boateng, Paul

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Boyes, Roland

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Bradley, Keith

      Henderson, Doug

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Hinchliffe, David

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

      Holland, Stuart

      Buchan, Norman

      Home Robertson, John

      Buckley, George J.

      Hood, Jimmy

      Caborn, Richard

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Callaghan, Jim

      Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Canavan, Dennis

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Cartwright, John

      Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Illsley, Eric

      Clay, Bob

      Ingram, Adam

      Clelland, David

      Janner, Greville

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      John, Brynmor

      Cohen, Harry

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Coleman, Donald

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Kennedy, Charles

      Corbett, Robin

      Lambie, David

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Lamond, James

      Cousins, Jim

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Cryer, Bob

      Leighton, Ron

      Cummings, John

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Lewis, Terry

      Cunningham, Dr John

      Litherland, Robert

      Dalyell, Tam

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Darling, Alistair

      Loyden, Eddie

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

      McAllion, John

      Dewar, Donald

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Dixon, Don

      McCartney, Ian

      Dobson, Frank

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      Doran, Frank

      McKelvey, William

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      McLeish, Henry

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      McNamara, Kevin

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

      McTaggart, Bob

      Eadie, Alexander

      McWilliam, John

      Eastham, Ken

      Madden, Max

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

      Marek, Dr John

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Fatchett, Derek

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Faulds, Andrew

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Fearn, Ronald

      Martlew, Eric

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Maxton, John

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

      Michael, Alun

      Fisher, Mark

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Flannery, Martin

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

      Flynn, Paul

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

      Foster, Derek

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Foulkes, George

      Morley, Elliott

      1013

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Short, Clare

      Mullin, Chris

      Skinner, Dennis

      Murphy, Paul

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Nellist, Dave

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

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

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

      O'Brien, William

      Spearing, Nigel

      O'Neill, Martin

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Parry, Robert

      Strang, Gavin

      Patchett, Terry

      Straw, Jack

      Pike, Peter L.

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Turner, Dennis

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Wall, Pat

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Wallace, James

      Radice, Giles

      Walley, Joan

      Randall, Stuart

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Redmond, Martin

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

      Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

      Reid, Dr John

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Richardson, Jo

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

      Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

      Robertson, George

      Wilson, Brian

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Winnick, David

      Rogers, Allan

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Rooker, Jeff

      Worthington, Tony

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Wray, Jimmy

      Rowlands, Ted

      Ruddock, Joan

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Salmond, Alex

      Mr. Allen Adams and Mr. Frank Cook

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Lords amendment No. 293 disagreed to.
      MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at that hour.
      Amendments (a) to (h) were made to the words so restored to the Bill.
      Lords amendment: No. 294, in page 113, line 9, at end insert—
      "(6A) In exercising their functions in relation to the provision of financial support for activities eligible for funding under this section the Council shall have regard to the desirability of not discouraging any university in respect of which payments are made under subsection (6) above from maintaining or developing its funding from other sources."
      Read a Second time.
      Amendment made to the Lords amendment: (a), in line 4, leave out 'payments' and insert `grants'.—[Mr. Kenneth Baker.]
      Lords amendment No. 294, as amended, agreed to.
      Lords amendment: No. 299, in clause 116, page 114, line 32, at end insert—
      "(7B) In exercising their functions in relation to the provision of financial support for activities eligible for funding under this section the Council shall have regard to the desirability of not discouraging any institution within the PCFC funding sector in respect of which payments are made under subsection (7) above from maintaining or developing its funding from other sources."
      Read a Second time.
      Amendment made to the Lords amendment: (a), in line 4, leave out 'payments' and insert `grants'.—[Mr. Kenneth Baker.]
      Lords amendment No. 299, as amended, agreed to. [Special Entry.]
      Lords amendment: No. 303, after clause 117, insert the following new clause—Inspection of accounts—
      "(1) The accounts of—

      (a) any university;

      (b) any higher education corporation; or

      1014

      (c)any institution designated under section 113 of this Act as an institution eligible to receive support from funds administered by the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council;

      shall be open to the inspection of the Comptroller and Auditor General.
      (2) In the case of any higher education corporation or of any such institution as is mentioned in subsection (1)(a) or (c) above—

      (a) the power conferred by subsection (1) above; and

      (b) the powers under sections 6 and 8 of the National Audit Act 1983 (examinations into the economy, efficiency and effectiveness of certain bodies and access to documents and information) conferred on the Comptroller anti Auditor General by virtue of section 6(3)(c) of that Act;

      shall be exercisable only in, or in relation to accounts or other documents which relate to, any financial year in which expenditure is incurred by the corporation, or by the governing body of the institution in question, in respect of which payments are made to them under section 115 or 116 of this Act."
      Read a Second time.
      Amendment made to the Lords amendment: (a), in line 19, leave out 'payments' and insert `grants'.—[Mr. Kenneth Baker.]
      Lords amendment No. 303, as amended, agreed to. [Special entry.]
      Lords amendments Nos. 295 to 298 agreed to, some with special entry.
      Lords amendments Nos. 300 to 302 agreed to. [Special entry.]
      Lords amendments Nos. 304 to 342 agreed to.

    Clause 144

      DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR EDUCATION
      Lords amendment: No. 343, in page 137, line 21, leave out "and".
      8 pm
      Mr. Dunn: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will he convenient to take the following: Lords amendment No. 344, in page 137, line 27, at end insert "; and
      (c) give particulars of the management structure (within the meaning of section (Approval of management structure and senior appointments in initial period) of this Act) which the council proposes to adopt for the purposes of the exercise of those functions."
      Amendment (a) to the Lords amendment, in line 2, after 'of, insert:—
      `(i) the council's estimate of the capital and revenue expenditure for the year beginning on the abolition date which the council considers it would need to incur for the discharge of its education functions, in accordance with the provisions of its development plan, having regard to guidance which shall be given by the Secretary of State under paragraph (b) above as to the basis and amount of the revenue support grant, community charge and other principal sources of income, which he considers appropriate for that council in respect of its education functions for that year; and
      (ii).'.
      Lords amendments Nos. 345 to 358.
      Lords amendment No. 359, after clause 146, insert the following new Clause—Approval of management structure and senior appointments in initial period—
      ".—(1) References in this section to the management structure of an inner London council for the purpose of the exercise of its LEA functions are references to any aspect of the council's organisation and its arrangements for managing its affairs in relation to the exercise of those functions which the Secretary of State determines ought to be subject to approval under this section with a view to securing the proper performance by the council of those functions during the initial period.
      In this section "the initial period" means the period of five years beginning with the abolition date.
      (2) The reference in subsection (1) above to a council's organisation and its arrangements for managing its affairs in relation to the exercise of its LEA functions includes in particular its staffing arrangements and the determination of the duties to be performed by its employees concerned in the exercise of those functions.
      (3) It shall be the duty of each inner London council to adopt and to maintain during the initial period a management structure for the purpose of the exercise of its LEA functions which is for the time being approved by the Secretary of State under this section.
      (4) Such a council shall not before the end of the initial period make an appointment to which this subsection applies except after consultation with the Secretary of State.
      (5) Subsection (4) above applies to the appointment of a person—

      (a) to be the chief education officer of the council; or

      (b) to any designated post forming part of the management structure of the council for the time being approved under this section.

      (6) In subsection (5)(b) above "designated" means designated for the purposes of subsection (4) above by a direction given by the Secretary of State.
      (7) For the purposes of the consultation required by subsection (4) above a council proposing to make an appointment to which that subsection applies shall send to the Secretary of State particulars showing the name, previous experience and qualifications of the persons from whom the council proposes to make a selection.
      (8) If the Secretary of State is of opinion that any person whose name is submitted to him under subsection (7) above is not a fit person to hold the appointment in question, he may give a direction prohibiting that person's appointment."
      Amendment (a) to the Lords amendment, in line 22, at end insert:
      , and the Secretary of State shall not exercise his powers under this section unless he has first consulted the council in question in respect thereof.'.
      Amendment (b) to the Lords amendment, at end add
      'except that in making such a direction no account shall be taken of the political views or activities, past or current, of any individual concerned.'.
      Amendment (c) to the Lords amendment, at end add—
      '(9) Any person aggrieved by a direction made under subsection (8) above may appeal to the High Court, and that Court shall quash the direction unless satisfied that the person to whom the direction relates is not a fit person to hold the appointment in question.'.
      Lords amendments Nos. 360 to 364.
      Lords amendment No. 365, after clause 158, insert the following new Clause—Preparatory expenditure of inner London councils—
      ".—(l) Without prejudice to the powers conferred by section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972 (which authorises a local authority to incur expenditure which it considers is in the interests of its area or inhabitants of its area), an inner London council may incur expenditure in making preparations for the exercise on and after the abolition date of its LEA functions.
      (2) Where before the passing of this Act any such council has incurred such expenditure, that expenditure shall be treated after the passing of this Act as authorised by subsection (1) above.
      (3) The Secretary of State may pay grants to an inner London council in respect of such expenditure incurred or to be incurred by the council in any financial year ending before the abolition date.
      (4) The Secretary of State may make any payment in respect of such a grant subject to compliance by the council concerned with such conditions as he may determine."
      Amendment (a) to the Lords amendment, in line 12, after 'council', insert
      'including appropriate funding of voluntary organisations for education purposes'.
      Amendment (b) to the Lords amendment, in line 13, at end insert
      'and shall satisfy himself that the grants paid to each such council shall be sufficient to ensure no diminution in the level of the education service in that area.'.
      Amendment (c) to the Lords amendment, in line 13, at end insert
      'and shall consider the desirability of using his powers under this section and the Local Government Grants (Social Need) Act 1969 to fund voluntary organisations concerned with education in each local area for a transitional period.'.
      Amendment (e) to the Lords amendment, at end add—
      '(5) The Secretary of State may pay grant to the ILEA in respect of expenditure incurred or to be incurred by it before the abolition date for assisting inner London councils in making their preparations for the exercise on and after the abolition date of the LEA functions.'.
      Lords amendments Nos. 366 to 386.
      Lords amendment No. 387, in clause 166, page 154, line 16, leave out subsection (5)
      Amendment (a) to the Lords amendment, at end add—
      'and insert—
      (5) In complying with its duties under this section, the ILEA may attach reasonable requirements to protect the confidentiality of information (including the inspection or making of any copies of documents) provided to any other party.'.
      Lords amendment No. 388.
      Mr. Dunn: It is appropriate that we should be dealing with this group of amendments relating to ILEA and the London boroughs that will become education authorities after 1 April. I am particularly pleased to see in the Chamber my hon. Friend the new Member for Kensington (Mr. Fishburn), to whom I extend my best wishes for a long and successful service to the House and his constituents. I am glad that I am the first Minister to be able to say as much from the Dispatch Box. My hon. Friend's presence here is particularly warming to me because he is an exhibition of the success of our policies in a part of London where a by-election was recently held.
      This is a sizeable group of amendments, but most are technical. Lords amendments Nos. 345 to 357 respond to points made principally by Lord Morton of Shuna in the other place about the desirability of ensuring on the face of the Bill that all ILEA schools will be designated to a successor authority. Similarly, Lords amendments Nos. 386 and 387, which modify the requirement on ILEA in respect of the provision of information, respond to points made by the Opposition in the other place.
      I should like to say a little more about the amendments—on three subjects of particular importance—to which the Opposition have chosen to propose further amendments. The first, dealing with the boroughs' management structures and the approval of senior posts,

      1017
      is embodied in Lords amendments Nos. 343, 344 and above all 359. Each borough will he required to include within its development plan a statement of its proposed management structure. The guidance to be issued after Royal Assent will give a clear statement of what we shall be looking for.
      For a limited period of five years from 1 April 1990, these organisational arrangements will be subject to the Secretary of State's approval. Linked to that provision is one that requires appointments to the post of chief education officer to be made following consultation with the Secretary of State. The arrangements will be operated in the same way as the similar provision that used to apply in the case of all local education authorities. A shortlist will have to be submitted to the Department, with brief biographical details of the candidates. There is also provision for the Secretary of State to designate posts within the management structure for approval in the same way.
      The Government do not take the provisions lightly, but we believe that they will be widely welcomed by those who have expressed concern about whether all the boroughs will be effective local education authorities. Their operation should not prove any more onerous than was the case with the similar requirement under the Education Act 1944 for the approval of the chief education officer, but they will provide a reassurance that the boroughs will start their lives as local education authorities with appropriate management arrangements and with a team of properly qualified staff in the education department.
      Lords amendment No. 361 will enable the London residuary body to provide services currently provided by ILEA on a London-wide basis. It will also enable the LRB to act as a contractor providing specific services on repayment at the request of an inner London council. We have made it clear from the outset that we expect inner London boroughs to take on responsibility for the full range of education services from 1 April 1990, but we have always accepted that there may be areas, either where ILEA has run an organisation on a London-wide basis or in certain support services, where the boroughs will have not finalised their arrangements by 1990. The LRB can help in such circumstances to ensure continuity of provision and a smooth transfer of responsibilities. So far the only service that has been clearly identified for this purpose is Greater London Supplies—hence the specific provision in subsection (3)(b) of the amendment—but discussion with ILEA and the boroughs may reveal a need for similar arrangements to be made in other cases.
      Mr. Harry Greenway: Will the Department consider similar London-wide provision for sport in schools, which profits enormously from such provision? The same is true of adult education, and also of special education.
      Mr. Dunn: I do not believe that that can apply in the same way as it does in this instance.
      Lords amendment No. 365 puts beyond doubt the power of inner London councils to incur expenditure in preparing for the transfer of education functions. It also enables the Secretary of State to pay grant to the councils on expenditure that they incur for that purpose, and to specify the conditions that will apply.
      The Government announced in March their intention to make available to councils specific grant of up to £3
      1018
      million in 1988–89 and £10 million in 1989–90, payable at a rate of 100 per cent. The grant will be towards all legitimate preparatory expenditure—for example, the employment of educational advisers and other senior administrative staff, perhaps on a dual-appointment basis with ILEA—and of course the establishment of information systems and publicity. The guidance to be issued after Royal Assent will set out in full the arrangements for applying for and payment of grant.
      The amendments improve the Bill's provisions for managing the transfer of educational responsibilities in inner London, and I commend them to the House.
      Mr. Fatchett: We are dealing with a, measure that will adversely affect the educational opportunities of more than a quarter of a million children, on which there was no original consultation by the Government and which was changed while the Bill was in Committee. Yet the Government allow only half an hour for us to debate that important change.
      Let me start by making two important points. First, we have been told by Conservative Members during the debate that there is no case for a unitary strategic authority for inner London. That argument has never been made conclusively. We can come to only one simple conclusion—that the case for a strategic authority for providing education in London is now as strong as it was before the vandalism of the two right hon. Members whose actions led to the destruction of ILEA.
      Secondly, the Secretary of State tries, as only he can, to create the impression that London Labour boroughs are desperate to take over the education functions of ILEA. He tries to create the impression that London Labour boroughs want the abolition of ILEA. Nothing could be further from the truth.
      London Labour boroughs want the continuation of ILEA. We value its work and we want to see that work and the opportunities that it provides continue for the children who are benefiting from ILEA's education policy. London Labour boroughs are now co-operating with ILEA's abolition because, unlike the Government, they do not want to play politics with children's education. They want to ensure that there are real opportunities for London's children. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) can laugh and scoff as much as he will, but the Government's record shows that they have never considered the educational opportunities for children in inner London. All that they have done is to allow their political spite and their political opposition to be vented against ILEA.
      If anyone wants further evidence of that, he need look no further than these amendments. The Under-Secretary of State said that the amendments were basically technical, but one set allows the Secretary of State to appoint senior managerial officers in the education authorities in the boroughs. We know from the Government's record that they are not at all ashamed of making and vetoing appointments on political criteria. [Interruption.] We have seen that already with the willingness of the Prime Minister's office to veto the appointment of John Harvey—Jones and Peter Mortimer. How can we trust the Government, the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister not to make those appointments on political grounds? They will clearly do that.

      1019
      When the Government fail at the ballot box, as they have done in inner London on education matters, and as they will do in the inner London boroughs, they rely upon bureaucratic and political arguments. [Interruption.]
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order.
      Mr. Fatchett: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is always worrying to see the group of yobbos on the Conservative Benches. We are now accustomed to their co-ordinated activities.
      The other point that I want to raise relates to finance for London boroughs. We know that the Minister of State believes that ILEA spends too much per pupil on education. Yet she would support greater spending for a minority of youngsters on the assisted places scheme. We know that the Government are determined to reduce the level of spending on education in inner London.
      In a press release on 7 July from the Department of Education and Science, the Secretary of State announced that there would be further cuts in ILEA's budget for the financial year 1989–90. He went on to say:
      "While expenditure at £940 million is still well above what is desirable, I believe that it represents a fair and reasonable level".
      In a letter to Norman Willis, he makes a similar point. He says that in 1990–91 the effect of the safety net
      "will be that the boroughs will be able to spend the same on education as ILEA could have expected to spend in their area in that year".
      Those weasel words are not a promise to maintain spending levels. They are not a promise to make sure that boroughs such as Hackney and Tower Hamlets, and all the other poor boroughs, will not suffer from the measure. That is simply a promise that the Department of Education and Science will determine the level of expenditure on education for each of those boroughs. What we do know is that the Minister of State has said that this measure is a means of reducing expenditure and, therefore, a means of reducing opportunity.
      The lack of time and consultation, the Government's inability to produce a cogent argument, and their willingness to take more centralised powers and to cut education expenditure in inner London lead to one inexorable conclusion—they are not bothered about the education of 270,000 children. They like to play politics, but they are not concerned. We are concerned, and that is why we shall oppose the Lords amendment.
      8.15 pm
      Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: I, too, can fight yesterday's battles, but at least I am a Londoner. I have worked for the abolition of ILEA for some 25 years because it was wrong that inner London should have been made inferior to the outer London boroughs which were judged capable of being education authorities. I will not go any further into that. Instead, I want to talk about three matters with which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has dealt.
      First, my hon. Friend has made it clear that the Secretary of State's approval for certain posts is a provision in the 1944 Act. I remind the House that it was
      1020
      also a provision in the reorganisation of local government after the Seebohm report for the post of director of social services, and no one objected to that.
      Having seen the way that the Labour party has appointed failed Members of Parliament to be their so-called advisers in Brent, Camden, Lambeth and Islington—it is only lack of time that prevents me naming all the London Labour boroughs and many others—it is right that these posts should be filled by educationists who will help the children. Therefore, I welcome this particular point as being important.
      Secondly, I am glad that the London Labour boroughs which are happy to take over education are co-operating in producing their plans according to the timetable set by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, unlike the way in which they refused to co-operate with, for example, the right-to-buy legislation. They are doing it not because of any sob stuff about looking after the children, but because they know that parents realise that the Labour party has been playing politics with their kids' education in inner London for far too long.
      My hon. Friend also mentioned the ability of London boroughs to spend money on education. The figures are £3 million this year and £10 million next year. Those are important sums which show that the Government want the London boroughs to get on with the job.
      I am glad that the London residuary body will have powers to look after functions such as the supply services. The LRB is fortunate in having people of the calibre of Tag Taylor and Peter Bowness who understand education, who are Londoners and who will put the interests of the service well ahead of anything else.
      The real tragedy is that the Labour party is obsessed with the fact that it could not win Kensington—I take this chance to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Mr. Fishburn) on his presence here. May he remain for a long time. Despite all that has been said about the unpopularity of the Government in abolishing ILEA and the community charge, the Labour party has finished up with egg on its face and is now trying to make capital out of this part of the Bill. It will not wash and the Labour party knows it.
      Mr. Chris Smith: I and my hon. Friends fought bitterly against the Government's proposal to abolish ILEA when it first surfaced in the House. We remain convinced that we were right. In that we have the support of over 90 per cent. of the parents of the children in our areas. We look forward to the day when a Labour Government will reintroduce a London-wide authority for education in London.
      Mr. Dunn: I am sorry to intervene, but will the hon. Gentleman confirm that it is his party's policy, if in government, to reinstate the Inner London education authority?
      Mr. Smith: The Minister was obviously not listening because I said that we would introduce a London-wide authority for education because it is the principle of a unitary authority which is important, and that is recognised right across the Labour party.
      Mr. Richard Tracey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Smith: No, time is short so I will not give way.

      1021
      The Lords amendments do several things. For example, they give the Government centralised authority to make senior managerial appointments for the conduct and preparation of education in individual boroughs. Such a proposal makes a mockery of the Government's pledge when they came to office nine years ago to take central Government off the backs of local government. By supporting the amendments, they are putting central Government in control of local government, and that is unacceptable.
      The Government also propose to put the London residuary body of all things in charge of a number of London-wide education services. Clearly, they have not had direct experience of the way in which the London residuary body has been performing its functions since the abolition of the Greater London council. That gives Opposition Members absolutely no confidence that the education services that are important to our constituents will be looked after and treasured.
      Perhaps most important of all, the amendments completely fail to make proper financial provision or to give the boroughs the proper resources that they will need to run a good education service once ILEA has been abolished. My borough of Islington receives about £30 million worth more services from ILEA than it contributes through the rate income that it receives from Islington residents. That provides a high standard of education for Islington students, parents and pupils. I have asked the Government where that money will come from once ILEA is abolished, because the Government have not given us any assurances that proper resources will be available once ILEA has been abolished to ensure that the present level of education services for the people of my borough will continue. There is no proposal on that in the Lords amendments. My right hon. and hon. Friends have made a valiant attempt to amend the Lords amendments to make the position rather more reasonable. However, there has been no guarantee from the Government that decent and proper resource will be available.
      I am deeply worried about the future quality of education in my constituency. The Government have given me no reason to hope that education will survive or thrive after abolition. Unless and until the Government make proper provision or give us decent guarantees that that provision will he made, we shall oppose their measure. The Government have so far failed entirely to give us any such guarantees.
      Mr. Bowis:
      "Neil Fletcher, and people like him, should have asked the hard questions years ago; they have been waiting to be asked for at least a decade. The Left did not face up to its failures, and to the manifest alarm of the mass of parents."
      Those are not my words but the words of the editor of the New Statesman and they sum up the reason why we are where we are today in pursuing the need to take on the management of education in inner London.
      The amendments concentrate on management and on the Secretary of State having a role in the appointment of senior managers in the inner London boroughs. The whole purpose of that is to ensure that the past does not recur; that the future is not as bad as the past; that the future to which we look forward is educationally assured; and that the anxieties that have been expressed so often by Opposition Members about the inability of their counterparts in the London boroughs to run education are put at rest. If Opposition Members are concerned about
      1022
      such things, they will be reassured that the Government are to ensure that suitable and good appointments are made to improve the standards of education in every inner London borough.
      The arguments for the transfer of powers are well known and well rehearsed. They are, "Twice the cost, but half the results; twice the number of pupils leaving school without results". That is the equation with which we have had to come to terms. Parliament has debated, agreed and decided. The House of Commons has agreed——
      Ms. Ruddock: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Bowis: No, I cannot give way because of the time.
      The House of Commons has agreed and the Lords have concurred with the Commons. Many amendments have been tabled by the Government to improve the transfer.
      We should direct our debate to forward-looking measures. It is crucial that we have good education in London and good educational management. Therefore, it is crucial that the Secretary of State is able to ensure that, as far as he can.
      My borough of Wandsworth has already attracted as senior chief education officer Mr. Naismith from Croydon. He is a man of proven worth and experience who has been attracted by the challenge of running education in Wandsworth. Had the Bill not represented a great opportunity for the children of Wandsworth, someone of that eminence would not have been persuaded to accept that challenge. We are looking for men of such vision to produce a new ethos for the schools and children of inner London, in which there will be high expectations for children of every level of ability. We want a new ethos in which there will be co-operation with local businesses, firms and professions and in which there will be co-operation between boroughs on the provision of resources and co-operation with the polytechnics and colleges. Above all, we want co-operation with the parents in the boroughs and, as we said yesterday, especially with the parents of children with special needs. This is an opportunity for a new ethos based on a listening local council providing local education by listening to local people, through local councillors.
      Returning to the debate earlier today on city technology colleges, I hope that they will provide an opportunity for local boroughs to move forward without the burden of the blockages created in the past by ILEA. In so doing, the CTCs will help to attract back the 45 per cent. of parents who in my borough, which is the Division 10 borough, currently opt to send their children to other than the local mainstream schools.
      We are looking forward to a practical vision. We want to look beyond the narrow political debate to the real possibilities and real opportunities of training standards for the children of London. I believe that with this measure London's pride will grow again in our schools.
      Mr. John Fraser: If the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) had been working with the consent and co-operation of his constituents, he would oppose these provisions instead of being in favour of them. The overwhelming evidence is that the parents of London voted against the break-up of ILEA because they know the consequences.
      I should like to speak briefly about expenditure. My borough of Lambeth is already an impoverished borough. The only borough that is poorer than Lambeth is

      1023
      Hackney. However, with our straitened resources we try to do something to supplement what is provided in formal education. We try to provide and fund playgroups, voluntary nursery groups and daycare facilities in the community. We try to provide some supplementary sports facilities—[Laughter.] I do not see anything funny about that. As a result of rate-capping we have had to cut by 10 per cent. the amount of money given to playgroups, which are mostly run on a voluntary basis. That is a taste of what is to come. We shall have a much more serious attack on the budgets of education authorities when they are run by the London boroughs. We have seen what has happened to voluntary playgroups—the money has been cut simply because money is not available from central Government.
      Ms. Harriet Harman: Does my hon. Friend recognise that because of the meanness of the London borough of Kensington, which refuses to fund directly the playgroups in my area, ILEA is disproportionately funding playgroups in that borough and that people are worried that when education is taken over by the borough the playgroups will close because of lack of funding?
      Mr. Fraser: That must be right because boroughs such as Lambeth have been forced against their own judgment and good will to close facilities. Even worse will happen in boroughs such as Wandsworth and Kensington which have the will to close playgroups, not the will to resist.
      We know the consequences of Government expenditure cuts. If we consider the grant-related expenditure assessment for London's educational requirements, we discover that the Government intend to reduce that expenditure to 54 per cent. of its current level. Those expenditure cuts will affect inner city schools that are already understaffed and that have to cope with enormous problems. Many of the children come from deprived communities, many of their parents are unemployed and they live in poor housing and in poverty. Rate restrictions have given us a taste of things to come.
      The proposals contained in the Bill will control the management of an authority and further deplete available resources. If those proposals are pushed through as a result of this brief, half-hour debate, the consequence will cause irradicable damage to the children that I try to represent. One way out of the reinforced bars of the inner-city cage——
      It being half-past Eight o'clock, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order [18 July], to put the Question already proposed from the Chair, that this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
      The House divided: Ayes 293, Noes 204.

      Division No. 423]

      [8.30 pm

      AYES

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Alexander, Richard

      Batiste, Spencer

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Allason, Rupert

      Bellingham, Henry

      Amos, Alan

      Bendall, Vivian

      Arbuthnot, James

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Ashby, David

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Atkinson, David

      Body, Sir Richard

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Boswell, Tim

      1024

      Bottomley, Peter

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Gregory, Conal

      Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Bowis, John

      Grist, Ian

      Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

      Ground, Patrick

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Brazier, Julian

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Bright, Graham

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

      Hannam, John

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

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

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

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Browne, John (Winchester)

      Harris, David

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Burns, Simon

      Hayes, Jerry

      Burt, Alistair

      Hayward, Robert

      Butcher, John

      Heddle, John

      Butler, Chris

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

      Butterfill, John

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Hill, James

      Carttiss, Michael

      Hind, Kenneth

      Cash, William

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

      Holt, Richard

      Chapman, Sydney

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Chope, Christopher

      Howard, Michael

      Churchill, Mr

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

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

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Colvin, Michael

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Conway, Derek

      Hunter, Andrew

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Irvine, Michael

      Cope, Rt Hon John

      Irving, Charles

      Couchman, James

      Jack, Michael

      Cran, James

      Jackson, Robert

      Critchley, Julian

      Janman, Tim

      Curry, David

      Jessel, Toby

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

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Day, Stephen

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Devlin, Tim

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Dicks, Terry

      Key, Robert

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Kilfedder, James

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thtield)

      Dover, Den

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Dunn, Bob

      Knapman, Roger

      Durant, Tony

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Dykes, Hugh

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Knowles, Michael

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      Knox, David

      Evennett, David

      Lang, Ian

      Fallon, Michael

      Latham, Michael

      Farr, Sir John

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Favell, Tony

      Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Fishburn, John Dudley

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Forman, Nigel

      Lightbown, David

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Lilley, Peter

      Forth, Eric

      Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

      Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Lord, Michael

      Franks, Cecil

      Lyell, Sir Nicholas

      Freeman, Roger

      McCrindle, Robert

      French, Douglas

      Macfarlane, Sir Neil

      Fry, Peter

      Maclean, David

      Gale, Roger

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Gardiner, George

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

      Gill, Christopher

      McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      Madel, David

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Malins, Humfrey

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Mans, Keith

      Gorst, John

      Maples, John

      Gower, Sir Raymond

      Marland, Paul

      Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

      Marlow, Tony

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      1025

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Speed, Keith

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

      Mates, Michael

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Squire, Robin

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Stern, Michael

      Mellor, David

      Stevens, Lewis

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Miller, Sir Hal

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Mills, Iain

      Stokes, Sir John

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Stradling Thomas, Sir John

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Sumberg, David

      Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

      Summerson, Hugo

      Moate, Roger

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Morris, M (N'hampton S)

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Morrison, Sir Charles

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Mudd, David

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Neale, Gerrard

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Nelson, Anthony

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Neubert, Michael

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Thorne, Neil

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Thurnham, Peter

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Page, Richard

      Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

      Paice, James

      Tracey, Richard

      Patnick, Irvine

      Tredinnick, David

      Patten, Chris (Bath)

      Trippier, David

      Pawsey, James

      Trotter, Neville

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Portillo, Michael

      Viggers, Peter

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Waddington, Rt Hon David

      Price, Sir David

      Wakeham, Rt Hon John

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Waldegrave, Hon William

      Rathbone, Tim

      Walden, George

      Redwood, John

      Waller, Gary

      Renton, Tim

      Walters, Sir Dennis

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Ward, John

      Riddick, Graham

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Warren, Kenneth

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Wells, Bowen

      Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

      Whitney, Ray

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Rost, Peter

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Rowe, Andrew

      Wilkinson, John

      Rumbold, Mrs Angela

      Wilshire, David

      Ryder, Richard

      Wolfson, Mark

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Wood, Timothy

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Woodcock, Mike

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Sims, Roger

      Mr. Robert Boscawen and Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Blair, Tony

      Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

      Boateng, Paul

      Allen, Graham

      Boyes, Roland

      Alton, David

      Bradley, Keith

      Anderson, Donald

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

      Ashdown, Paddy

      Buckley, George J.

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      Caborn, Richard

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Callaghan, Jim

      Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

      Barron, Kevin

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Battle, John

      Canavan, Dennis

      Beckett, Margaret

      Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

      Beggs, Roy

      Cartwright, John

      Beith, A. J.

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Bell, Stuart

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Clay, Bob

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

      Clelland, David

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Cohen, Harry

      1026

      Coleman, Donald

      Litherland, Robert

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Corbett, Robin

      Loyden, Eddie

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      McAllion, John

      Cousins, Jim

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Cryer, Bob

      McCartney, Ian

      Cummings, John

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      McKelvey, William

      Cunningham, Dr John

      McLeish, Henry

      Dalyell, Tam

      McNamara, Kevin

      Darling, Alistair

      McTaggart, Bob

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

      McWilliam, John

      Dewar, Donald

      Madden, Max

      Dixon, Don

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Dobson, Frank

      Marek, Dr John

      Doran, Frank

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

      Martlew, Eric

      Eadie, Alexander

      Maxton, John

      Eastham, Ken

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

      Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

      Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

      Fatchett, Derek

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Faulds, Andrew

      Morley, Elliott

      Fearn, Ronald

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

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

      Mullin, Chris

      Fisher, Mark

      Murphy, Paul

      Flannery, Martin

      Nellist, Dave

      Flynn, Paul

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      O'Brien, William

      Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Foster, Derek

      Parry, Robert

      Fraser, John

      Patchett, Terry

      Fyfe, Maria

      Pike, Peter L.

      Galbraith, Sam

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Garrett, John (Norwich South)

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      George, Bruce

      Radice, Giles

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Randall, Stuart

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Redmond, Martin

      Gordon, Mildred

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

      Gould, Bryan

      Reid, Dr John

      Graham, Thomas

      Richardson, Jo

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Robertson, George

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Rogers, Allan

      Grocott, Bruce

      Rooker, Jeff

      Hardy, Peter

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Rowlands, Ted

      Haynes, Frank

      Ruddock, Joan

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Salmond, Alex

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Henderson, Doug

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Hinchliffe, David

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Short, Clare

      Holland, Stuart

      Skinner, Dennis

      Home Robertson, John

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Hood, Jimmy

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

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

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

      Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

      Spearing, Nigel

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Strang, Gavin

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Straw, Jack

      Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Turner, Dennis

      Illsley, Eric

      Wall, Pat

      Ingram, Adam

      Wallace, James

      John, Brynmor

      Walley, Joan

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Warden, Gareth (Gower)

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Kennedy, Charles

      Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

      Lambie, David

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Lamond, James

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

      Leighton, Ron

      Wilson, Brian

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Winnick, David

      Lewis, Terry

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      1027

      Worthington, Tony

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Wray, Jimmy

      Mr. Frank Cook and Mr. Alun Michael.

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Lords amendment No. 343 agreed to.
      MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at that hour.
      Lords amendments Nos. 344 to 395 agreed to, some with Special Entry.

    Clause 173

      THE UNIVERSITY COMMISSIONERS
      Lords amendment: No. 396, in page 159, line 10, after "exercise" insert
      "in accordance with subsection (2) below"
      Mr. Jackson: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 397, 399 and 400.
      Mr. Jackson: It is right and proper that concern with academic freedom should have sounded like a ground base through all our debates, here and in another place, on the higher education provisions of the Bill. For it is clear that nothing could be more fundamental than freedom of opinion and of utterance, nowhere more so than in our institutions of higher education.
      In the constitutional structure for higher education which has grown up here in Britain and which is now being put into statutory form in the Bill, academic freedom arises under three headings. First, there is the freedom of the academy from the power of Government. Secondly, there is the freedom of the academy from undue intervention by the funding councils. Those two aspects of academic freedom were dealt with by my right hon. Friend earlier. The third aspect is that of the freedom of individual academics from unwarranted pressure from their colleagues and seniors in their universities and colleges—the subject of this amendment.
      The Government recommend the amendment on academic freedom to the House. I want to say a few words about its background. Although the Government do not accept that strict academic tenure is necessary for the protection of academic freedom, they were always conscious that the abolition of strict tenure would—reasonably—lead to questions about the security of academic freedom of inquiry and opinion. For that reason, the Government's approach has from the beginning been to seek to safeguard academic freedom in the new context of the abolition of strict tenure by strengthening the procedural protections for individuals against wrongful dismissal. That is why, in its first print, the Bill contained proposals to ensure that every institution would have an independent appeals tribunal. It is why we propose to abolish the exclusive jurisdiction of visitors, so as to provide an ultimate recourse to the courts in cases of dismissal.
      Following the same line of thought, during the passage of the Bill the Government concluded that it was also necessary to provide enhanced protection for academics from pressures short of dismissal. Hence our amendment
      1028
      in another place to ensure that an independent grievance procedure is available. It is one of the amendments in the group that we shall be considering.
      Alongside measures to establish procedural protections for the freedom of individual academics the Government entered upon a dialogue with the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals about the possibility of writing into the Bill a general affirmation of Parliament's commitment to academic freedom——
      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: What dialogue?
      8.45 pm
      Mr. Jackson: There was an extensive dialogue. There was a series of meetings involving the Lord Chancellor and myself from the Government, and a representative designated by the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, to consider the issue. So it is fair and reasonable to say there was a dialogue.
      Mr. Bennett: Does the Minister accept that we started with a dialogue with the deaf? It was only after a great deal of pressure that the Government really started to negotiate.
      Mr. Jackson: The hon. Gentleman consistently trivialises these issues and I do not propose to respond. There was a genuine dialogue about a general commitment by Parliament to the principle of academic freedom. It must be said of that dialogue that the Government found that there were genuine intellectual problems about incorporating for the first time in law the phrase "academic freedom". Our doubts related not to the principle of academic freedom of—course not—but to the precise interpretation that might be placed on that phrase in law. The genuineness of these intellectual difficulties was fully exposed and recognised by all parties to the dialogue between the Government and the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals. I understand that it is in recognition of those difficulties that the amendment does not include the phrase, or rather the adjective qualifying it, because the Government saw a problem in it. However, the amendment gives a fair specification of the content of the idea of academic freedom, and on that basis the Government are more than happy to accept it.
      I turn briefly to two other amendments, one concerned with the definition of redundancy, the other with a loss of tenure on promotions. On the definition of redundancy, the Government have listened carefully to the debate flowing from their proposal to enable universities to make dismissals for reasons of financial exigency. That is why the Government recommend the Lords amendment to the House.
      Mr. Dalyell: I do not want to bore the House, but I want to know the Government's general attitude to people who are 50, 55 or 60, and who, in their maturity, may be the best teachers of students and undergraduates. What is the Government's attitude towards such people being used, rather than the criterion of success in restructuring being based on how many people have been declared redundant? The latter is a sad state of affairs.
      Mr. Jackson: Of course I agree that it is sad and damaging in many ways that people in their prime should no longer continue to be employed by their university. But universities must live within the means that are provided. Those means are substantial. Britain spends a higher

      1029
      proportion of its national product on higher education than any other west European country. Restructuring in universities has been necessary. The Government have provided substantial resources, additional to the baseline funding for the universities, to provide generous compensation for early retirement. It is fair to say that there have been no cases of compulsory redundancy in any university. All the retirements have been voluntary and with generous compensation.
      Mr. A. J. Beith: The Minister must be aware of the case in Hull, which is currently the subject of considerable argument.
      Mr. Jackson: The Hull case is the first concerning compulsory redundancy. How universities manage their resources is a matter for those universities, and the Government provide earmarked funds—this issue was considered earlier—to provide compensation. However, the extent and character of the redundancies are a matter for the universities.
      Mr. Dalyell: I have asked three times today for a rough figure of how much has been paid out and how much is likely to be paid out for premature retirement. Is this figure available, and if it is can we have it?
      Mr. Jackson: I made inquiries after the hon. Gentleman raised that at Question Time. I shall have to come back to him, as I promised then, because the precise figures are not immediately available. The current restructuring amount is £250 million, and restructuring money was provided in the early 1980s. The amounts in question are substantial, as are the amounts of compensation.
      Mr. Hawkins: My hon. Friend said that it is up to the universities, including Hull, how they deal with redundancies. Is it not a matter of record that the Bill stops universities from setting up their own redundancy compensation schemes? In Committee, when I proposed that a generous redundancy scheme should be put in place for those made redundant from universities, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave a firm undertaking that, if I withdrew my amendment, he would introduce another measure to set up a generous redundancy scheme that would survive his period in office. That has not happened either in the other place or at any other stage in the Bill.
      Mr. Jackson: We went seriously and with great deliberation into the question that my hon. Friend raises, and I believe that the result was fully explained to him in a letter. The problem is that it is not possible for a Secretary of State successfully to bind his successors without a statute. Therefore, it is necessary to have a statutory redundancy scheme for academics and we have concluded that this is neither justified nor necessary. It is clear that there will always be a redundancy scheme if there is a requirement for it and that the redundancy compensation will be generous. Past experience gives us every warrant to believe that this will be the case. There can be no doubt, and it is not in anybody's interest to suggest that there might be doubt, about the future availability of redundancy money when people are dismissed.
      Mr. Hawkins: I am grateful for that.
      Mr. Jackson: There is also an amendment concerning loss of tenure on promotions. Again, after listening to the
      1030
      debate, the Government recommend to the House Lords amendment No. 407, which clarifies and limits the circumstances in which strict tenure may be lost on promotion.
      These amendments bring the principle of academic freedom into sharp focus. Concern for academic freedom is one of those values which constitute the common ground between the Government and the universities, to which my right hon. Friend referred earlier. In recommending these amendments, the Government are seeking to build constructively on that common ground.
      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: We welcome these amendments, and we welcome the fact that the Government accept them all. However, we have some reservations because the Government have not answered the fundamental question about why they were so determined to take away tenure. How much money did they expect to save? When was the money to be saved? Our debates in Committee and on Report exposed clearly that we are talking about the very long term for the repeal and revision of the statutes. We are not talking about something that will have immediate effect. The Government have never answered the question posed at the beginning: why do it? However, the amendments that the Government have accepted, either willingly or because they were forced on them, make some improvement.
      The Government have managed with considerable skill the wording about academic freedom. They managed to resist for some months, then to concede, and then to have foisted on them in the other place and by the academic world the appropriate wording. Therefore, if something goes wrong in the courts, the Government will he able to blame everybody but themselves. I suspect that the Government have managed to attract the fire of many in higher education on to this amendment while they have slipped through other matters. However, having this provision in the Bill is better than leaving it out.
      I am grateful that the Government have agreed to make it impossible for universities to replace older staff with younger staff doing the same job merely to save money. However, we still do not know what the Government will do about students. In many earlier debates, we were told that the university funding was to be at least changed to some extent by an increasing fees element. Suddenly the Government's deliberations on student grants and fees have been snatched away from us. Up to a couple of weeks ago, Ministers were confidently briefing journalists off the record on the merits of loans.
      Mr. Kenneth Baker: I never do that.
      Mr. Bennett: I am sure that everybody believes the Secretary of State. It is amazing how these stories appeared in the press—presumably spontaneously.
      Mr. Baker: Very creative.
      Mr. Bennett: Yes. However, those reports were speculating on how the fees would be altered.
      All that has been stifled and we are now told that this long-awaited and thorough review, which was to be ready for presentation to the House before the end of June, has disappeared into the mists of autumn. That leaves higher education institutions with a big question mark over whether an increased element of their funding is to come from fees, and the implications of that. It also makes us wonder how far academic freedom will be eroded because

      1031
      students will not be free to study the subjects that they want to study, rather than subjects that they anticipate will help them to repay their loans. We shall wish to return to this subject in many future debates.
      The Government have skated quickly over the question of what pay will be available for those academics who have to sign new contracts without tenure. Logically they should be paid rather more. The Government have not told us very much about the implications of fixed contracts, which clearly are an approach for many older academics, who want them to take them up to the age at which they expect to retire. It may turn out that that proves more expensive to institutions and the Government than retaining the old powers of tenure.
      I want to press the Minister about what is happening to the three review bodies on earth science, on chemistry and on physics. I am not too happy about the idea of rationalising these subjects because there are many arguments about the rounded institution. I can see some of the arguments for specialisation, although resources can be in one institution and shared by another. In the redeployment of staff there are considerable tenure implications.
      When the Minister replies, I hope that he will give some assurance to those who are being persuaded to move from one department in a university to another—alternatively, attempts may be being made to persuade them to move—to assist in carrying through the rationalisation process. I hope that he will be able to tell them that their tenure will be secure. If that is not made clear, we shall run into major difficulties in persuading people to accept voluntary-move proposals. The process has gone much further in science than in chemistry and physics. I am sure that the Secretary of State and the Minister of State have received many letters from individuals on this issue.
      We know that the Government place contracts for research, and I ask the Secretary of State to make it clear that with Government funded research the Government believe in the free dissemination of knowledge. In recent months it appears that the Department of Education and Science has been framing increasingly restrictive contracts. When research is carried out for it, restrictions are placed on the researchers, who may wish to ensure that the information is disseminated by providing papers at conferences or summaries of the work.
      9 pm
      The National Foundation for Educational Research in England and Wales has many contracts with the Department of Education and Science. Again, it appears that there is a growing number of restrictions set out in the contracts. If we believe in freedom of information—the Government claim that they do—it is indefensible that the Government should be restricting the free flow of information on research in education, health, social services and areas of poverty. There may be some justification for restrictions in defence contracts, but there can be no justification for restrictions to be introduced into contracts for research in education, social services and health. In paying tribute to the concept of academic freedom and the right to disseminate knowledge, it would be helpful if the Government put the concept into practice in their contracts.
      1032
      With the group of amendments that we are discussing, there will be some improvement made to the Bill, even at this late stage. We welcome that. It is only a pity that the concessions have been so hard to wring from the Government. We shall be watching carefully to see how they will develop in the next few months. We shall be awaiting especially the eventual publication, we hope, of the Government's proposals for student grants, student loans and fees for academic institutions.
      Mr. William Cash: I shall refer briefly to amendment No. 425, which deals with unrecognised degrees. I had the opportunity to speak to my hon. Friend the Minister about the issue some months ago. The matter was then referred to the other place, and it now appears as a Lords amendment.
      There are many good reasons why bogus degrees should be limited—
      Mr. Beith: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Are we not discussing Lords amendment No. 396 and the amendments which have been grouped with it, rather than a group that appears much further down the selection paper?
      Madam Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is right. We are discussing amendments Nos. 396, 397, 399 and 400. I ask the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) to relate his comments to them.
      Mr. Cash: It would be difficult to bring what I have to say into a discussion on amendment No. 396 and others. I have probably made my point that we are somewhat concerned about bogus degrees.
      Mr. Beith: Having aided the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) with his characteristic brevity, I must first declare an interest as a lifelong member of and adviser to the Association of University Teachers. The key amendment on academic freedom was moved in another place by Lord Jenkins of Hillhead. It is right that we should briefly record why it is seen as so important and why it has attracted such widespread support from all parties, including the Conservative party.
      First, in another place Lord Grimond asked:
      "What is the real mischief about tenure? [Official Report, House of Lords, 19 May 1988; Vol. 497, c. 450.]
      No one was successful in answering that question during the debate in another place. The main mischief is that not everyone has tenure. The unevenness of its availability is its main drawback. It has not been demonstrated that tenure would be a drawback in the restructuring that is having to take place in some of our universities. The consequences of its disappearance are already being felt, not least in the attempt to attract key people from the United States, or others who might otherwise go to the United States. Tenure is available in the United States, and it is seen to be of great importance. Against the background of the abolition of tenure, the need to assert academic freedom in some form became that much more important.
      Another feature of the background of reform is the spread of redundancies. Actual redundancies and talk of them have become more widespread than at any other time during the period that I have been associated with the universities. Redundancy provisions are still not properly covered in the Bill. In one of the amendments the Lords were striking out something that the Government had put

      1033
      in on academic redundancy—a rather foolish provision that gave special meaning to redundancy in the case of university academic staff. The notion was that senior academic staff could be fired simply because they were more expensive than junior academic staff. That was absurd and unjust and lay behind much of the fear and anxiety felt in the universities. They were worried that that would lead to the clearing out of people who were known to be good, simply because others could be employed more cheaply at the bottom end of the scale. That was a key factor in the universities' anxiety and the Lords were right to challenge the Government on that and other aspects.
      The legacy of that is that university staff consider the Bill as illustrating the Government's clear intent that many university staff should be dismissed. The Bill makes no provision for any procedure to operate or regulate declarations of redundancy. No compensation is guaranteed beyond the wholly inadequate state redundancy payment. We still do not know how Ministers intend to implement the assurances that they gave in Committee, including the undertaking that compensation regulations at least as favourable as those in being at present will be continued.
      The third feature of the background which caused great anxiety in the universities is the general climate of opinion in which such a fundamental change as the abolition of tenure is seen to have taken place—a climate in which the Government's dislike of dissent is very obvious. Comment was made on that from the Conservative Benches in the other place, not least by Lord Blake, who pointed out that there was a great deal of despondency and anxiety in the universities.
      I do not find it encouraging to learn that one of the commissioners appointed by the Government to the rather depressing task of going round the universities tearing out pages providing for tenure from their statute books is to be Lord Butterworth, who voted against the academic freedom amendment. That does not bode well for the exercise in which they are engaged. The Minister spoke as though the arrival in the Bill of my noble Friend's amendment was a natural culmination of an orderly process of dialogue between the Government and their many critics. In fact, it was fiercely resisted by the Government and was carried in a Division in which the Government were outnumbered, to their great annoyance and distress.
      As a result, there is now in the Bill a defence of academic freedom, the need for which has been made manifest by so many of the Government's actions. Thank goodness they have realised, even at this late stage, how foolish and damaging it would have been to resist the amendment.
      Mr. Walden: During the discussions and exchanges of formulae between this House and the other place, both on this subject and on funding, one might have had the impression that a treaty was being negotiated between two warring states. There has been an element of genuine concern, but also much self-serving bogus rhetoric. There is no tradition of Government intervention in universities in this country, thank God, and there is none in prospect. I welcome the fact that the Government have accepted the Lords amendment. I cannot find it in my soul to approach this matter with the pompous seriousness with which others pretend to regard it. But I am glad that it has been settled.
      1034
      I have a simple but important point to make, which is that the university tom-toms have been spreading it abroad that academic freedom in this country is under threat from Thatcherism—all the low level journalism that we are used to from Opposition Members. That is the image that is being given, and unfortunately we have to take it seriously. If I may presume to give the Government a small piece of advice, it is that they should do their utmost to ensure that all the relevant organs carry a faithful report of the Government's decision so that it reaches universities in other countries. It is important that they should have a correct view of the facts.
      The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) did not seem to understand the reasons for reconsidering academic tenure. Let me make two suggestions to him. The hon. Gentleman should talk to vice-chancellors who, in private—I keep stressing that because it is my personal experience—would tell him, as they told me, that they want it to go in its present form. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman should talk to young academics in their early 20s who are trying——
      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Walden: No, because I have little time and I want to leave time for the Under-Secretary of State to reply.
      The hon. Gentleman should talk to young academics who are trying to get on in their particular sphere. They will tell him frankly that there are people who were recruited, perhaps too hastily, in the 1960s, who may not be of premier quality, to put it mildly, and who have jobs for life, who are not good at their jobs, and are not distinguished. They are preventing young blood getting up in the academic profession. That is one of the contributory factors to the brain drain. It is not talked about much in public by the universities because it is inconvenient to speak of it. It goes against the accepted flow of the rhetoric.
      I know, and universities, vice-chancellors and young academics know, that that is a serious problem. So by doing what the Government are doing on tenure, we shall encourage young blood in this country. Some of it will stay here rather than go abroad to escape from the weight of the dead-beat intellectuals above them, who do exist.
      Mr. Dalyell: I cannot know what some vice-chancellors say in private, but other vice-chancellors in public express considerable concern. Those are their public statements.
      I should like to ask the Minister directly: did he agree with his hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden), who is a serious man and an ex-Minister, in his remarks about bogus rhetoric? Is that the view of Ministers of what happened in the House of Lords, because it is certainly not the view of a great many other people? Furthermore, with the abolition of tenure, I should like to ask the direct question: has any estimate been done, following the change in tenure, of the likelihood of even more academics, often the best academics, going to what they see as the lusher and more secure pastures of the United States? That question is echoed by the Minister's hon. Friends. The House would like to know what studies have been done or estimates made in the Department. That is a factual question.
      Has any estimate been made in the Department of the effect on small university departments? It is a matter of considerable dismay to Scottish Members of Parliament

      1035
      that John Erickson's department, the department of defence in Edinburgh, should perforce have reached that situation.
      I should like to express my deep concern about elderly academics—no, academics over 50—finding that they no longer have places in universities. Often those are the people who take the most trouble over students who are potential teachers. There is an acute problem. David Gow says in The Guardian:
      "A £20 million campaign to recruit more teachers of shortage subjects like maths and physics is running into problems, Mr. Bob Dunn, the schools minister, admitted yesterday."
      The same is said in The Independent:
      "Secondary heads and industrialists estimated a shortage of 4,000 mathematics teachers by 1995, and 2,300 physics teachers. He said there were also shortages, likely to worsen, in modern foreign languages, computing, and craft design and technology."
      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: My hon. Friend should finish soon. The Minister has to finish at 9.15 pm.
      Mr. Dalyell: Right. Education states:
      "the three organisations say that, taking an optimistic view, the country will be short of 4,141 maths teachers"—
      Mr. Bennett: Sit down.
      Mr. Dalyell: The Engineering Council—[Interruption.] I am being serenaded by my Front Bench, so I shall sit down.
      Mr. Jackson: I shall do my best to answer all those points. The most important question has been why we should abolish tenure. The simple reason is that strict tenure makes it difficult for the managements of universities to manage their institutions rationally. There is a marked correlation between the presence of strict tenure and the number of staff on short-term contracts, because it is only by putting staff on short-term contracts that they can accommodate the pressures. We must make it easier for university administrations to run their establishments rationally. My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) is entirely right. If there is a problem with the brain drain——
      It being a quarter past Nine o'clock, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order [18 July], to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
      Lords amendment No. 396 agreed to.
      MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at that hour.
      Lords amendments Nos. 397 to 437 agreed to, one with Special Entry.

    Clause 186

      APPLICATION OF EMPLOYMENT LAW DURING FINANCIAL DELEGATION
      Lords amendment: No. 438, in line 35, leave out "and Schedule 2" and insert
      ", section 39(1), (2) and (4), Schedule 2, paragraph 4 of Schedule (New schools) and section (New schools) so far as relating to that paragraph;".
      Mrs. Rumbold: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this we shall discuss Lords amendment No. 439, in page 166, line 36, at end insert
      "and subsections (1) and (3) of section (Costs of dismissal, premature retirement or voluntary severance).
      (3) Before making any order under this section, the Secretary of State shall consult—

      (a) such associations of local authorities;

      (b) such bodies representing the interests of governors of voluntary schools; and

      (c) such organisations representing staff in schools required to be covered by schemes under section 25 of this Act or institutions required to be covered by schemes under section 121 of this Act;

      as appear to him to be concerned."
      Amendment (a) to the Lords amendment, at end add "and no Order shall be made under this section which would operate to diminish the rights of employees, whether individually or collectively."
      Mrs. Rumbold: The first amendment to clause 186 is technical, as are the first three lines of amendment No. 439. The remainder of amendment No. 439 is an amendment of substance, which the Government tabled in response to points made in debate on the clause in another place. It introduces a requirement that before an order is made under the Act there should be consultation with the local authority associations, representatives of the governors of voluntary schools and organisations representing the staff of schools and colleges with delegated budgets. It is an important amendment. It ensures that the process of making an order under the Act is fully public at all times, and it gives the bodies mentioned a statutory right to comment on proposals for an order before the order is made. We have made it clear from the beginning that we intend to consult before making orders. However, the amendment gives reassurance to those who have wrongly expressed doubts about our intentions by making this a statutory requirement, and I ask the House to accept the amendment.
      However, we cannot accept the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) and his colleagues. The reason is simple. It may be argued by the Opposition, among others, that the fact that under financial delegation key staffing decisions are exercised by the governors rather than by the local education authority constitutes a dimunition of rights. We do not accept that, but the scope for time-consuming debates on this and other points would be considerable if the amendment were accepted.
      I am surprised that the Opposition are so worried about this clause. Ten years ago, the Labour Government introduced a measure giving them wide powers to make changes in employment law—changes that could directly affect the rights of individuals. I refer to section 149 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 which allowed the Secretary of State to make orders disapplying certain provisions of that Act and to vary the operation of others——
      Mr. Straw: Consolidation.
      Mrs. Rumbold: It may have been a consolidation measure, but it allowed the Secretary of State to lengthen the qualifying period for protection against unfair dismissal and to remove from some classes of employees the right to time off for trade union duties. The power in that Act was much more significant than the power given by clause 186. By contrast, clear restrictions are built into the description of the power——
      Mr. Straw: Will the Minister give way?
      Mrs. Rumbold: No, I shall not.
      Mr. Straw rose——
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We can have only one hon. Member on his feet at a time.
      Mrs. Rumbold: It consolidated——
      Mr. Straw: It is a bogus point.
      Mrs. Rumbold: It is not a bogus point; it is a perfectly valid one. It consolidated previous Labour legislation and, therefore, it is perfectly right and proper to refer to it within the context of the Bill.
      Leaving that surprising lapse of memory aside, the amendment before us is simply not necessary. Repeatedly, I have explained that the clause is not about removing people's rights. It is evident to anyone who takes the trouble to study the wording of the clause that it is not open to my right hon. Friend or any of his successors to use the power to remove employment rights from staff.
      On financial delegation, governors of schools and colleges will be given a number of important powers over staffing matters. I make no apology for that. The Government are firmly committed to the principle of local management in education. The Opposition have proclaimed that they, too, are firmly committed to the principles of financial delegation and that they want those principles to be meaningful. They want the governors of schools and colleges to take real decisions on important questions affecting the running of their schools and institutions. They must, therefore, recognise that staffing accounts for by far the largest part of the budget of a school or college. It could be anything up to 85 per cent.
      If governors are to be allowed to take key decisions on staffing matters, surely those powers must be given to them. The purpose of clause 186 is to ensure that, along with their powers over staffing, governors are given the necessary responsibilities in law. It makes no sense at all for local education authorities to be compelled to take responsibility for decisions which are taken by other bodies. Opposition Members with local government experience would have complained very strongly if they had been put in that position, and local authorities asked us at an early stage to ensure that it did not happen.
      Clause 186 allows my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State or the holder of his office to modify employment law to make sure that where governors rather than the LEA take a decision it is the governors who assume responsibility for that decision in law. So, for example, if the governors of a school or college dismiss a member of staff and that member of staff complains that the dismissal is unfair, clause 186 would allow the Government to ensure that it is the governors who appear before the industrial tribunal to defend their decision. That is the purpose of clause 186, and we have made that clear on many occasions.
      It is true that much concern—generated chiefly, I regret to say, by teacher unions—has been expressed about the clause. It is quite misconceived. Anxieties among staff in schools and colleges have been aroused needlessly, and I want to make the position clear.
      It is suggested by the trade unions and others that the clause as it stands gives my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State or the holder of his office an open-ended power to
      1038
      alter employment law to take away from staff in schools and colleges with delegated budgets their hard-won employment rights. That is an absurd misrepresentation. The wording of the clause is precise and contains two very important constraints on the use of the order-making power. First, the clause empowers the Secretary of State to make modifications to certain types of enactment. Those are enactments relating to the rights and duties of employers and employees and the relationship between them. That does not mean any change at all.
      The word "modification" has a precise meaning. The repeal of a provision or alteration of its effect to the detriment of a certain class of employee would not be described as a modification. For example, removing the right of teachers to statutory redundancy pay could in no way be described as a modification. Such a use of the power by a Secretary of State could be challenged through judicial review on the ground that the change to employment law brought about by an order was more than a modification.
      The second constraint is that the clause restricts the power to orders which the Secretary of State considers necessary or expedient in consequence of the operation of specific provisions of the Act. Any Secretary of State making an order under the clause will need to satisfy himself—and, if necessary, the courts—that it is reasonable both to describe the change brought about by the order as a modification, and also to believe that the modification is necessary or expedient in the light of financial delegation. It is difficult, to say the least, to see how the removal of an important employment right from staff in schools and colleges could pass either test, either that it is a modification or that it is necessary or expedient in the light of the relevant sections of the Act. Any Member of either House will be able to pray against an order under the clause.
      Moreover, the amendment that the other place made to the clause at our instigation, requiring statutory consultation before an order is made, will ensure that the process of making an order is fully public at all times. It is therefore wrong to say or imply that the clause confers an open-ended power on the Secretary of State. The Government have made it clear time and time again that the clause is a technical provision which will ensure that financial delegation works smoothly in the field of staffing. The removal of people's rights is no part of its purpose or effect.
      The clause is in the interests of the staff. Through it, we shall ensure that staff rights, such as the right to time off work for public duties, are respected. I hope very much that the unions and others who have been promulgating otherwise will stop presenting the clause as some kind of monstrous danger to the staff and start telling their members the truth.
      This is a helpful clause through which the Government will ensure that financial delegation does not result in anomalies in employment law, but, none the less, has some substance in meaning for the governors of the schools which undertake financial delegation.
      I have explained to the House why the amendment to the Lords amendment is both unnecessary and damaging and, if it is not withdrawn, I shall urge the House to reject it.
      Mr. Fatchett: This is the third time that we have had the opportunity of debating clause 186—once in Committee,

      1039
      once on Report and now tonight. Let me congratulate the Minister on changing her civil servants or changing the brief because the argument that she has advanced this evening, although it is no more convincing, is substantially different from her argument on Report and in Committee. She was either not briefed correctly on that occasion or the Government are simply searching for an argument. I suspect that the latter is true.
      We all understand the technical reasons for the amendment. We understand why it is necessary in relation to local financial management. However, we do not understand and trust the Government's motives in taking such extensive powers. In Committee, the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) and I challenged the Minister about the nature of the extensive powers and, on that occasion and on Report, she had no argument against the fact that they were extensive powers. In effect, she said that we could take her word for it that we could trust in the Secretary of State.
      However, she has tonight shifted the argument and says that a precedent was established by a Labour Government 10 years ago. It has taken the civil servants and the Minister a great deal of time, including debating time, to find that example and that precedent. It was never used by the Minister in Committee or on Report and it was never used by Ministers in the House of Lords.
      The only example that the Minister can produce is not a Bill that changes the law, but a consolidation measure. If we consult "Erskine May" about consolidation measures, we see that a particular procedure is set out for them in the House. There is one criterion with which a consolidation measure must comply. Page 737 of "Erskine May" states that a consolidation measure should not
      "introduce any substantial change in law or one that might be controversial."
      That consolidated measure to which the Minister referred, by definition in terms of the procedures of the House, cannot introduce a substantial change in law or be controversial. It is clear that on this occasion the Minister's brief was threadbare, as it has been threadbare, but different, on previous occasions.
      9.30 pm
      Mr. Nicholas Bennett: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman understands what a consolidation measure is. A consolidation measure consolidates previous legislation. My hon. Friend is quite correct that it is the Act to which we now refer.
      Mr. Fatchett: I can say only that the hon. Gentleman probably did less well than the Minister.
      I now turn to what we consider to be the substantial arguments about the extensive powers contained in clause 186. On three occasions Ministers have given assurances that those powers will not be used in a way that will be detrimental to the interests of those employed in education.
      In Standing Committee the Minister said:
      "I can see no reason why there should be any consequential diminution of rights for employees as a result of the clause."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 25 February 1988; c. 1908.]
      1040
      If the Minister's argument tonight had been correct, she would have had no need to say that on 25 February. Her argument then was, "Believe us. We reassure you that we do not intend to use the powers in a particular way."
      In the other place Lord Trefgarne, speaking on behalf of the Government, uttered exactly the same words as the Minister of State. He said:
      "I want to make it quite clear that this clause is not about diminishing employees' rights, or adversely affecting employees."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 19 May 1988; Vol. 497, c. 561.]
      Twice we have had reassurance in those terms.
      The third occasion was outside this House. The Secretary of State wrote to Lord Murray of Epping Forest about clause 186, again using the same words. He wrote:
      "We have made it clear that the reason behind the clause is not about diminishing employees' rights or adversely affecting employees."
      That is the wording of our amendment. The Minister has uttered the words of our amendment as has Lord Trefgarne. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State has uttered the words of our amendment. Now they are asking the House and Conservative Members to vote down the words and the assurances that they uttered on other occasions.
      If the Minister is a Minister of her word, there is no need to vote against our amendment tonight. Teachers' unions or teachers' organisations will not be sending messages, but the Minister will be sending a message. If she accepts our amendment (a), the Minister's message will be that it is not the Government's intention to diminish the employment rights of people employed in education—teachers and non-teaching staff.
      In an article in The Independent on 3 May, Julian Haviland started an article on clause 186 with a very simple opening sentence with which any Opposition Member will agree. He wrote:
      "Kenneth Baker is not to be trusted."
      I am sure that he would get many seconders for that motion from Conservative Members. He then referred that argument to clause 186. He wrote that the Government's argument about clause 186 was simply:
      "Trust this Secretary of State. He is a good man."
      As Julian Haviland said, that is an outstandingly offensive argument. It is offensive because the Secretary of State is taking unto his office powers—however he may use them—that are extensive and give the Government the power to diminish the employment rights of teaching and non-teaching staff.
      Clause 186 is one of the most extensive and draconian in the Bill. We have opposed it on every possible occasion and shall continue to do so. It assumes in one person a radical ability to change the employment rights of many thousands of workers which have been developed over many decades. Because of that power, we seek to amend the clause. Because of that power, we ask the Minister to be as good as her word. I doubt that she will be, but at least she could send a message to teaching and non-teaching staff that she is a Minister of her word and one to be trusted.
      Mr. Alan Haselhurst: I apologise to the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) for not following his argument on amendment No. 438. As he knows, a number of amendments are bunched together. I want to draw attention to Lords amendment No. 442 and Government amendment (a) thereto, to which little attention has been paid. I apologise to my right hon.

      1041
      Friend the Secretary of State for the fact that on the only time I have an opportunity to contribute to the debate on the Bill, which I generally support, I enter a note of demurral on one aspect.
      I do not know whether my right hon. and hon. Friends are aware of the motion in the other place moved by my noble Friend Baroness Young to assist British schools in European Community countries. In a plain and civilised debate at an early hour in the morning Baroness Young succeeded in getting an amendment against the Government passed. This is not the stuff of high politics, but it touches on a matter that should be of great concern to us. Great emphasis is being given to our preparations for the single European market and to the approach of 1992, but in this matter we are not doing as much to help our citizens who may be expected to work within the European Community as certain of our partners are doing for their citizens. Lady Young attempted to oblige my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to provide certain help to British schools and to bring in at a certain time—although not a specified time—grant schemes to assist pupils to attend those schools in the European Community.
      Government amendment (a) narrows the scope of Baroness Young's amendment, but widens its effect in applying it to all schools outside the United Kingdom. Missing from Government amendment (a)—this is the most costly item—is a scheme that would require financial assistance to be given to pupils to attend those schools. I do not expect that we can do justice to this issue in this short debate, when more contentious amendments are being considered. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will not regard this as a subject that is dead and buried with the debate.
      In replying to the debate in the other place, Baroness Hooper——
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. Perhaps I should have reproached the hon. Gentleman earlier. We are not yet discussing Lords amendment No. 442; it comes later.
      Mr. Haselhurst: I beg your pardon, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I thought that it was part of this batch.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: We are discussing Lords amendments Nos. 438 and 439, together with the amendment to Lords amendment No. 439.
      Mr. Haselhurst: In that case, I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will there be an opportunity for me to raise my point later?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is a matter for the House. I very much hope that there may be time for the hon. Gentleman to return to the matter.
      Mr. Haselhurst: I thank the House for its indulgence, and you for yours, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      Mr. Flannery: It is almost unbelievable, after all that went on in Committee and on Report, that the Minister of State can talk the nonsense that we have just heard. Clause 186 is the most draconian clause in a draconian Bill. I am surprised that the Minister of State did not realise what everyone else realises when she referred to the teachers' unions as though they had no rights.
      The Minister went on to say that 85 per cent. of the money goes in that direction. There are some 4,000
      1042
      teachers, and they have all been observing this debate. It is sad that we have only three quarters of an hour on this important clause, and it is already 9.40 pm.
      It seems to be assumed that everyone knows what the clause says, but it should be put on record. It states:
      ".—(1) The Secretary of State may by order make such modifications in any enactment relating to employment and, in particular, in any enactment—

      (a) conferring powers or imposing duties on employers;

      (b) conferring rights on employees; or

      (c) otherwise regulating the relations between employers and employees;

      as he considers necessary or expedient in consequence of the operation of any of the provisions of this Act mentioned in subsection (2) below."
      Those words are the most draconian that could be imagined. They put at the disposal of the Secretary of Slate hundreds of powers that have never before been given, even in wartime. In case anyone thinks that he does not use those powers, let us take an example in which he has already used them and violated the law.
      Clause 186—one of the most controversial and least justified of the Bill's provisions—gives the Secretary of State rights that no one has had before. In 1987 there was a flagrant violation of the law. Anyone who thinks that the Secretary of State will not use the clause should take note of what he did in destroying the negotiating rights of the teachers. That had never been done before, and the International Labour Organisation of the United Nations condemned it in its annual convention in May this year.
      The matter was also debated in the Lords, when Lord Murray of Epping Forest asked Baronness Hooper, the Tory spokesperson:
      "Does the Minister accept that we are not discussing a unique situation? Does she share my dismay that Britain should be found guilty in the company of countries like Chile, Colombia, Bangladesh and Romania which, as she herself has said, are part of conventions to which we have agreed in the past? If she shares my dismay, can we be assured that the Government will take speedy action to restore Britain to the level of respect which formerly was accorded to us in this United Nations organisation?"
      That is what the Secretary of State did without the power that he is trying to take in clause 186. The clause—which we want to amend by taking some of the venom out of it—gives him immense powers to do as he wishes with the working people in our schools. As I have said before, he sits there smiling like pussy with the milk because he has not the faintest intention of doing anything about a draconian clause which, as he knows, violates the democracy that we have had for all these years.
      This all too brief debate is being watched closely by the teachers' unions and others whose members work in schools. Amendment (a) tries to put some democratic common sense into this draconian clause. The Secretary of State will use it. He has already taken one terrible action against teachers and such people. He would not have allowed such a power to remain in the Bill through all its stages unless he intended to use it against the teachers. Therefore, our amendment says:
      "At end add 'and no Order shall be made under this section which would operate to diminish the rights of employees, whether individually or collectively'."
      That is a sensible approach, and I commend our amendment to the House.
      9.45 pm
      Mr. Ashdown: It is entirely appropriate that almost the last clause that we should discuss on a Bill which is damaging not only to education but to the nature of our democracy, and which puts so much power into the hands of the Secretary of State, is the most draconian in the Bill.
      We have listened to the Government during more than 200 hours of debate and it would not be inaccurate to say that we have sometimes been astounded by the threadbare nature of the Minister of State's arguments. But she has exceeded herself tonight on two counts. First, she seeks to pray in aid a precedent that does not even apply. As the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) said, it is a consolidation measure. Indeed, "Erskine May" is perfectly clear on the matter. That is not the precedent that she seeks.
      Secondly, having, no doubt, employed the best offices of the Department of Education and Science, trailing and trawling through the thickets of the Bill, after 200 hours of debate the Minister has discovered a new meaning for the word "modification". It has never been mentioned or discussed in all the hours of debate in Committee. She has discovered that a modification is only a small amendment.
      Why was that never mentioned before? This is an argument that the Minister of State has suddenly stumbled upon. It bears no kind of examination. It is a bit like the housemaid's baby; it is only a small one. She knows perfectly well that by the smallest modification the rights that attach to teachers and other employees can be altered drastically. It would require only a small modification subsequently to alter those rights considerably.
      What we see here is the hidden agenda that runs through this Bill and through the poll tax, local government, privatisation and housing legislation. It is designed for a single purpose—to suck all the power out of local authorities, leaving them no rights to be decent employers, to create a situation where, although they may be responsible for the employment of teachers, they are not even responsible for their dismissal, to ensure that we reduce the power and authority of local government to such a point that it is easy at some subsequent moment to get rid of it.
      Conservative Members should have a care. They have laid down precedents in the Bill—in this clause in particular—which will be picked up by others afterwards. I do not accuse the Secretary of State of intending to use the instruments created by the Bill, but they are there for others to use. If, at the stroke of a pen and a clause such as this one, employment rights can be removed without further recourse to the House, exactly the opposite can be done as and when one wishes, further damaging the rights of individuals.
      These powers will be used by others in times to come. It matters not that the Secretary of State's intentions may be reasonable or even benign; the instrument is there for others to use. This is a matter of principle. The Secretary of State should not be allowed the powers which the Bill gives him and which others may misuse after him.
      The first of those powers is that contained in clause 186, which will allow the Secretary of State or others to rescind at will or to add to the employment rights of teachers or others without recourse to this House. The House must consider that, and must not agree to it. Those are the reasons why we shall oppose the provisions.
      Mr. Nicholas Bennett: I am sorry to have heard the speech of the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown). I had not intended taking part in the debate, but having listened to the hon. Gentleman speaking with the massed ranks of the Liberal party absent, it is clear that he misunderstands both points. He misunderstands the point which was made by my hon. Friend the Minister of State about the consolidation Act. That point was misunderstood also by the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett). The Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 consolidated the Labour Acts of 1974 and 1975. A consolidation Act cannot introduce a new controversial clause, but the two Acts that the consolidation Act consolidated were controversial and the precedent set in the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974 is that followed in the 1978 Act. My hon. Friend cannot refer to the proposals of the 1974 Act because its provisions are no longer the law. The law was consolidated in the 1978 Act and my hon. Friend is therefore absolutely correct——
      Mr. Fatchett: I have listened with interest to the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett), although he did not participate in the debate earlier. Can he give the House some explanation of why the Minister of State did not refer to that argument either on Report or in Committee?
      Mr. Bennett: The hon. Gentleman has not sought to deny the point that I have just made, but he was wrong when he referred to the consolidation Act.
      The hon. Member for Yeovil also referred to the taking away of powers from local authorities. Surely what we are doing is giving to those people who have responsibility for the decisions the right to go to court if they are challenged. The governors will be responsible for the employment of teachers. Therefore, they must take legal responsibility for their actions. That is why we have sought in these amendments to ensure that the responsibility is now in the hands of the governors——
      Mr. Ashdown rose——
      Mr. Bennett: No, I shall not give way because I have to finish my point.
      Ms. Armstrong: In many senses this clause sums up the major problems that the Government have given themselves because of the powers that they are trying to take in the Bill. First, power is yet again centralised in the hands of the Secretary of State. As my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) said yesterday, the bogus argument that they are trying to give power to parents and local communities is belied by the fact that many more powers are being centralised by the Secretary of State.
      The second issue is that in this clause the Government are confusing the responsibilities of employer and manager. The Minister of State does not state who the employer is in this case. That question is left confused. The hon. Lady may think that the clause overrides employment law and makes managers responsible as employers, but she is leaving the responsibility for employment with the local education authorities and is changing the responsibility for management by giving it to the governing bodies.
      Thirdly, the management will be left without any clear knowledge of their financial responsibilities. What are the Government saying to teachers about their financial responsibilities and about those people whom the Government now say will manage their employment

      1045
      rights? Who will be financially liable for decisions taken by the governors? The Minister did not give us any answers tonight, or on Report or in Committee.
      Throughout the passage of the Bill the Government have sought to vilify teachers, but teachers have a right to know that their employment rights will be protected by the Secretary of State. Our amendment seeks to clarify that right, but the Minister seeks to deny it.
      We and the teachers want to know who will have financial liability and responsibility for the decisions that are made. More than that, teachers and parents have the right to know that basic employment rights, which have been fought for throughout generations, will be upheld by the Government. Failure to accept the amendment will mean that the Government are going against employment and democratic rights that have been fought for and secured. I hope that the Minister will take this opportunity to reassure not only the House, but the teaching profession.
      Mrs. Rumbold: I must repeat that we cannot accept this amendment because it would allow for the possibility of serious dispute. Some people might argue that just giving governors powers over staffing may necessarily entail some reduction of rights. However, I have already explained at some length this evening that there are two important constraints in the clause and I do not believe that it is necessary to add a third.
      The local education authority is clearly designated as the employer. The Bill gives powers to governors regarding staffing, but there is nothing wrong with that and I believe that the Opposition share that conviction. If we give governors such powers, we must also give them responsibility—that is the essence of clause 186.
      The worries and queries that were raised in the other place met with a consistent response. The reason we cannot accede to this amendment is that we cannot foresee now all the modifications to employment law that may be necessary in the light of financial delegation. Some issues may arise only in the light of experience and we cannot be sure that they would be met by the alternative formula that has been put to us or any other narrower formulation.
      We have thought hard about this clause and we believe that it would be irresponsible to make the provision any more narrow than it is already. I have already said that the clause is not open-ended and two important constraints are already built into the wording of the clause.
      I sincerely believe that the Opposition have done nothing tonight to improve the relationship between the teachers and themselves. I believe that it is essential to allay teachers' fears in the way I have described.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst) raised an important point to which the Government are sympathetic. He spoke about the aims of schools and that is especially important in view of' the impending open market in 1992.
      Certain aspects of the original clause require careful study and that is why we are recommending a modified version to the House. It retains the important provisions designating the category of school and requires the Secretary of State to provide information and to ask for appropriate information for inspection by Her Majesty's inspectorate. I urge the House to reject the Opposition amendment.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendment: No. 439, in page 166, line 36, at end insert
      "and subsections (1) and (3) of section (Costs of dismissal, premature retirement or voluntary severance).
      (3) Before making any order under this section, the Secretary of State shall consult—

      (a) such associations of local authorities;

      (b) such bodies representing the interests of governors of voluntary schools; and

      (c) such organisations representing staff in schools required to be covered by schemes under section 25 of this Act or institutions required to be covered by schemes under section 121 of this Act;

      as appear to him to be concerned."
      Read a Second time.
      Mr. Fatchett: I beg to move amendment (a) to the proposed Lords amendment, at end add
      'and no Order shall be made under this section which would operate to diminish the rights of employees, whether individually or collectively'.
      I ask the House to support the Minister's words.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 211, Noes 318.

      Division No. 424]

      [9.58 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Cunningham, Dr John

      Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Allen, Graham

      Darling, Alistair

      Alton, David

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

      Anderson, Donald

      Dewar, Donald

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Dixon, Don

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Dobson, Frank

      Ashdown, Paddy

      Doran, Frank

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

      Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

      Eadie, Alexander

      Barron, Kevin

      Eastham, Ken

      Battle, John

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Beckett, Margaret

      Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

      Beggs, Roy

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

      Beith, A. J.

      Fatchett, Derek

      Bell, Stuart

      Faulds, Andrew

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Fearn, Ronald

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

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Bermingham, Gerald

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

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Fisher, Mark

      Blair, Tony

      Flannery, Martin

      Boateng, Paul

      Flynn, Paul

      Boyes, Roland

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Bradley, Keith

      Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Foster, Derek

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      Fraser, John

      Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

      Fyfe, Maria

      Buchan, Norman

      Galbraith, Sam

      Buckley, George J.

      Galloway, George

      Caborn, Richard

      Garrett, John (Norwich South)

      Callaghan, Jim

      Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

      George, Bruce

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Canavan, Dennis

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

      Gordon, Mildred

      Cartwright, John

      Gould, Bryan

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Graham, Thomas

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Clay, Bob

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Clelland, David

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Grocott, Bruce

      Cohen, Harry

      Hardy, Peter

      Coleman, Donald

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Corbett, Robin

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Haynes, Frank

      Cousins, Jim

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Cryer, Bob

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Cummings, John

      Henderson, Doug

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Hinchliffe, David

      1047

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      O'Brien, William

      Holland, Stuart

      O'Neill, Martin

      Home Robertson, John

      Parry, Robert

      Hood, Jimmy

      Patchett, Terry

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Pike, Peter L.

      Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Prescott, John

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

      Radice, Giles

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Randall, Stuart

      Illsley, Eric

      Redmond, Martin

      Ingram, Adam

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

      John, Brynmor

      Reid, Dr John

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Richardson, Jo

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

      Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

      Kennedy, Charles

      Robertson, George

      Lambie, David

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Lamond, James

      Rogers, Allan

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Rooker, Jeff

      Leighton, Ron

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Rowlands, Ted

      Lewis, Terry

      Ruddock, Joan

      Litherland, Robert

      Salmond, Alex

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Loyden, Eddie

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      McAllion, John

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Short, Clare

      McCartney, Ian

      Skinner, Dennis

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      McKelvey, William

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

      McLeish, Henry

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

      McNamara, Kevin

      Soley, Clive

      McTaggart, Bob

      Spearing, Nigel

      McWilliam, John

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Madden, Max

      Strang, Gavin

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Straw, Jack

      Marek, Dr John

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Turner, Dennis

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Wall, Pat

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Wallace, James

      Martlew, Eric

      Walley, Joan

      Maxton, John

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Meacher, Michael

      Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

      Michael, Alun

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

      Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      Wilson, Brian

      Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

      Winnick, David

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Morley, Elliott

      Worthington, Tony

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Wray, Jimmy

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Mullin, Chris

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Murphy, Paul

      Mr. Robert N. Wareing and Mr. Frank Cook.

      Nellist, Dave

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Alexander, Richard

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Biggs-Davison, Sir John

      Allason, Rupert

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Amos, Alan

      Body, Sir Richard

      Arbuthnot, James

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Boswell, Tim

      Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

      Bottomley, Peter

      Ashby, David

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Atkins, Robert

      Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

      Atkinson, David

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      Bowis, John

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

      Baldry, Tony

      Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Batiste, Spencer

      Brazier, Julian

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Bright, Graham

      Bellingham, Henry

      Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

      Bendall, Vivian

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      1048

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

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Browne, John (Winchester)

      Hannam, John

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

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

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Burns, Simon

      Harris, David

      Burt, Alistair

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Butcher, John

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Butler, Chris

      Hayes, Jerry

      Butterfill, John

      Hayward, Robert

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Carrington, Matthew

      Heddle, John

      Carttiss, Michael

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

      Cash, William

      Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

      Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Chapman, Sydney

      Hill, James

      Chope, Christopher

      Hind, Kenneth

      Churchill, Mr

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

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

      Holt, Richard

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Howard, Michael

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

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

      Colvin, Michael

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Conway, Derek

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Cope, Rt Hon John

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Cormack, Patrick

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Couchman, James

      Hunter, Andrew

      Cran, James

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Critchley, Julian

      Irvine, Michael

      Curry, David

      Irving, Charles

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

      Jack, Michael

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Jackson, Robert

      Day, Stephen

      Janman, Tim

      Devlin, Tim

      Jessel, Toby

      Dicks, Terry

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Dover, Den

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Dunn, Bob

      Key, Robert

      Durant, Tony

      Kilfedder, James

      Dykes, Hugh

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Evennett, David

      Knapman, Roger

      Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Fallon, Michael

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Farr, Sir John

      Knowles, Michael

      Favell, Tony

      Knox, David

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Lang, Ian

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Latham, Michael

      Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Fishburn, John Dudley

      Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

      Forman, Nigel

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Forth, Eric

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

      Lightbown, David

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Lilley, Peter

      Franks, Cecil

      Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

      Freeman, Roger

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      French, Douglas

      Lord, Michael

      Fry, Peter

      Luce, Rt Hon Richard

      Gale, Roger

      Lyell, Sir Nicholas

      Gardiner, George

      McCrindle, Robert

      Gill, Christopher

      Macfarlane, Sir Neil

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Maclean, David

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Gorst, John

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

      Gow, Ian

      McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

      Gower, Sir Raymond

      Madel, David

      Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Malins, Humfrey

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Mans, Keith

      Gregory, Conal

      Maples, John

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Marland, Paul

      Grist, Ian

      Marlow, Tony

      Ground, Patrick

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Mates, Michael

      1049

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Mellor, David

      Rost, Peter

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Rowe, Andrew

      Miller, Sir Hal

      Rumbold, Mrs Angela

      Mills, Iain

      Ryder, Richard

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Sainsbury, Hon Tim

      Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Moate, Roger

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Moore, Rt Hon John

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Morris, M (N'hampton S)

      Shersby, Michael

      Morrison, Sir Charles

      Sims, Roger

      Mudd, David

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Neale, Gerrard

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Nelson, Anthony

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Neubert, Michael

      Speed, Keith

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Squire, Robin

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Stern, Michael

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Stevens, Lewis

      Page, Richard

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Paice, James

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Patnick, Irvine

      Stokes, Sir John

      Patten, Chris (Bath)

      Stradling Thomas, Sir John

      Pawsey, James

      Sumberg, David

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Summerson, Hugo

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Portillo, Michael

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Price, Sir David

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Rathbone, Tim

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Redwood, John

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Renton, Tim

      Thorne, Neil

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Riddick, Graham

      Thurnham, Peter

      Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

      1050

      Tracey, Richard

      Wells, Bowen

      Tredinnick, David

      Whitney, Ray

      Trippier, David

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Trotter, Neville

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Wilkinson, John

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Wilshire, David

      Viggers, Peter

      Wolfson, Mark

      Waddington, Rt Hon David

      Wood, Timothy

      Wakeham, Rt Hon John

      Woodcock, Mike

      Waldegrave, Hon William

      Yeo, Tim

      Walden, George

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Waller, Gary

      Walters, Sir Dennis

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Ward, John

      Mr. Robert Boscawen and Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Warren, Kenneth

      Question accordingly negatived.
      It being after Ten o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to order [18 July], to put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at that hour.
      Lords amendment No. 439 agreed to.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): I am satisfied that Lords amendment No. 442 imposes a charge upon the public revenue not authorised by a resolution of the House and therefore, under paragraph 3 of Standing Order No. 76, the Lords amendment is deemed to be disagreed to.
      Amendment (a) made to the Bill, in lieu of Lords amendment No. 442 disagreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 440 and 441 and 443 to 447 agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 448 to 475 agreed to, some with Special entry.
      Lords amendments Nos. 477 to 479 and 481 to 536 agreed to, some with Special entry.
      Lords amendments Nos. 540 to 556 and 558 to 569

      Housing
      10.15 pm
      Mrs. Margaret Beckett: I beg to move,
      That the Housing Benefit (General) Amendment No. 2 Regulations 1988 (S.I., 1988, No. 909), dated 19th May 1988, a copy of which was laid before this House on 19th May, be revoked.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this we are to discuss the two motions on social security:
      That the Family Credit (General) Amendment No. 2 Regulations 1988 (S.I., 1988, No. 908), dated 19th May 1988, a copy of which was laid before this House on 19th May, be revoked.
      That the Income Support (General) Amendment No. 2 Regulations 1988 (S.I., 1988, No. 910) dated 19th May 1988, a copy of which was laid before this House on 19th May, be revoked.
      Mrs. Beckett: The motions have been tabled to allow the House to explore the impact of the massive cuts that the Government made in April in the living standards of those in the poorest and most vulnerable groups in our society. I think that it would help the House if I made it clear at the outset that, although the Opposition hoped to be able to focus attention on the Government's record, we do not intend to jeopardise the meagre concessions that the Government are prepared to make by voting against the regulations, even though they do not go far enough and even though there is much that they omit.
      I think that it was my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) who observed in our most recent debate on these matters that the benefit reforms trumpeted as setting the scene for the next 40 years have not survived the test of the first 40 days. The nature of the Government's climbdown when they were forced into retreat was revealing. It was made clear that it was not the decisions that the Government had made or the savage impact of the cuts on young and old alike but the political reaction that the Government regretted. The Secretary of State was refreshingly clear about the Government's intention. He told the House that the cuts were not an error. He chided his own Back-Bench Members—and by implication slightly chided the Chair—for not having taken in over the past three years the Government's clear policy and hard-headed, not to say hard-hearted, decisions on the matter. The Secretary of State was a trifle unfair to Conservative Back Benchers who seemed—the triumph of hope over experience—not only to see party advantage in praising their Government but to believe the guff pressed into their eager hands by the Government Whips' Office.
      We observed the spectacle of Conservative Back Benchers asking how the Government could keep talking about reducing dependency and encouraging people back into work when rule changes on work expenses could cost them £20 to £30 a week and why, if the Government were targeting help on those with the greatest need, the most severely disabled were potentially and actually among the greatest losers.
      The Opposition had been seeking answers to those questions for the preceding three years—answers which were not forthcoming then but which in effect are forthcoming now as the Government have rushed with unseemly haste to paper over the cracks. I hope that Conservative Members and the media will take careful
      1052
      note when we begin to identify the holes in the limited protection that the Government refused to give until forced to do so but for which they now demand praise.
      In essence, the regulations deal with some of the concessions made by the Government on housing benefit cuts. The Government—by design, as the Secretary of State told us—cut the housing benefit case load by 1 million. That is Central Office—speak for removing all entitlement to housing benefit from 1 million people.
      Let me remind the House of the kind of people for whom the Government felt help with housing cost was not justified: 70,000 pensioners over the age of 80; 540,000 other pensioners; 10,000 of the sick and disabled; 70,000 lone parents; 180,000 couples with children and 120,000 others. They made up the Government's million-strong caseload.
      Conservative Members—for example, last week in our debate on the elderly—tend to focus on those with savings of near or above £6,000, but they are unlikely to be the majority affected either by a total loss of housing benefit or by a severe reduction in the amount of money that they receive. That is clear, because the Government's concession on capital limits brings only 100,000 of that 1 million, most of them pensioners, back into the scheme. Looking at the others who are affected—the sick, the lone parents and the disabled—I seriously doubt that many of them have over £8,000 in the bank.
      Of the 7 million or 5 million losers from the Government's housing benefit cuts, the vast majority are losers, not from the capital limit, not because they have substantial savings, but because of the harsh rate of withdrawal of benefit from anyone with an income even slightly above the poverty line. That is the area that is dealt with primarily by the extra-statutory arrangements to which I shall refer.
      The changes in procedures for assessing capital are, in general, common to all the regulations. We welcome those changes. We are glad that, after all, the Government will not deprive people of all entitlement to benefit because, for example, they have a home that is on the market but from which the proceeds may not be available for a considerable time. We are relieved that the Government have taken account of the consequences of marital discord or domestic violence, but I ask the Minister to tell us why the Government tried to debar people from claiming benefit in those circumstances, in the first place. After all, it was in the package of changes following the Social Security Act 1986 that, for example, an elderly person going into residential care was deprived of benefit in that way. That is a change brought in by the Government from which they have now retreated. It has never been clear what justification other than savings could underlie such changes. I should be interested—perhaps the word is astonished—to hear the Minister justify that.
      Not all the features of the regulations are common. For example, the increased capital limit applies only to housing benefit. Why? I should not have thought that the numbers who would lose income support or family credit because they had capital of over £6,000 would be large. Again, I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us why, only a few days after the introduction of schemes where cuts and restrictions have been justified by the need for common provision and common rules, a concession has to breach that grand design and is not carried into each of the schemes.

      1053
      Will the Minister confirm that, because of the assumed tariff income from savings well above the return on capital that most people would expect, there will still be substantial losses of benefit even among those whose entitlement is restored by the regulations? Will the hon. Gentleman clarify the way in which the increased capital limit will apply? The regulations refer to the limit being raised only from 30 May, not from the beginning of April when the cuts began to bite. Is it intended that the period from the beginning of April to 30 May will be covered by the extra-statutory scheme, or not at all? If it is covered, does that mean that that period will be covered only for the limited number of groups to which the extra-statutory scheme, in other ways and in general, applies?
      Furthermore, it was suggested to me only today that unless an application under the regulations is made by 31 July—in other words, next week—the higher limit will certainly apply only after 30 May. As I understand it, that is not mentioned in the leaflets or advertisements that have been issued. I should be grateful if the Minister would tell us whether that is so. If it is true that people have to apply before next week to get the full concession, why is the time limit being imposed, why has nobody been told about it, and are there any other time limits that we have not been warned of?
      I now refer to other aspects of the transitional protection scheme which, as I have just described, interact to an extent. My concern about the time limits is heightened by the answer that was given yesterday to my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) by the Under-Secretary of State about the progress in dealing with applications. The answer said that inquiry forms are being sent out to local authorities at the rate of 4,500 a day. That does not sound too bad, except that if the Government's extremely misleading propaganda on the generosity of the transitional protection scheme is believed, and 5 million losers apply, it would take three years just to deal with that aspect of the process.
      Of course, that is only one part of the chain. Someone must have written to the Glasgow unit, which is now inquiring of the local authority. The local authority must fill in a complicated form and return it to Glasgow, and only after those answers have been assessed will any payment be forthcoming, if at all.
      According to the Minister's answer, only a tiny number of cases has been assessed so far, and I note that 50 per cent. of those have been rejected. I know that that is not remotely a statistical sample, but the Opposition believe that substantial numbers of those who apply, confident—as, sadly, because of the propaganda so many of them are—that the Government cannot have meant to deprive them of this money, will be ineligible. In the meantime, some will be running up debts that they will find extremely hard to meet, especially if they believe the much-touted figure of £2·50.
      Will the Minister tell us why any of them have to apply? Have the Government approached the local authorities to ask them to identify from their records all who might be eligible—perhaps with the Government covering the cost? If not, why not? I am told that some authorities are undertaking such a task. Of their own volition, they are scrutinising their records to identify everyone who might be eligible. Are the Government taking any steps to deal with that? It would be the height of absurdity if a local authority found out who was eligible in its area and then had to ask people to make a formal application to the local
      1054
      authority so that the normal procedure could be carried out. Has the Department made any changes in its procedure in this regard?
      I wonder why people will have to apply. On 13 July, my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam) was given an interesting answer on the way in which the scheme is administered by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive or the Department of the Environment, as appropriate. She was told:
      "As far as possible both organisations will identify housing benefit losers likely to qualify for transitional payments and will issue invitations to them to apply. A leaflet will also be made available … for any housing benefit loser who has not been contacted by the end of August and thinks he or she may qualify."—[Official Report, 13 July 1988; Vol. 137, c. 257.]
      Given the general deprivation in Northern Ireland, I should have thought that proportionally more people there received housing benefit than receive it in the United Kingdom. If it is possible for the relevant authorities in Northern Ireland to process the claims, and it need not be done by the individual applicants, why can that not be done in the rest of the United Kingdom?
      While we consider the circumstances of those who will be shielded from the full effects of the losses that the Government intended them to suffer, perhaps the House will not forget those for whom even this limited protection is not on offer—those who are not in the target groups, or those whose losses, even at £6, £7 or £10 a week, are not enough for them to qualify for protection, because to the £2·50, which the Government believe to be an acceptable level of loss, must be added their water rates and rent increases, bringing them up to sums such as I have quoted.
      At Question Time on 14 June the Minister of State gave me an answer that could be misleading on the future of the scheme. I asked him to confirm that transitional protection of housing benefit—about which the Government have bragged since we made them introduce it, and I have no doubt that the Minister will again praise the Government's wisdom tonight—will be eroded by next year's rent increases. If those increases are as substantial as the Secretary of State for the Environment is demanding under the Housing Bill, many hundreds of thousands—perhaps millions—will have either no extra money but a large extra bill, or will have their transitional protection wiped out altogether. Will the Minister tell me clearly what will be the impact on the scheme that we are discussing of rent increases in the coming year?
      It gives the Opposition no satisfaction to have been right about the pain and suffering that the Government are deliberately inflicting. It gives us even less satisfaction to realise that, at best, the savage cuts that the Government have made are to be phased in, not made immediately. They are not being stopped altogether. When I hear in debate the same justification for the cuts, I cannot but remember the articles in last weekend's papers and previously about how the Treasury is awash with money and how in a year or so the Chancellor may even be able to abolish income tax. I have listened to Department of Trade and Industry Ministers telling us what a rich and successful country we are, but when I listen to the debates on social security and on housing benefits, I wonder what kind of society the Government are trying to build.
      As the war pensioners affected by the cuts will testify, some 70,000 of the over-80s are affected by the cuts. Whatever else the Government are trying to build, there is no doubt that this is not a country fit for heroes to live in. which they promised long ago.
      10.31 pm
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Michael Portillo): We are tonight debating a series of proposals to amend the means-related social security benefits, all of which are entirely beneficial to claimants. I had assumed, before the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) started speaking, that we were not debating them tonight so that the Opposition would vote against them because that would have been absurd from their point of view. I suspected, correctly, that we were debating them so that the Opposition could carp again about the social security reforms that we carried out and they could, as ever, oscillitate between, on the one hand, depicting the Government as being uncaring and unhearing, and, on the other, seeking to mock us for the sensible adjustments that we have made because of the difficulties that we recognised.
      Mr. Dave Nellist: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Portillo: It is rather early in my speech. Why does not the hon. Gentleman seek to intervene in a moment when I will be happy to give way?
      As we have heard a lot about the ill effects of the reforms and, since the reforms were brought into effect, the theme has been alleged administrative chaos, I will put the record straight on some of the achievements of the reforms.
      The reforms mean extra help for families with children, better work incentives, and a system that is simpler and easier to understand and to administer. The reforms mean that nearly 90 per cent. of those affected have seen a cash gain or no change in their entitlement. The reforms have swept away many of the anomalies of the old system.
      Operationally, the conversion exercise for the six million supplementary benefit cases that needed to be converted to income support was completed on time in all but a handful of our local offices. In housing benefit the conversion went well. I take the House back to 23 March when we were debating our regulations that would enable local authorities to make payments on account where they might have difficulty in converting on time. I remind the House that on that occasion the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) was a prophet of doom and referred to our reforms as being on a "hurried and impossible timescale". He predicted that a large number of authorities would not implement our scheme on time.
      I would never accuse the hon. Gentleman, or the hon. Member for Derby, South, or their hon. Friends, of undue reticence, but it has been significant that since 1 April the dog has not barked, because we have not been told by a significant number of local authorities that they have been in any great difficulties, despite reports that, on top of their other commitments, local authorities were being asked to give up time to answer the hon. Gentleman's questionnaire. That attempt to stir up despondency appears to have failed. The local authority associations have acknowledged that most authorities have implemented on time. We acknowledge, very gladly, that local authorities have put in a great deal of work to achieve that, and we give all credit to them, but I fear no credit, as ever, to the Opposition, who have been, as always, making bricks without straw and on this occasion for the purpose of hurling them, rather than for any constructive purpose.
      Mr. Nellist: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell me whether my question falls within the definition of the word "carping" that he used. He may be aware that on 12 April I asked the Prime Minister about the specific case of a woman who had a £1·65 increase in her widowed mother's pension, but had lost £13 in free school meals, and who with the housing benefit cuts will now have lost a total of about £15 to £16—yet this is supposed to help families with children. The Prime Minister said in column 18 of Hansard that 5 million people are gaining, 2 million have no change and 1 million have a decrease. Is he aware that in Coventry the council has examined all the cases and 4,000 people have gained and 20,500 have lost? How does Coventry's experience square with the figures that the Prime Minister gave or, indeed, with the complacent attitude shown by the Minister so far? How are my constituents, and those of other "carping" Labour Members, supposed to manage after the cuts that have taken place since April?
      Mr. Portillo: I do not recall the details of the case that the hon. Gentleman raised on 12 April, but it sounds as though the person he was talking about was on family credit and had children. If that person suffered a large loss in housing benefit, he or she would be eligible for transitional payments, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will urge his constituent to apply on form RR4.
      We have been through the argument about the number of gainers and losers many times. Our figures are based on national representative samples under the family expenditure survey—a data source that has been used by Governments of different parties for many years. Most respectable commentators understand that the family expenditure survey is the most reliable source of data. I am afraid to say that I do not believe that samples conducted by local authorities match up to it in terms of reliability.
      Mr. Nellist: Unless I am mistaken, the Minister is talking about a survey that is not done every year. I am talking about an actual analysis of 25,000 individual cases registered in the housing benefit section of the local authority, not a survey. I am talking about 25,000 real people of whom 20,500 have lost and only 4,000 have gained.
      Mr. Portillo: I understood the hon. Gentleman the first time. Our difficulty with a number of local surveys is that they have statistical errors in them. The family expenditure survey is a nationally based survey and its reliability has never before been questioned by Opposition Members.
      Mr. Charles Kennedy: Will the Minister clarify that response? Of 25,000 people in the hon. Gentleman's constituency examined by the local authority, only 4,000 have gained and more than 20,000 have lost. What is the statistical error there?
      Mr. Portillo: I have no means of determining how the figures were calculated or what information was fed in. The hon. Gentleman, who is a student of these matters, will know that the family expenditure survey is conducted nationally and that it has always been regarded as reliable. Opposition Members have never questioned it before.
      These amendments to the regulations for needs-related benefits are entirely beneficial to claimants and are a direct response to the issues raised by hon. Members and by outside bodies. They reflect the Government's determination to ease the transition from the old benefit system to

      1057
      the new for the minority of people in vulnerable groups who suffered a cash loss. I should explain the detail of the regulations, and I shall start with the Housing Benefit (General) Amendment No. 2 Regulations 1988, which are perhaps the most important.
      The main change is, as the hon. Member for Derby, South said, an increase in the capital limit on housing benefit from £6,000 to £8,000. It brings about 100,000 people back into housing benefit at a cost to the taxpayer of some £35 million. I was rather surprised to hear the hon. Lady ask why we have not increased the limit on income support further still. She will know that the limit of £6,000 on income support is double what the limit was on supplementary benefit and that the two are quite different. In one we are talking about a generous increase in the capital limit, and in the other we are talking about introducing a capital limit for the first time. We have tried to decide on the best place for that limit and believe that £8,000 is a reasonable level at which to introduce it.
      We moved quickly to help the small group of people whose housing benefit was stopped in April because they had an interest in property, which was not their home, worth more than the capital limit. The provision was intended to ensure that an abuse which had been allowed to exist unchecked in the supplementary benefit scheme was not carried forward into housing benefit. Before April, substantial investments in property were often disregarded for years with little or no effort being made to realise them, while taxpayers' money cushioned the owners.
      Mrs. Beckett: That is a rather strange point. The Government have reinstated the original position. They may have slightly tightened up the wording, but have done nothing significant. The Minister is saying that in the past officers of his Department ignored the provisions that allowed them to take account of the possibility of a sale for a reasonable time, but that, in future, they will not ignore that. The Minister is giving us not a justification, but an excuse for a climb-down.
      Mr. Portillo: There we go again. The hon. Lady wishes to depict everything in terms of whether it is a climb-down. There was abuse under the old system. The new system makes it clear that the property should be sold within six months, or a longer period if there is genuine difficulty. That is a reasonable position and I am surprised to find the hon. Lady still criticising that point.
      Mr. Jim Cousins: Does the Minister accept that, under the old housing benefit system, capital was fully taken into account by its income effect? The interest that it generated was included in the income assessment. The Minister has not only introduced a capital limit in housing benefit for the first time, but has subjected that capital sum to the full horrors of the tariff income schedule, previously limited to supplementary benefit, whereby interest is notionally generated from those capital sums at rates far higher than could reasonably have obtained anywhere on the market.
      Mr. Portillo: We have introduced a capital limit because we believe that, if one has more than £8,000 in the bank, there is no reason why one should receive help from other taxpayers, who may have no savings at all, to pay one's rent and rates. The calculations that the hon. Gentleman and others do regarding the rates of interest often leave out the fact that the first £3,000 is exempt. It is
      1058
      a tariff income. It is not meant to represent the rate of interest on the market. It is a way of gradually easing people away from housing benefit until the cut-off applies at £8,000.
      We recognise that the change introduced in April was too dramatic; it did not protect those people who were experiencing real difficulties in selling their property. That is why we have introduced the changes that I have explained to the hon. Member for Derby, South.
      We have also provided in these regulations for a disregard on housing benefit of all the payments made by the Secretary of State from the transitional payments unit. This gives me the opportunity to say something about that, which I know that the hon. Lady will welcome.
      My right hon. Friend announced the housing benefit transitional payment arrangements on 27 April. Transitional payments are designed to help those in vulnerable groups who saw too sharp a drop in their housing benefit at the point of change in April. The vast majority of payments will be made to those with incomes above income support levels, as those on income support will continue to receive the maximum help available. Because of the way the new housing benefit system works, those people who have income above their income support level, receiving help with their rents and rates, will still he better off having met their housing costs than they would be on income support, whether they are in work or out of work. The issue is not about reducing their income below income support level but about the sharpness of the reduction in their housing benefit. That is an important distinction.
      In many cases the reduction has occurred because a local authority scheme previously paid benefit at a higher level than the national scheme. The transitional payments cover such cases, where that discretion has now gone, to ease the change. But the basic decision to move away from local schemes must be right if we are not to go on paying quite different rates of weekly benefit to people in identical circumstances, depending solely on where they happen to live, week in and week out. I find that hard to defend.
      Mr. Cousins: The Minister has now made a diversionary attack on local authorities over their local supplement to the old housing benefit scheme. Will he tell us how much of the total sum of money paid in the last financial year under housing benefit was accounted for by the marginal variations that local authorities were able to build into their local housing benefit schemes? Was it 1 per cent., ½ per cent. or 1½ per cent. of the total spend?
      Mr. Portillo: The hon. Gentleman is being absurd. There has been a great fuss by Opposition Members about the abolition of the local schemes. What I said was not an attack on local schemes. If we wish to produce a fair system, we have to recognise that different rates of benefit paid to people in identical circumstances in different places, week in and week out, simply because of where they live, is not a fair system. We have recognised, in making the reductions, that those reductions have proved too sharp for some and we are stepping in with transitional protection.
      As for the amounts, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) will recall that the maximum amount was 10 per cent. of the total housing

      1059
      benefit that the local authority spent in that district. Some local authorities will have been closer to that limit than others.
      There will be a few cases where people on income support may have seen a drop in their cash entitlement due to detailed changes in the rules governing fuel and service charges and non-dependant deductions. Those people will also be eligible for transitional payments on the same basis as everyone else.
      There have been just 11 weeks since April during which my Department has set up an entirely new unit in Glasgow to deal with applications on a national basis. We have found the buildings and equipped them. We have recruited and trained staff. We have developed procedures for calculating and awarding the payments. In conjunction with local authorities, we have devised a simple inquiry form for them to fill in to provide the unit with all the necessary information. We have issued three separate circulars to local authorities keeping them informed of all the changes. We are negotiating a financial settlement for their administrative costs.
      By the end of last week, the unit had received nearly 20,000 written inquiries, and nearly 87,000 applications. It has sent out nearly 27,000 inquiries to local authorities, and those are now going out at the rate of 4,500 a day. Naturally, the speed with which those can be translated into payments will depend in part on how quickly the local authorities can process those inquiries.
      We have always made it clear that the unit would not be fully operational until July, and with the first payments having been made on 14 July, I think we have more than kept faith with those whom the scheme was designed to help.
      We have carried out one national press publicity campaign and another will run for two weeks from 28 July. The advertisements will include a cut-out coupon to enable people to obtain application forms through our freepost service. This is, of course, in addition to the freeline service which has been running since 5 May specifically to provide help and advice about the transitional payments scheme and which has been used extensively by Members of Parliament advisers, local authorities and applicants.
      The hon. Lady said that she is concerned about the number of people who may be turned down and that people may apply when they do not qualify. I am amazed by what she said. I should have thought that she would have welcomed the fact that we were advertising widely and that people should apply. If more people apply than turn out to be qualified, that is still a good thing, because it leads us to believe that we are covering the ground.
      Some local authorities can sift their applications. If they do so, that will help the process, but due to the systems which they use, not all local authorities have that capability.
      Mrs. Beckett: The Minister either has misunderstood me or is hoping to misrepresent what I said. We do not want people to have to apply. We do not understand why they have to apply. They do not have to apply in Northern Ireland, and they do not have to apply in all local authority areas. We do not understand why the Department cannot do something to ensure that the process is more automatic and not dependent on the individual.
      1060
      We are also concerned that much of the Government's propaganda, far from being designed to encourage people to apply, is designed to encourage people to imagine that they will lose only £2·50. That is extremely misleading and liable to lead people to think that they will get money back when they will not, even if they qualify for transitional protection. That is what concerns us and it ought to concern the Minister.
      Mr. Portillo: The hon. Lady has to be realistic. When the measure was announced, it was certainly explained to the House that the £2·50 applied to losses in housing benefit and not to rises in rents that occurred on 1 April.
      If the hon. Lady is saying that we should take space in national newspapers to spell out exactly how the scheme will work, with all the caveats included, and she does not believe that that will put off claimants from applying, I am very surprised. The strategy must be to have simple advertisements that encourage people to apply in case they may be eligible, and we shall make the assessment. I am sure that that is the right approach.
      The hon. Lady was concerned about transitional protection for those who had capital sums of between £6,000 and £8,000. The transitional protection will again apply to the vulnerable groups. People can continue to apply for help beyond 31 July, but the full amount of transitional protection will not run beyond that point. They will not be disqualified from applying. The transitional protection will run from the beginning of April until 31 July for those who apply after 31 July. The date of 31 July is not a cut-off point for the receipt of applications. I hope that I have made that point clear.
      Far from being apologetic about the time that we have taken, I would argue that in a short time the Department has done a tremendous amount to set up the unit. This has been a considerable achievement. I am not apologetic about the fact that we took on this job. The Opposition's approach has been to ask why we did not ask the local authorities to do the job, but as the Opposition also spend their time telling us about the onerous burdens that we have heaped upon housing benefit departments over the past few months, they can hardly object when the Government decide to take on the job of receiving the applications and of making the payments, a task which may go on for a long time.
      The final provision in the housing benefit regulations is to introduce a disregard of payments made to compensate for the loss of housing benefit and of certain premiums which are payable to people taking part in employment and training schemes. That mirrors provisions already in income support and family credit and seeks to ensure that there will be a satisfactory incentive for people to join such schemes.
      The Income Support (General) Amendment No. 2 Regulations are also related to the announcement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 27 April. The introduction of income support caused difficulties for certain small groups of former supplementary benefit recipients. The regulations contain the statutory improvements that we have provided. One is to provide the same concessions for income support recipients as in housing benefit for those who are taking steps to sell their properties. The regulations ensure that those claimants who lost benefit at the point of change get the transitional protection to which they would otherwise have been entitled. In addition, we have enhanced the transitional

      1061
      protection rules so that certain people temporarily away from home when income support was introduced can now get the transitional protection that they would have got but for their absence.
      The Family Credit (General) Amendment No. 2 Regulations deal only with the introduction of the new disregards of certain types of property in calculating a claimant's capital. The provisions are the same as those in the housing benefit and income support amending regulations and, again, are entirely beneficial.
      I spent some time on the detail of the regulations because I wanted to demonstrate that everything that we are doing is of benefit to claimants. The Opposition's attempts to portray the benefit changes in April as cuts have failed. We shall be spending more this year than if the old system had continued. The Opposition's claims that the Government would prove stubborn and unwilling to contemplate change have been shown to be a myth. We took steps within a few days of the changes, for example, to help battered wives leaving home, and on 27 April we announced a number of changes, in particular to introduce transitional protection for certain housing benefit claimants.
      1062
      Three months after the reforms, I believe that the system is settling down well. Our rapid response to problems in the new system has dealt with most of the serious problems. We are certainly prepared to watch carefully for any future signs of practical problems and to act where necessary.
      Mr. Nellist: The Minister's nose is growing.
      Mr. Portillo: The hon. Gentleman may miss something if he does not keep quiet.
      I have today announced another small change, but one of importance to those affected, in the treatment of charitable payments to people receiving housing benefit or income support. We intend that such payments should, in due course, be treated as adding to a person's capital, but not as constituting income, in the assessment of benefit. I believe that that will be welcome to the House.
      It is in that spirit, assuring the House of the Government's willingness to examine carefully the results of all the recent changes, that I commend the statutory instruments to the House. I very much hope that the House will not divide when all that is at stake is of benefit to claimants.
      10.53 pm
      Mr. Charles Kennedy: This is yet another late-night debate on housing benefit changes. It is appropriate that the phrase "transitional protection" should have been used so much by the Minister. Housing benefit—whatever its guise under successive changes by the Government—is in constant transition. The Government appear to be for ever changing the system and going from one transitional period to another, but for many years for claimants and those dependent on the system there has been difficulty, complexity and abject misery.
      The Minister began by welcoming the fact that a Division seemed unlikely, and said that it would have been absurd for the Opposition to seek one. Let me put to him the linguistic logic of his proposition. If it would have been absurd for us to divide on these measures, how absurd was it that the measures were necessary, given the Government's original position? It is, to say the least, slightly disingenuous of the Minister to suggest that Opposition Members and, I suspect, some of his hon. Friends—I am thinking particularly of the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle)—may not be exactly gushing in their enthusiasm. I refer not to the concessions announced tonight but to the underlying reality of the scheme, which will persist despite those concessions. That is at the heart of the matter, and it will be interesting to hear the views of Conservative Back Benchers.
      The Minister says that we should welcome the crumbs that are being thrown, and to an extent we do. The fact remains, however, that although the capital limit has risen from £6,000 to £8,000 it will still catch many people. Moreover, many of us find the method by which the capital limit has been introduced offensive and unacceptable.
      I remind the Minister of our recent debate on pensioners, when I moved the motion to which he replied. Before he tries to submerge himself completely beneath the DHSS halo that he has been wearing tonight, let me say that any Government movement on the capital limit came about only because of the damage that many Conservative Back Benchers thought was being done to their people. We often hear the phrase "not one of us" in connection with the Government, but the simple fact is that many Conservative Back Benchers realised that the capital limit introduced in the original scheme would hit hitherto true-blue loyal Tory voters. That was the source of the head of steam for change, and that is why the Government moved with such alacrity. I am pleased that they did move, but I emphasise the motive behind the movement. It was self-interest related to votes in Tory Back Benchers' constituencies, rather than a genuine desire to ease the plight of those affected by the change.
      I do not know how the Minister, when he talked about the transitional payments unit in Glasgow, could say what he did with a straight face—and he has a straighter face than most at the DHSS nowadays. How could he say that it was an outstanding example of the Department's achievement? The Department has bought the computers and found the furniture. No doubt it has advertised in the press for cleaners to make sure that nothing is left lying on the floor at night. The staff—said the Minister, with a straight face—have been trained to run the unit. I do not know which DHSS staff he has been talking to. The
      1064
      permanent staff in the DHSS regional offices do not feel that they are yet au fait with the changes. Which staff have been trained? The SAS of the DHSS must have been drafted in.
      The Minister knows as well as the rest of us that the staff have been bewailing the changes, in many instances as loudly as the claimants who have lost from them. When he is so laudatory about the transitional payments unit, he should listen to what I can tell him from a constituency surgery of a week ago. Many of my constituents are pensioners living in Scottish Special Housing Association accommodation, and they do not know what is going to happen. They have filled up forms and sent them off to the office in Glasgow. The local citizens advice bureau cannot tell them what is going to happen; nor can the local authority, because it is not sure.
      The Minister may talk about his advertising campaign in the newspapers, but for many of the most vulnerable and anxious—pensioners who have never been in debt in their lives and hate the prospect—the issue has not been clarified so far. They are not sure what the future will hold.
      I particularly underscore the point made by the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) that the £2·50 cushion, or limit, refers only to a loss of housing benefit; it does not cover the broad sweep of loss. The fact remains that many of the people who think, albeit in back-dated fashion, that they will now receive a cushion are still under the erroneous impression that it will cover loss as a result of the totality of the changes and not the narrowly drawn sphere to which the Minister has referred.
      I do not intend to say any more except that any change is welcome, but the Minister should not complain too much that the Opposition remain critical. We were critical throughout the transition of the original legislation in the previous Parliament. Warnings came from everybody from the Social Security Advisory Committee to pressure groups throughout the land who had commented on the original proposals. Therefore, to say that we are wrong in continuing to criticise is unfounded.
      This is not a matter for division, but the basic anomalies, flaws and injustices in the system remain and the Minister bears a responsibility in replying to that reality later.
      11.1 pm
      Mr. Robert McCrindle: I heard what the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) said he expected of me if I caught your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I hope that I shall not disappoint him, because, although we have heard some criticism from Opposition Benches, the House will recall that I was, and, indeed remain to some extent, a critic of the changes. I was not a critic who suddenly discovered the impact of the changes in 1988, but, if I may partially in self-justification remind the House, one who has been critical in anticipation of the measure over the past two or three years, indeed ever since the Fowler review.
      In particular, the House will recall that I was at the forefront of the campaign just a few short weeks ago which aimed to increase the £6,000 capital disregard. It would be churlish if I did not start by saying that I am prepared to welcome the increase that is embodied in one of the sets of amendments on the Order Paper. That was a successful

      1065
      campaign and Conservative Back Benchers can claim credit for having persuaded the Government that the proposed £6,000 capital limit was too low.
      The hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye seemed to think that he had discovered some great truth when he said that part of the reason why some of us took that line was because we were fearful that the proposal would affect some of our traditional supporters. In so far as this is a time for confession, let me be frank and say that the hon. Gentleman is right. I perceived that it would have an impact on some of the people on whom I have relied for election after election. I have no apology to make to the House for that.
      Mr. Kennedy: I am grateful to the hon. Gentlemen for the candid nature of his comments. My criticism is levelled not at him or indeed his colleagues on the Back Benches, but at the Minister who sought to deny that very point when I raised it in a debate on pensioners in the House last week. He said that nothing could be further from the truth.
      Mr. McCrindle: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. Perhaps we could find common ground not only across the Floor but between the Conservative Back and Front Benches if I say that, although that was undoubtedly in my mind, and will remain in my mind, so, too, was the recollection that for years, ever since I became a Member of the House, I have been extolling the virtues of thrift. I have been telling people that self-reliance was something to which we should all aspire. I have long taken the view that if one can avoid the necessity of relying on state assistance, that is something to be proud of. Although it cannot possibly be the lot of everybody in this country to be able to do so, those who have been able to accumulate a nest egg are to be congratulated.
      I took the view that to penalise thrift, which is what the earlier low limit suggested, was the wrong way to go about things. I repeat that I have been saying that for a long period and not just for a short time. Therefore, it was agreeable to find that after a few years of not being listened to quite as acutely as I would wish, there was a sudden upsurge of support.
      Although in the announcement at the end of April we moved to a capital cut-off limit of £8,000 rather than £6,000, which I welcome, I do not find that limit supremely generous. When the announcement was finally made by the Secretary of State, I pressed for a figure of £10,000. Even now I do not consider that £10,000 is a vast sum in 1988. Although this is not a subject on which we can achieve a result tonight, I advise my hon. Friend the Minister that even if we were to think only in terms of a couple, raising the figure to £10,000 at some time in the future would not be taking it too far. I have never understood why a single person and a married couple are allocated the same figure, which, I am pleased to say, has now been increased to £8,000. I leave that thought with the Minister for when the scheme is next reviewed, and assure him that I shall be pressing for it to be so reviewed as time goes by.
      Having congratulated the Government on moving in that direction, I should like to focus on a point which has been made by several Opposition Members and was touched on by the Minister. In addition to the announcement that the capital cut-off was being increased from £6,000 to £8,000, the impression was given—I shall not put it any higher—that as a result of the changes no
      1066
      one would be worse off by more than £2·50 per week. I understand all the qualifications that we can now read into that statement and hear what the Minister says in explanation, but although I understood what was being said, I doubt whether it was widely understood outside the House.
      In addition to the £2·50 reduction which the Government are prepared to regard as acceptable, we must remember that there is the 20 per cent. contribution to rates, the water rates and, as the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) mentioned in other cases, the question of rent. That seems to have changed the many people whom the Government could rightly claim as gainers into losers. The Government must take that on board.
      Although we cannot achieve any change tonight, the Government would be extremely unwise to go on accepting that that is the best way to achieve one of their objectives, which is to interest the people of this country in the expenditure of local authorities. I am at one with the Minister in wishing to persuade people to pay far more attention to local government expenditure than many of them have done in the past. However, I am simply not persuaded that this is the best or the only way in which that can be achieved.
      I represent an area of high rateable values and comparatively low rates in the pound and the assumption of £1·30 per week on rates comes nowhere near to being adequate to cover the problems faced by many people in my constituency. Other hon. Members may be more fortunate than I, and may not have as many people coming to their surgeries at weekends to point out that they are considerably more than £2·50 worse off per week, notwithstanding these changes, simply because of high rateable values, the contribution of 20 per cent. and the water rates which, put together, can be a substantial imposition.
      I leave this thought with the Minister. Although I accept that we cannot change the provisions tonight. this seems an appropriate moment to say, as I have been doing at successive Question Times ever since 1 April and will continue to do, this is not a matter which will go away. It is not a question of allowing the system to settle down and assuming that, as a result, we shall stop receiving complaints. We are faced with middle-class hardship and that is something which a Conservative Government should not readily overlook.
      Mr. Hugo Summerson: I agree with my hon. Friend, but does he accept that we face exactly the same problems in the borough of Waltham Forest where we have low rateable values but a high rate in the pound?
      Mr. McCrindle: That is all the more reason for our combined representations to be heard carefully by the Minister. We could then persuade my hon. Friend that the system on which the Government have so far insisted is riot the only one and certainly not the best one. We should be performing a useful service if we persuaded the Minister to go back to his Department to make sure that a investigation is undertaken to see whether a better system can be found.
      In the past few weeks I have been struck by the number of people who have come to my surgeries to tell me that they are in difficult circumstances because of their income. It is extremely difficult to challenge that. On inquiry,

      1067
      however, one discovers that they have a mortgage-free property—some of those properties are valued at more than £100,000. It makes no sense that such people are income poor but capital rich and yet are unable to release that capital, which is tied up in the brick and mortar.
      I was extremely disappointed that, in Committee on the Finance Bill, an amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) did not find favour with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I appreciate that this is not the Minister's responsibility, but I hope that he will understand that the pressures that we are putting on him could be substantially relieved if an easier way could be found to tap the substantial capital resource held by many elderly people.
      It cannot be right for people with properties valued in excess of £100,000 to be living a life of penury when judged on their weekly income. I hope that my speech will be heard in the appropriate quarters. Given that the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West was unacceptable, I hope that the Chancellor will see it as his responsibility to bring in a system to unlock such capital.
      I realise that my speech has ranged far and wide and I appreciate that I have not made myself unduly popular with the Minister. I have lived with that problem for some years, but I am bound to say that I have not experienced it with this Minister.
      I hope that my hon. Friend will appreciate that the capital cut-off is still not generous and that the figure of £2·50 must be reconsidered. A better way must be found of interesting people in the expenditure of their local authorities. We must also find a way to unlock capital so that some pleasure is brought to the lives of people who presently sometimes face financial difficulties.
      11.13 pm
      Ms. Dawn Primarolo: I hope that the Minister will understand the difference between Labour party criticism of the housing benefit scheme that the Government are attempting to operate—under which there are 5 million losers—and our response to these meagre proposals that the Government have been forced to introduce and for which everyone in the Chamber is claiming credit. It will not escape hon. Members' notice that, from whichever side the pressure came, the Government were forced to make amendments to their housing benefit scheme because it was inoperable in certain areas.
      It is interesting that when the Secretary of State announced the proposals he told us:
      "It is a simpler system that people can understand."—[Official Report, 27 April 1988; Vol. 132, c. 356.]
      He went on to say of the capital disregard, in column 359:
      "The increase will bring considerable extra help … we shall quickly consult local authorities"
      to find out the most effective way of introducing the scheme.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary went on to congratulate himself and the Department on the basis that, seen through the rose-tinted glasses worn by people living and working in Whitehall, the conversion had gone well. He congratulated himself on setting up, equipping, recruiting and training a new department in Glasgow.
      1068
      Exactly what consultations were held with local authorities about these changes? What were the local authority responses to the proposals? What notice did the Government take of those responses? Was it taken in double quick time? How did the responses affect the Government's decision to set up the unit in Glasgow? When housing authorities in my part of the world—Bristol—write directly to Members who represent their districts, all those Members, bar myself, are Conservative. The points that were made by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) about Coventry are far more accurate because they are statements of fact about numbers of claimants, not samples. If the Minister cannot understand the difference between a survey and a specific statement about population, the Opposition cannot be held responsible for that, although we seem to be blamed for just about everything else.
      I want to tell the Minister some of the comments made by Bristol city housing committee. He will not be surprised to learn that that committee is not made up entirely of Labour members. The views I shall pass on are those of all members of the committee. They say this about the new capital limit:
      "Whilst the rise in the capital limit from £6,000 to £8,000 means that some individuals will now qualify for Housing Benefit, a great number of claimants have had their hopes raised only to find that the calculation of their notional income means that they still fail to qualify for Housing Benefit."
      The Government deliberately set out in April, when they were under pressure, to mislead people about the benefits they would derive from the changes. We pointed that out at the time and said that not much money was being put in. By the Government's own admission, only 100,000 people were expected to benefit from the change. People were misled.
      The Committee went on to state:
      "Identification of people who will now qualify is also placing a considerable administrative burden on staff"
      of the local authority
      "particularly as we have lost touch with many of the householders"
      who in the intervening period believed that they would not qualify.
      The committee also stressed the considerable disappointment of many groups of people about the transitional payments. Regardless of what the Minister says about the nuances of debate in the House and the clarity, or otherwise, of the statement, people were led to believe that they would be protected if their loss was greater than £2·50 a week.
      The Government did not make any statements correcting reports that appeared in the press or attempt to make it clear that what was said to be the case was not the case. Indeed, their explanations revealed the scheme to be more, rather than less, complicated.
      For those who qualify, the procedure by which claims must be made to the unit in Glasgow will result in confusion, and in many cases people will fail to apply. The Bristol housing committee says:
      "Claimants in Bristol are particularly disadvantaged because claim forms to date have been in very short supply."
      We have 40,000 council housing units in Bristol, well over half the occupants of which are in receipt of housing benefit and we do not have sufficient forms to enable people to make claims. The committee understands that the deadline for making claims is the end of July.

      1069
      It is also claimed that national publicity about the availability of payments has been limited. This claim is made by the local housing committee, which has been monitoring the publicity in its efforts to ensure that those entitled to claim know about and claim their entitlement. The committee goes on:
      "National publicity about the availability of these payments has been very limited and consequently this authority will incur expense by encouraging take-up of entitlement to benefit."
      The administration of these payments will place a strain on the local authority's resources because once a questionnaire has been designed, remembering that a great deal of information must be supplied by the local authority,
      "detailed information about housing benefit entitlement before and after April will have to be provided to the unit in Scotland. Claimants will, as a consequence, face delay in receiving these payments and the position whereby a claimant receives payments from two sources of what is effectively the same benefit is confusing, to say the least. In conclusion, the view expressed by this committee is that while any changes to the housing benefit scheme which result in increased incomes for Bristol's poorer households are welcomed, these particular changes are limited in their effect, confusing to claimants and difficult and costly for the City Council to administer."
      The Government have made a mess of the housing benefit scheme. We were told they were doing an ongoing review which was the culmination of a number of years' work and that it would result in a simpler, targeted and fairer system, which would allow everyone to know where they stood. The Government have achieved none of those criteria. We shall continue to argue that the scheme is inadequate and to press the Government to make the necessary changes.
      Will local authorities be provided with an expenditure disregard or with a grant to cover the administrative costs resulting directly from the Government's bungling of the scheme?
      11.25 pm
      Mr. Elliot Morley: I shall
      not speak for long because many of the issues that I wished to raise have already been taken up.
      The Minister has no right to present the changes that are before us as an act of great generosity. It is much akin to a mugger throwing the small change to his victim after the crime has been committed.
      I am depressed by the number of constituents who have had cause to contact me because of cuts in their housing benefit. Many of them have been in tears when they have done so. Many have been severely disturbed by the amount of money that they have lost as a result of the benefit changes.
      I accept that some Conservative Members have argued against the Government's actions. It is true that there was Conservative Back-Bench pressure, but much of it was motivated by fear of the consequences in their constituencies of what the Government were doing, not by principle. They were fearful as a consequence of the political campaign that was mounted by Labour Members. We shall continue to campaign against the thrust of the benefit changes and draw attention to the way in which they affect recipients.
      I welcome the Minister's assurance that there will be an increased awareness campaign to inform the public of the availability of form RR4 and the fact that they can claim transitional payments. Even with the efforts that have been
      1070
      made, constituents have come to me who have not been aware of the existence of the forms. Many of them are already confused and fearful. It is fair to say that when these people have contacted the local authorities about the moneys that they have lost by not claiming, the authorities have drawn the matter to the attention of those who are concerned. This has led to people obtaining a form and making an application. Many of those who have come to me have said that they should have been made much more aware of the forms initially. They would then have claimed the transitional payments. I hope that that is taken on board and that campaigns are embarked on to try to persuade as many people as possible to claim.
      We should not have to be encouraging the public to make claims for transitional payments. We should have a system of housing benefit that is fair and meets needs in a practical and reasonable way. The changes that the Government propose will fail to achieve that. The Government can claim no credit for presenting these changes, which have been wrung out of them as a result of the campaign which was organised to fight against what they were doing.
      I hope that in future the Government will take account of the suffering of those on incomes of about £40 a week who have lost as much as £8 a week in housing benefit under the changes that the Government have introduced. It is intolerable that people on such income levels should suffer percentage cuts of that sort. In some instances there are middle-class victims in my constituency. Many of those who have attended my surgery are from the more comfortable parts of town. These people have worked hard all their lives and receive small pensions. There are widows on pensions. It is the small pensions that are causing the problem, which is a cut in housing benefit. Many of these people have been Government supporters in the past, and they now find themselves victims of the Government's attack on those who are among the weakest and the most vulnerable. The Government must stand condemned for the way in which they have inflicted misery and cuts on them.
      11.29 pm
      Mr. John Battle: It used to be the watchword about insurance policies that we should always study the small print. The Government have moved their policy on national insurance towards personal, if not private, insurance. That means that the watchword about insurance policies is becoming even more appropriate.
      At Christmas, there was a great row in the National Health Service. There were headlines in the newspapers and a statement from the Government Dispatch Box. We were told that the nurses would be paid in full. We find months later that we must read the small print, where we find that that assurance was false. Concessions were forced on the Government following their housing benefit changes. They seem to be dying the death of a thousand qualifications as it becomes increasingly difficult for recipients to take up the transitional payments. It makes a mockery of "transition" when the transition period is moving so fast that no one has been able to keep up with it to make a claim. If the July deadline is adhered to, many will miss out entirely.
      I ask the Minister to look again at the impact of the housing benefit changes on pensioners. That point is not often understood among Conservative Members.

      1071
      Sometimes they have referred to the effect on pensioners of the state earnings-related penson scheme changes in the Social Security Act 1986, when all of us know that those proposals do not affect pensioners. The big proposals in that Act that affected pensioners were the changes in housing benefits. It was disgraceful when Conservative Members, in the Standing Committee on the Finance Bill, on which I served, referred to pensions as handouts when pensioners have worked all their lives and contributed to national insurance.
      Many pensioners have turned up at my advice surgeries in Leeds, West who are unable to understand why their income has been reduced and who repeat phrases such as, "We worked all our lives. We served this country in the war. What have we done wrong to be penalised?" I urge the Minister to look again at the impact of housing benefit reductions on pensioners.
      I detect a sickening complacency on the Government Benches. We have had the Prime Minister and more recently the Financial Secretary to the Treasury referring to the fact that all—I underline the word "all"—are participating in the increased prosperity and wealth of Britain. We know that not to be true. All are not doing so. Some are losing out and the Government must face up to that fact and do something about it, because the tone that is coming across from Conservative Benches is that if everyone is not participating in that wealth, somehow it is the people's fault that they are not. Surely pensioners cannot be blamed for their fate and for the reduction in their income as a result of the housing benefit changes.
      I quietly ask the Minister to look again at the matter and support those people, particularly pensioners, who have had low incomes reduced. I appeal to him to give practical support at the Department of Health and Social Security, whether it is through the unit in Scotland, or through the local authorities, to alleviate the situation of pensioners now because the tone of the Minister's introductory remarks struck me as complacent. He referred to the family expenditure surveys and the statistics, but I refer him to one remark that was made to me recently about arithmetic. A pensioner said to me, "Those of us who pay the price can do the arithmetic." I urge the Government to do the arithmetic. Pensioners know when they do not have sufficient to buy food and fuel as a result of the changes in housing benefit. Will the Government do the arithmetic and make sure that pensioners do not have to pay for the cuts in benefit, but have the right to a decent income that they can live on, so that they can enjoy a healthy and, we hope, happy retirement?
      11.37 pm
      Mr. Portillo: With the leave of the House, I shall speak again.
      On the final point made by the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle), if he is asking whether we are willing to monitor the changes in future, the answer is that we are. We have given that undertaking several times. I said in my introductory remarks that the 31 July date is not a deadline for applications. It is a deadline for transitional protection, which can be paid only up to that date, but applications will be welcome beyond that time.
      Mrs. Beckett: Will the Minister clarify one matter? I think that I understood him correctly the first time, but it is nice to get it crystal clear. From what he said, do I understand that of those who claim for the increase in the capital limit, only those in the target groups for transitional protection will be entitled to that protection until 30 May and those who are not in the target groups will be entitled to it for claims only after 30 May? Whenever the claim is received, that is the only date from which it will be paid. Is that what the Minister is saying?
      Mr. Portillo: It is my turn not to understand the question. The vulnerable groups will be covered by the transitional protection. Transitional protection will be payable for those who have lost housing benefit up to 31 July, no matter when they apply. On the capital limit change, the transitional period is up to only 30 May anyway because since 30 May a different capital limit has applied. There we are talking about people being compensated between 1 April and 30 May. I hope that that has clarified the matter for the hon. Lady, but if not I am more than happy to pursue it with her outside the Chamber.
      I am always willing to listen to criticism from hon. Members, but I resent the suggestion of a lack of candour. I draw the attention of the House to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in the debate on 27 April. When referring to the scheme for compensating housing benefit losses above £2·50, the first thing that he said was:
      "We do not think it right to compensate for those increases in rents introduced to coincide with the new housing benefit scheme, nor increases in rates."—[Official Report, 27 April 1988; Vol. 132, c. 360.]
      He could not have made that clearer, and it was further made clear—certainly in the correspondence that I have had with hon. Members—that that is how the system will apply.
      The hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) could do better than read a brief from the Bristol city housing committee. There was a basic confusion in that brief. It seemed to be urging me to use the local authorities for the transitional scheme and yet to be bemoaning the fact that extra work was being heaped on local authorities by the fact that we were requesting information from them. I met the local authorities on 27 April, and we have been in constant consultation about the design of the inquiry form and other matters. I cannot accept her criticism that the procedure is complicated. All that the claimant need do is to fill in form RR4, which is very simple. It requests information such as the name and address and asks for a signature on the back. The entire form is confined to two sides, and the second side is only for the signature. I do not accept the hon. Lady's assertion that the forms are not available, because 8·5 million have been printed and 5 million issued. All orders for new batches of forms are being met within two days. We are discussing with the local authorities how we should meet the administrative costs.
      I was pleased that the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) joined me in wishing to see the maximum take-up. That puts him on my side in wishing to have a simple advertising campaign that encourages people to come forward.
      The hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) asked about the genuine anxiety and confusion of elderly people. I am at one with him in wishing to end

      1073
      all that. But it does not help for him to cast aspersions on the training or competence of the staff at Glasgow. I wish to encourage applications and to ensure that advisers are fully informed of how the scheme works. We have issued detailed guidance to the local authorities. We shall place that guidance in the Library. We have issued guidance specifically for advisers. There will be a freeline service that members of the public can ring, and there is a headquarters telephone service for advisers to ring. The information is certainly available.
      I do not wish to quarrel with my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle), although it is always a pleasure to debate matters with him. He applauds people having put aside a nest egg and not being in need of benefit. He wishes to encourage thrift. But we are talking about people who have amassed capital yet are still receiving benefit from the taxpayer. The question is where one applies the cut-off. On that, he and I will not agree exactly, but I am pleased that he at least believes that there should be a cut-off, although he believes that the figure should be different. He will realise that no figure is for ever, and he will have another opportunity to make his point.
      My hon. Friend said that the £2·50 was only a small part of what people will be asked to pay because, in addition, we must consider the 20 per cent. of rates. Many people who are receiving transitional protection for housing benefit and are living above the income support level may already have been paying 20 per cent. of rates, and we do not require them to pay the 20 per cent. of rates on top of what they were paying previously. Where in a local authority the rates are unusually high, for whatever reason, the £1·30 will not cover 20 per cent. of rates. But the 80 per cent. which is rebated will be of a higher value than it would be in another area. Therefore, the taxpayer who subsidises housing benefit and who is making good the 80 per cent. that the claimant is not paying is paying a higher rate of benefit to those people than would be the case in an area where the rates were lower.
      The regulations bring extra benefit to people who might otherwise find the changes made in April too abrupt. They provide to the woman leaving her home in distress, perhaps under threat of violence, time to order her affairs and to dispose of her interest in the home without being excluded from benefit meanwhile. Similarly, the old person entering a residential home will have time to sell the home without its capital value excluding that person from benefit. They give statutory effect to the raising of the capital ceiling for housing benefit to £8,000, thus re-entitling a large number of people to help with housing costs. They enable us to disregard transitional payments from the Glasgow unit and training premia from the training schemes.
      I trust that all those provisions are welcome to both sides of the House, and I urge the House to reject the Opposition motion to revoke the regulations.
      Question put and negatived.

      Gipsy Site (Outwood)
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]
      11.41 pm
      Mr. George Gardiner: I wish to raise on the Adjournment the subject of implementation of the Department of the Environment's model rules for the management of gipsy sites at Green lane, Outwood, in Surrey. To do so I must refer to the turbulent history of this gipsy site, to the lawlessness and anarchy that spreads from the site to constitute a threat to all who live round it, to the recent events that have brought this to a head and, I regret, to the bureaucratic procrastination that has allowed this sore to go on festering.
      I should explain that the Green lane site is not in my Reigate constituency, but immediately over its border in the east Surrey seat of my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary. His constituents, like mine, are threatened by what goes on in the site, and he and I have always worked in close liaison to seek a solution. I would like to pay tribute to my right hon. and learned Friend, who, despite the burden of official duties, has always been ready to listen to complaints and to act upon them, both in representations to Surrey county council and to Tandridge district council, which has the task of administering that site.
      In years gone by this site had many more pitches, but they have now been reduced to some 18. Each pitch can accommodate up to four caravans, which means that we have a potential of some 72 caravans being involved. A country lane, appropriately called Green lane, runs right past the site, from which it is separated by an earth banking, or bund, originally designed to hide the camp from the road, but which now serves as a stockade from which passing vehicles are attacked. The site is reasonably well provided with permanent washing facilities and latrines.
      The gipsies residing in the camp are not travellers in any meaningful sense of the word, but are in permanent occupation. They divide basically into three large families or clans, who at times are at war with each other.
      The Green lane site has a long history of lawlessness. I have police records going back to 1983–84, but the problem goes back further than that. Stolen cars are regularly brought into the camp for burning after being cannibalised; neighbouring properties, especially a timber yard, have been the targets for arson; gipsy youths have fired catapults through the windows of houses in Green lane and in Honeycrock lane leading into it; trees have been felled to blockade Green lane, or cars set alight to achieve the same purpose; passing cars are regularly hailed with stones and concrete blocks from behind the bund or barricade; and physical assaults and threats have been made against law-abiding citizens. Surrey police do all that they can, but more often than not it is impossible to find the culprit.
      Just recently, events have taken a much more sinister turn. This began when the police discovered more than a dozen stolen cars in and around the site. They were part of what is known in the trade as a "ringing" operation—legally purchasing insurance write-offs, then stealing cars to cannabalise so that relicensed vehicles can be done up almost as good as new. Some of the cars found had even been stolen from garages before they had been sold.

      1075
      Police investigations were immediately resented by the gipsies, who seem to think that the law of the land does not apply to them. The adjacent timber yard was set ablaze again, almost as a demonstration against authority. There were increasing barricades of Green lane, and more incidents of stones and bricks being hurled through the windows of cars brought to a halt. Drivers have been injured before, and an injury happened again on 29 June. A police car containing officers making inquiries into this incident was pelted with stones in broad daylight, so firm was the conviction of some of these gipsies that they were above the law.
      Following this incident, 50 police officers mustered from Surrey and Sussex, wearing riot gear, stormed the camp, and were able to make a number of arrests. Since then, the police have warned the public to stay well away from the camp. Green lane may not be a "No Go" area so far as the police are concerned, but it certainly is to my constituents and those of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe). This is a scandal that just cannot be allowed to continue.
      I have every admiration for the way in which the police have handled this matter, and I am not raising this as a law and order issue in tonight's debate. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East and I have been convinced over a long time that the root cause of this situation lies in the management, or lack of it, of this gipsy site, and related to it the obvious unsuitability of its layout. It is for these reasons that my hon. Friend the Minister is replying tonight for the Department of the Environment.
      The camp has been there for many years, until 1986 under temporary planning permission. However, in the summer of that year it was proposed to make planning permissison permanent, to assist Tandridge district council achieve designation under the Caravan Sites Act 1968. The proposal was put to the county council's planning committee by the county's own gipsy subcommittee, acting in concert with the Tandridge council. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East and I lodged objections to that planning application on the ground that the site should not be given permanent status until a better management regime had been instituted and been shown to work.
      Alas, our warnings were not heeded by the county planning committee, which was moved primarily, I think, by the need to achieve designation under the Act. Permanent planning permission was granted, but at the same time a number of important promises were made to reassure the public. The first promise was that the earthwork bund would substantially be removed, retaining only as much as was necessary to set limits to the width of access to the site. Thus, the barricade would be removed from which attacks can be mounted on vehicles—public and police—by gipsies who can remain unseen. The second promise was that the circular service road inside—which serves as a race-track for the gipsies before vehicles are burned—would be severed, at the same time separating slightly the different gipsy families on the site.
      I have to say that absolutely nothing has been done since to honour those two promises. I visited the site when they were made, and last Friday I went back—under police escort—to look at it again. Absolutely nothing has changed over the intervening two years. Tandridge council
      1076
      says that it is waiting for the county council and the county says that it is waiting for the Department of the Environment to agree to pick up the bill. So nothing is done. Meanwhile, the estimated cost is escalating, and it is doubtful whether any contractor would agree to work on the site. Certainly he would need to bring his equipment to the site each day—it could not possibly be left overnight.
      At the time planning permission was granted nothing was said about the promises being dependent on Department of the Environment financing. Tonight I urge my hon. Friend to cut through this bureaucratic tangle to get something done, and fast.
      A third promise was also made in that discussion two years ago. It was that Tandridge council would institute a reformed management structure for the site. Perhaps it did, but it appears to have had negligible effect. Now the council's spokesman speaks of a new working party to investigate its management and see what improvements can be made. It is, alas, the same old story that we have heard before.
      Tandridge council employs a gipsy officer, but, by common consent, he is worse than useless. He seems to regard his role as defending the gipsy inhabitants from the outside world. He can never be found when needed and is regarded as an irrelevance by local residents and by the police.
      The gipsy officer does not reside on site. I know that there are many arguments against having resident wardens and that it is generally better to let the gipsies order their their own affairs, but the record of lawlessness on this site is so persistent and serious that a resident warden must be considered. It would not be an easy job, but it must be done.
      Then there is the question of the site rules and their enforcement. I have read the Department of the Environment's model rules, or guidelines, in appendix II of its useful booklet "Management of Local Authority Gypsy Sites". Are those the rules that apply on the Green lane site? No one knows. Nearly three years ago, I asked Tandridge council to let me have a copy of its site rules, but this was rejected by the council's housing committee in November 1985. The excuse was offered that tenancy agreements were a personal matter between the council and the gipsy tenant concerned. I still do not know what those site rules are.
      If the model rules were applied, the council would have ample power to move in and evict trouble-makers, assuming, of course, that the will was there. The model rules say that the occupier
      "shall not (1) cause a nuisance or annoyance to neighbours, and (2) burn car bodies, tyres, cables or other material likely to be offensive."
      If those are the rules at Green lane, then they are broken every week. The model rules also say that the council
      "shall not interfere with the right of the occupier to quiet possession of the pitch as long as the occupier complies with the residential agreement."
      Where the rules are violated repeatedly, there is no reason why the council should not move to evict.
      What is needed above all here is a new attitude by the council to the responsibilities of management. In the past, I have found officers at both district and county level far too inclined to make excuses for the behaviour on this site, even suggesting that crimes committed in the immediate vicinity of the camp were committed by the non-gipsy community.

      1077
      There has also been a reluctance in the past to deal openly with the public. When, two years ago, 11 gipsy tenants defrauded Tandridge council of £7,000 by tampering with electricity meters, it was considered by the housing committee in secret session, when it was decided not to prosecute. If it had not been for a vigilant local press, no one outside would even have been aware of it. Protective behaviour of that kind must go.
      It was my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East who first pointed out that successful management of this site demands the closest liaison between both councils, the DHSS, social services and the police. If site rules are applied here, and if the police, in the course of their inquiries, come upon evidence that those rules are being flouted, such information must be provided to the council, which must then act upon it. Meanwhile, control of the site must be far more direct and visible. The public must be reassured that commitments and promises made are honoured and that a new gipsy officer sees it as a prime responsibility to enforce them.
      The lawlessness and anarchy that pervades the Green lane site is far too deep-rooted and has been allowed to continue for too many years to be ended overnight. But environmental improvements of the kind promised two years ago, a resolute management regime that has the will to evict persistent trouble-makers, and a determination to deal openly and honestly with local residents both individually and through organisations such as the Outwood Society will ensure that the Green lane site ceases to strike fear in the hearts of law-abiding citizens.
      I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to take all the action she can to make local authorities appreciate their responsibilities in carrying out national policy with regard to the management of gipsy sites, so that Green lane ceases to be a ghetto of crime and violence in what should be a peaceful area of Surrey's countryside.
      11.55 pm
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Marion Roe): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner) for raising the issue of management problems of a gipsy site near his constituency. I appreciate that this is a matter which he raises with the support of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe). It is a problem which affects many people locally and I hope that my reply will he considered helpful.
      I begin by stating that the establishment and efficient running of any gipsy site is fraught with difficulties. It is not a new problem, nor is it limited to any particular part of the country. That is why I have spoken often in the House on this subject. The problems involved are not intractable, but they demand much effort and attention if a solution is to be identified. I hope that I will be able to persuade my hon. Friend that we are moving in the right direction. We are all keen to bring to an end the kind of problems he has mentioned.
      We are dealing with a number of issues. First, there is a need to provide sites to accommodate gipsies. Following on from that, we have to ensure that the sites are well run, satisfying gipsy need and fitting in with the local community. Finally, we must look at what steps can be taken when that is not the case.
      Solutions to the gipsy problem must be considered in the national context. I hope that my hon. Friend will bear
      1078
      with me while I restate briefly what the law proposes on the subject. It is considered that there are about 10,000 gipsy families in this country for whom some form of accommodation is needed. The Caravan Sites Act 1968 places a duty on county councils, London boroughs and metropolitan districts to provide sites for gipsies who reside in or resort to their area.
      When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State can be satisfied that adequate provision exists for the accommodation of gipsies in a particular area, or that in all the circumstances it is not necessary or expedient to make adequate provision, he will be able to consider an application that the area should be designated. Under the provisions of the 1968 Act designation gives the authorities greater power to control unauthorised camping by gipsies in their area.
      I recognise the difficulties that exist over the provision of sites in some areas, including Surrey, but I think it right that the House should recognise the progress that has already been made. At the beginning of this year there were, countrywide, 258 local authority sites in existence, providing approximately 4,250 pitches for gipsy caravans. Additionally we believe there are some 2,300 caravans on private sites. We recognise, however, that there is still a need for more than 3,000 pitches to accommodate the considerable number of gipsies without an authorised pitch. So we are making progress with getting sites established. But what then? How do we ensure that sites are well run?
      The Government have given, and will continue to give, extensive assistance to authorities in the performance of their statutory duties. First, we make 100 per cent. Exchequer grant available for sites provided by local authorities. We have set aside £6 million for this purpose in the current financial year. This allows a modest level of facilities to be provided on each gipsy pitch and encourages pride of identification.
      For many local authorities, setting up a gipsy site is a difficult business. To help, my Department has issued advice in circulars and various forms of guidance note. These have covered topics ranging from the location of sites through to detailed aspects of how a site may be constructed. We then supplement formal advice with regular informal liaison between officials of my Department and those of local authorities.
      This assistance has been invaluable. The making available of expertise held at the centre has helped many local authorities avoid costly and potentially harmful mistakes. The national record of successful sites deserves recognition. It will not be news to my colleagues that these success stories disappear under headlines about problem sites.
      My hon. Friend will be pleased to hear that I have not forgotten about the management aspect. Good management of a gipsy site is essential if it is to function satisfactorily, for those living on it as well as for those living near it. Good management is also necessary if value for money is to be obtained from the Exchequer grant expended. Satisfactory management proposals are therefore a condition of grant approval. Management is essentially the local authority's responsibility. Sites may be managed by the staff of the authority concerned or, more usually, by a warden, who is often a site resident.
      Management advice is available. It is contained in a booklet, based on the results of a research project commissioned by my Department. That booklet is made

      1079
      available to anyone who needs it. It is geared towards managers. It is then up to managers to draw up specific site rules or a code of conduct. These should be easy to understand. They should be easy to explain to an illiterate gipsy. An example of a simple set of rules is set out in one of my Department's circulars. I wish to emphasise that these are practical steps which have been successful. Many sites have rules. Most gipsies follow them.
      I have made it clear that site management is important. My Department has now become involved in an excellent initiative to take matters one step further. We are part-funding a course on site management. It is organised and certified by the Institute of Housing, in conjunction with the North-East London polytechnic. It will be starting in London in November this year. The interest being shown in it is considerable. There may be other courses starting elsewhere in the next few years.
      I stress that these are all positive steps. We are aware that there are problems and we are confronting them purposefully. It is rare for authorised sites, including private ones, to cause any trouble. Trouble, when it occurs, is normally confined to unauthorised encampments. That is why my hon. Friend might take a little comfort. The problems to which he refers must be solved and there is a good chance that they can be solved.
      Problem sites are essentially a management issue. Let me assure my hon. Friend that gipsies are not above the law. If the problems are serious, if they involve criminal offence, remedies are available. The police will exercise their powers, if necessary. They will assess every situation and act accordingly. In most cases, however, it need not come to that. Local authorities should be, and usually are, able to sort out these problems themselves.
      Let me turn from the general to the particular. As my hon. Friend knows, the Green lane gipsy caravan site at Outwood was first established in 1964 by Godstone rural district council. This is now part of Tandridge district council. It was a large site with about 50 pitches for caravans. I understand that from the start there were problems in its management: in fact, it rapidly acquired a very bad reputation. There were quite violent disputes between groups who used it, and there was vandalism within the site.
      As has already been said, the local authority found it extremely difficult both to provide and to operate proper management. After a fairly short time it was decided that the site was far too large for efficient control. The number of pitches was reduced, first to 25 and later to 18. A specific manager for the site was appointed and further improvements were proposed.
      1080
      That brings the story up to 1980, when my Department was asked to approve improvement works. These particularly concerned the electricity supply and individual pre-payment meters. My predecessors approved this for grant and then, in 1981, approved an alternative, more expensive but safer scheme, which was subsequently installed at a total cost of £29,949.
      Unfortunately, accompanying the efforts made to improve the facilities at the site, the level of management supervision has decreased. There has not been a warden at the site for some years. It has also become clear that the site layout is unsatisfactory, and that has contributed to certain tensions. The recent troubles associated with Green lane are the result of not giving the site as much attention as it needs. The problem must be addressed by the local authority responsible for management. In this respect, the situation is improving. The county council, district council and police are meeting soon to discuss the problem. Proposals for better management of the site are already being prepared. Establishing better relations between all groups concerned is a priority.
      I understand that a package of works for the site is being drawn up by the district council, which is acting as agent for the county council. The complete package includes building works, and has been provisionally costed at about £55,000. It will involve changes to the site layout. Some of the occupants will be relocated within the site. An earth bund which has been preventing proper access to the site will be shifted or removed.
      If the developments result in an agreement on some scheme of capital works, there may follow an application to my Department for approval and further grant aid. Until such an application is made, I cannot know whether the cost would be eligible for grant. We will naturally consider any proposal carefully and sympathetically.
      However, I want to underline strongly my view that the future well-being of the site depends on the management proposals brought forward. The site may need a permanent warden. If this is not possible, the district council will have to come forward with another solution. It is possible that the problems could have been avoided, and it is incumbent on the local authority to prevent their recurrence. Grant aid will be conditional on such an assurance.
      I hope that this news will bring cheer to my hon. Friend. Everyone concerned in the matter is working together to help bring an end to the problems that have occurred on the site, and officials are always available to offer advice and guidance. In this case, I feel they can do no more. It is now up to the local authorities, county and district, to act.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Adjourned accordingly at eight minutes past Twelve o'clock.

TRANSPORT
  Kyle and Maclay Railway Lines
  Kyle and Maclay Railway Lines
  British Rail
  British Rail
  Small Businesses
  Small Businesses
  Trailers
  Trailers
  Road Improvements (North-West)
  Road Improvements (North-West)
  M4 (Maintenance)
  M4 (Maintenance)
  Chapter 2 Jet Aircraft
  Chapter 2 Jet Aircraft
  Channel Tunnel
  Channel Tunnel
ENVIRONMENT
  Rural Housing
  Rural Housing
  National Rivers Authority
  National Rivers Authority
  Crown Suppliers
  Crown Suppliers
  Homelessness
  Homelessness
  Water Directives
  Water Directives
  Water Supply (Disconnections)
  Water Supply (Disconnections)
  Housing and Population Statistics
  Housing and Population Statistics
  River Mersey
  River Mersey
  Gravel Extraction
  Gravel Extraction
  Polychlorinated Biphenyls
  Polychlorinated Biphenyls
  Toxic Waste
  Toxic Waste
  Water (Privatisation)
  Water (Privatisation)
  Building Contracts
  Building Contracts
  Multiple Occupation
  Multiple Occupation
PRIME MINISTER
  Southern Africa (IRA)
  Southern Africa (IRA)
  Petitions
  Petitions
  Kent
  Kent
  Common Fisheries Policy
  Common Fisheries Policy
  Bristol
  Bristol
  Official Information
  Official Information
  Persian Gulf
  Persian Gulf
  Singapore
  Singapore
  Mr. Nelson Mandela
  Mr. Nelson Mandela
  Engagements
  Engagements
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Lebanon
  Lebanon
THE ARTS
  Public Libraries
  Public Libraries
  Marketing
  Marketing
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Inland Revenue (Welsh Language)
  Inland Revenue (Welsh Language)
  Economic and Finance Control
  Economic and Finance Control
  Industrial Dredging
  Industrial Dredging
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Military Equipment (Shippers)
  Military Equipment (Shippers)
  Small Businesses
  Small Businesses
  LHW Futures and DPR Futures
  LHW Futures and DPR Futures
  DPR Futures
  DPR Futures
  Financial Services Act (Authorisations)
  Financial Services Act (Authorisations)
  Lonrho
  Lonrho
  Research and Development
  Research and Development
  Signposters
  Signposters
  Airbuses
  Airbuses
  Film Industry
  Film Industry
  Pit Bull Terriers
  Pit Bull Terriers
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  School Meals
  School Meals
  GCSE
  GCSE
  Teacher Shortages
  Teacher Shortages
  Kingman Report
  Kingman Report
  ILEA (Payments)
  ILEA (Payments)
  City Technology Colleges
  City Technology Colleges
  ESCATA Video Material
  ESCATA Video Material
  Speech Therapy
  Speech Therapy
  National Confederation of Parent-Teacher Associations
  National Confederation of Parent-Teacher Associations
  National Curriculum
  National Curriculum
  Multi-racial Education
  Multi-racial Education
  Teachers (External Work)
  Teachers (External Work)
  Primary School Teachers
  Primary School Teachers
  Careers Teaching
  Careers Teaching
  Religious Education
  Religious Education
  Teachers (Negotiating Rights)
  Teachers (Negotiating Rights)
  School Closures
  School Closures
  School Governors
  School Governors
  Grant-maintained Schools
  Grant-maintained Schools
  ILEA (Further Education)
  ILEA (Further Education)
  Nursery Education
  Nursery Education
  School Violence
  School Violence
  Medical Research
  Medical Research
  Surplus Land
  Surplus Land
  18-Plus Examinations
  18-Plus Examinations
  Under-Fives (Fees)
  Under-Fives (Fees)
  Education Reform Bill
  Education Reform Bill
  Rural Primary Schools
  Rural Primary Schools
  University Grants Committee
  University Grants Committee
  Haberdashers' Aske's Schools
  Haberdashers' Aske's Schools
  Business Sponsorship
  Business Sponsorship
  Education Reform
  Education Reform
  Small Businesses
  Small Businesses
  Wave Research
  Wave Research
ENERGY
  Work Stations
  Work Stations
  Information Technology
  Information Technology
  Small Businesses
  Small Businesses
  Electricity (Privatisation)
  Electricity (Privatisation)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Leonid Lubman
  Leonid Lubman
  Exclusive Economic Zones
  Exclusive Economic Zones
  Small Businesses
  Small Businesses
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
  St. Helena
  St. Helena
  Hong Kong (Rhino Horn)
  Hong Kong (Rhino Horn)
  Hong Kong (Endangered Species)
  Hong Kong (Endangered Species)
  China (Endangered Species)
  China (Endangered Species)
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Women's Refuges
  Women's Refuges
  Health Services
  Health Services
  Gross Domestic Product
  Gross Domestic Product
  Belfast (Disadvantaged Areas)
  Belfast (Disadvantaged Areas)
  Education Reform
  Education Reform
  Housing Executive
  Housing Executive
  Social Fund
  Social Fund
  Abortion
  Abortion
WALES
  Housing Expenditure
  Housing Expenditure
  Football Supporters (Membership Cards)
  Football Supporters (Membership Cards)
  Imported Waste
  Imported Waste
  Homelessness
  Homelessness
  Welsh Water Authority
  Welsh Water Authority
  Valleys Initiative
  Valleys Initiative
  Cardiff Bay (Barrage)
  Cardiff Bay (Barrage)
  Site Designations
  Site Designations
  Hospitals
  Hospitals
EMPLOYMENT
  Training for Enterprise Programme
  Training for Enterprise Programme
  Work Stations
  Work Stations
  Information Technology
  Information Technology
  Training Programme (Disabled)
  Training Programme (Disabled)
  Disabled People's Employment Services
  Disabled People's Employment Services
  Accidents
  Accidents
  Bulk Permits
  Bulk Permits
DEFENCE
  Small Businesses
  Small Businesses
  Research and Development
  Research and Development
HOME DEPARTMENT
  British Commonwealth Citizens
  British Commonwealth Citizens
  Police Checks (Employment)
  Police Checks (Employment)
  Data Protection
  Data Protection
  Emergency Planning Officer (South Yorkshire)
  Emergency Planning Officer (South Yorkshire)
  Police National Computer
  Police National Computer
  Cellular Vans
  Cellular Vans
  Animals (Experiments)
  Animals (Experiments)
  Police Manpower
  Police Manpower
  AIDS
  AIDS
  Summer Time
  Summer Time
  Mentally Disturbed Persons
  Mentally Disturbed Persons
  Psychiatric Treatment (Prisoners)
  Psychiatric Treatment (Prisoners)
  Small Businesses
  Small Businesses
  War Crimes
  War Crimes
  Passports
  Passports
  Lindholme Prison
  Lindholme Prison
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Forestry Commission
  Forestry Commission
  Small Businesses
  Small Businesses
  EC Food Supplies
  EC Food Supplies
  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  CAP (Discussion Paper)
  CAP (Discussion Paper)
SCOTLAND
  Consultants
  Consultants
  Privatisation
  Privatisation
  Acid Rain
  Acid Rain
  Rating Reform
  Rating Reform
  Schools (Overcrowding)
  Schools (Overcrowding)
  Schools (Strathkelvin and Bearsden)
  Schools (Strathkelvin and Bearsden)
  Nurses' Pay
  Nurses' Pay
  Residential Care Homes
  Residential Care Homes
  Rates
  Rates
  Planning Appeals
  Planning Appeals
  Language Disorders
  Language Disorders
  Uniform Business Rate
  Uniform Business Rate
  Capital Allocations
  Capital Allocations
SOCIAL SERVICES
  NHS Staff (Wages)
  NHS Staff (Wages)
  NHS (Complaints)
  NHS (Complaints)
  Hospital Responsibility
  Hospital Responsibility
  Physiotherapy
  Physiotherapy
  Consultant Posts
  Consultant Posts
  Junior Hospital Doctors
  Junior Hospital Doctors
  Infant Mortality
  Infant Mortality
  Motor Neurone Disease
  Motor Neurone Disease
  Population Census (White Paper)
  Population Census (White Paper)
  Community Service
  Community Service
  Health Authorities (Secure Provision)
  Health Authorities (Secure Provision)
  Small Businesses
  Small Businesses
  Consultants (Wakefield)
  Consultants (Wakefield)
  NHS Contracts
  NHS Contracts
  Foster Carers
  Foster Carers
  Family Practitioners
  Family Practitioners
  Child Care
  Child Care
  Cook-chill Catering
  Cook-chill Catering
  Disabled People (Legislation)
  Disabled People (Legislation)
  Toxic Shock Syndrome
  Toxic Shock Syndrome
  Childhood Cancer
  Childhood Cancer
  Charitable and Voluntary Payments
  Charitable and Voluntary Payments
  Attendance Allowance
  Attendance Allowance
  Resource Allocation Working Party
  Resource Allocation Working Party

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

British Industry: Profitability
Lord Rodney Lord Rodney asked Her Majesty's Government:
What are the latest figures on the profitability of British industry, and how they compare with those of the previous year.
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Lord Young of Graffham): My Lords, the net real rate of return on capital employed for all industrial and commercial companies is estimated to be about 11½ per cent. in 1987 compared with 10 per cent. in 1986.
Lord Rodney: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Will he agree that the reduction in the unemployment figures has some direct relationship to the improvement in the profitability of British industry?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, it is true that for some years past increasing profitability in industry has been accompanied by a certain amount of labour shedding. However, profitability has now increased to the point at which the number of new jobs has exceeded the supply in the labour market. In the last two years we have seen a very welcome reduction in the number of unemployed.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us how the net real after-tax return on capital employed will be affected by the current rise in inflation?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, the noble Lord will surely realise that the rate of return and inflation are not directly linked but depend very much on many other matters. However, I can satisfy the noble Lord that current company profits are rising and look as though they could well continue to rise.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, can I remind the noble Lord that I used the expression "real" meaning inflation adjusted?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I accept that. We shall have to see what the results show. However, the real rate of return looks as though it is keeping pace with the present increase in the rate of inflation.
Lord Peston: My Lords, now that profits have risen so drastically, can the consumer expect a fall in prices in the near future?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, profits rise only if the consumer gets a fair deal. At the end of the
1194
day, it is only through satisfying customers that companies can create profits.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, was my noble friend a little surprised when the noble Lord opposite referred to profits rising drastically? Would it not be better to say "satisfactorily"?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I have long lost my sense of surprise at what the noble Lords opposite say'. However, I must confess that profits have now risen to the level of the 1960s. The very difficult period of the 1970s is now hopefully behind us.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, will my noble friend agree that one of the most important changes in the British economy has been a recognition of the importance of the role of profit in the economic process? Can this not be laid very firmly at the door of Her Majesty's Government? Is it not wholly and entirely welcome?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, yes. Even more so, higher profitability is leading to increased investment. It is the increased investment which will lay the foundation of profits and the wealth of our society in the future.

Lyceum Theatre: Future
2.40 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will reject the proposal of the London Residuary Body to sell a 150-year lease of the Lyceum Theatre to the highest bidders (who propose a cabaret use) and will direct that one of the offers by reputable theatre managements proposing a theatrical use be accepted.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, there is no proposal for Her Majesty's Government to reject.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that he is thoroughly mistaken? The London Residuary Body has put this 150-year lease for the Lyceum on sale. It has been taken up on the basis that the theatre will become a cabaret. As the noble Lord may now be more aware of the situation than when he started, will he reconsider the position?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the London Residuary Body has a statutory duty to dispose of surplus GLC property for the best consideration that can reasonably be obtained for the benefit of London ratepayers. In this circumstance it does not require the approval of the Government.
The Earl of Bessborough: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the Theatres Trust, the Arts Council and the British Theatre Association—of which I am president and which represents everyone concerned with drama, whether professional, amateur or educational—protested at this decision?

1195
Although I must admit, being half French, that I am not opposed to the Paris Lido—as referred to in the letter by the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, yesterday—nor indeed the Folies Bergéres, will my noble friend agree that we already have cabarets and revue bars in London and that it is inappropriate to let the historic Lyceum Theatre for this purpose?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am unaware at the moment of the presence of an equivalent of either the Paris Lido or the Folies Bergére in our capital city. However, it is important to remember that, with one very small exception in 1985, the Lyceum has been a ballroom since 1945.
Lord St. John of Fawsley: My Lords, will my noble friend agree that the prime responsibility for what one can only call an act of cultural vandalism rests not upon the Government but upon Ken Livingstone's GLC and the succeeding residuary body? Would it not be a splendid thing if the Government, like a white knight, came to the rescue—
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: Ah!
Lord St. John of Fawsley:—and saved the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, and saved one of our oldest theatrical institutions? Will my noble friend use his considerable charm and powers of persuasion to ask the Secretary of State to intervene and act in this matter?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am very grateful for the remarks of my noble friend Lord St. John, particularly in reminding your Lordships' House that it was the late GLC which gave the last extension of a dance hall licence to the Lyceum Theatre. However, I am afraid that with regard to his major point I can only refer him to my original Answer.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, in considering his original Answer will the noble Lord not agree that the interests of the ratepayers, which I believe was the phrase he used, does not necessarily exclusively mean the immediate financial interests? They may have an interest also which they have not been asked to express about what becomes of historic buildings of this kind.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the building's historical basis will be protected by planning regulations that already exist and will be a matter for Westminster City Council.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, is it not the case that during the passage of the legislation we were assured by the Government that London's culture would not suffer from the abolition of the GLC and that the then Minister for the Environment in this House, the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said that when the Lyceum passed to the London Residuary Body he expected that body to take into account concerns about the future use of the theatre when considering its ownership? Perhaps the noble Lord will say what is
1196
happening in the light of those promises that were made.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, in answer to the noble Baroness I must draw her attention to the point that I made to my noble friend Lord Bessborough, which is that since 1945 the establishment has been a dance hall. I believe that the proposal is that it is to become a theatrical cabaret. Whether that is an improvement I do not know.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, remembering that the original Lyceum was Aristotle's home and that we have shut down no fewer than seven schools of philosophy during the past two years, could the Lyceum Theatre not be considered as a hostel for displaced philosophers?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I shall certainly draw the noble Earl's remarks to the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.
Lord Morris: My Lords, since when has cabaret not been considered theatre?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I believe that all these matters to an extent at the end of the day are matters of personal taste and judgment.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, is the Minister aware how long is the lease? May I say—
Noble Lords: Question!
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether he has been in the Lyceum since it has been on the market? Those of us who have been there found that it was nothing but a dump.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I went there only once to a rather good party.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, it is rather important that this matter should be treated seriously. The Lyceum is one of the great theatres of this country, and anyone who does not think so ought to think so. It should not be allowed to be turned over with the complete change of use that is proposed.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, as I pointed out earlier, with regard to the appearance of the Lyceum, it will be protected by the planning regulations as they exist. That will be administered by Westminster City Council. I believe it is possible that if a substantial amount of money is vested in the Lyceum at the end of the day the whole building and its structure may benefit.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, will the Minister inform his noble friend that Sir Henry Irving was not a cabaret artist? If he looks into the history of this theatre he will see that it deserves careful attention. Will he not therefore consider this matter again? He has received very little informed support (has he not?) from many parts of the House. I suggest to him that as the Minister has powers to

1197
intervene and as the residuary body is not obliged to count its benefits solely in terms of pounds, shillings and pence, in all the circumstances it would be desirable to consider the matter once again.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I can only repeat that, first, the building will be protected, and, secondly, I believe it is important to remember that it has not been in use as a theatre, apart from a very short period of time, since the end of the Second World War.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, in spite of the use to which the building has been put is the Minister aware that it would be a forward looking act for the Government to change the use? Preserving the building is as nothing compared to preserving it as a theatre. It is what goes on in a building that is important and not the preservation of the fabric.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the Government are not in a position to interfere with the LRB, which has a statutory remit to dispose of surplus former GLC property for the best price obtainable. I have to answer the noble Lord's question by reminding him of what the building has been used for for the past 45 years.

Western Credits and the Soviet Union
2.48 p.m.
Lord Chelwood Lord Chelwood asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will take an urgent initiative through the European Community and NATO to seek an agreed policy to monitor and control the growing flow of Western credits to the Soviet Union until there have been verified and significant reductions in Soviet armed forces.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, much Western credit to the Soviet Union comes from commercial sources. Support by Her Majesty's Government is only provided in order to encourage trade beneficial to British firms. It would not be appropriate to respond to encouraging developments in the Soviet Union by imposing new restrictions.
Lord Chelwood: My Lords, does that reply mean that the Government are fully seized of the dilemma that faces the West? Is it not generally accepted that perestroika has no hope of success unless there is a massive inflow from government and non-government sources to help it along? Is there not a risk that there will be an overflow into Warsaw bloc forces, particularly the conventional forces, numerically and technically, thus creating an even worse imbalance with NATO?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I believe that perestroika needs a certain amount of encouragement. However, I do not believe that there is a risk in supporting the Soviet military effort, as my noble friend suggests. The COCOM rules are designed to ensure that equipment which might help
1198
the Soviet military effort is not exported to the Soviet Union or to eastern Europe.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, is it true that any such contracts are approved by the DTI and by COCOM, in which the United States plays a leading role? Is the Minister aware that last year's contract for £100 million with John Brown Engineering and this year's contract for £250 million with Simon-Carves are welcomed in terms of employment in this country? Is it true that the Soviet Union has never defaulted on a credit agreement?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, credit is provided only on a commercial basis and for worthwhile trade. The terms are subject to OECD consensus rules and in the past month there has been a tightening of interest rate conditions for the Soviet Union. I am afraid that I cannot answer the last point raised by the noble Lord, nor can I go into the details of the individual firms concerned.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, with regard to the latter part of the Question, will the Minister say what is the reaction of Her Majesty's Government to the proposal by the Warsaw Pact leaders that there should be talks on conventional arms? If the Government agree that such talks are a reasonable possibility, can the Minister say what the forum will be? Will it be the Vienna talks or the conventional stability talks?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, any words such as those the noble Lord has quoted are encouraging. As regards arms control, we are working hard for balanced and verifiable agreements which enhance our security. However, I am unable to give him any information as regards any forum in the future.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, are the prospects for conventional disarmament more promising than usual? Does the Minister agree that the threat of financial penalties, as suggested in the Question, may do more harm than good?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, as I said in answer to my noble friend Lord Chelwood, I believe it is important that perestroika should be encouraged. As regards the military effort of the Soviet Union, I do not believe that these arrangements need work to the Soviet military advantage.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, in an attempt to start conventional arms talks, will my noble friend consider asking the Russians to reduce the surplus over the NATO strength of 30,000 battle tanks which now exist in the Warsaw Pact countries? Is this not a good place to start conventional arms reductions when there is a huge imbalance of that kind?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, your Lordships discussed that matter last week. My noble friend's Question is concerned with credit and I think that this question goes a little wide of that.
Lord Whaddon: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that under perestroika there are increasing

1199
possibilities for profitable joint enterprise, and will he do his best to ensure that British industry is kept informed of those developments and opportunities?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am sure that that is a good point. We are aware that British firms are already making successful inroads.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, will the Minister accept that the Russians have defaulted on obligations particularly in respect of bonds issued prior to the revolution, and until those bonds are cleared the Soviet Union will not have a full and clear credit? Can the Minister tell the House what the Government are doing to ensure that the Soviet Union is meeting its obligations under those bonds?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot answer that question without notice but I shall look into the matter and write to the noble Lord.
Lord Chelwood: My Lords, in his reply my noble friend mentioned COCOM. Can he confirm that the Government do not wish to see the rules relaxed at present?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, so far as I am aware we have no wish to see the rules amended.

"Care in the Community": Report
2.55 p.m.
The Countess of Mar The Countess of Mar asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they intend to respond to the Griffiths Report entitled Care in the Community.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Skelmersdale): My Lords, as I told the House on 18th May, we shall bring forward our own proposals in due course.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer which does not unduly surprise me. Did the noble Lord read the second leader in The Times yesterday which put more clearly and precisely the points that I should like to have made but shall not now make? Can he impress upon his honourable and right honourable friends in another place the importance of a quick decision on the report because of the problems of elderly people being forced into residential accommodation and patients being discharged from psychiatric hospitals with no proper care provided?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, yes, I read the second leader in The Times yesterday: it contained detailed comments on some of the proposals in the report. It would not be productive for me to speculate in that area. The report concerns not only the machinery of government but also the relationship
1200
between government departments. Therefore it is inevitable that a government response will need detailed consideration and time. However, a response will evolve in due course.
I do not regard the length of time taken by the Government to decide on their preferred route forward as implying any downgrading of community care or lack of urgency. In the meantime much can be done by local authorities and health departments.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, does the Minister recall that in an earlier answer he gave to the House at the end of a debate he said that the Griffiths Report, together with certain other reports, would be examined in the course of the National Health Service review? Does the Minister accept that by then it will be too late and that certain action is essential here and now; namely, to ensure that provision for care in the community is in place before certain patients are discharged from hospital into the community?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, that was what I meant. Authorities should be pressing ahead with the development of the services already planned rather than postponing developments pending national action. While it is not necessary to have the i's dotted and the t's crossed in respect of both considerations, clearly it is necessary for them to be in parallel.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, this is not the only report which urges a clear national framework for community care. Is the Minister aware that the slowness of the Government in acting in this context, coupled with the provisions of the Local Government Finance Bill as it reached this House, which will have the effect of driving many of the poor and disabled out of the community into residential care, raise doubts about whether the Government still believe in the policy of care in the community?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, no. I do not believe that that conclusion can be drawn. Care in the community means more than merely keeping people in their own homes, as the noble Lord well knows. Where considered appropriate there is provision within the care in the community policy for residential homes and hostels of various kinds.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, can my noble friend say to what extent the Government's response is inhibited by the acute shortage of nurses?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, that has no bearing on the matter. Sir Roy Griffiths was asked to report on suggestions for improving the situation within current resources, and he did so.
Lord Carter: My Lords, is the Minister aware that because of pressures on their budgets a number of health authorities are underfunding community care in order to balance their books? Can he say what plans the Government have to deal with that serious problem?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am interested to hear what the noble Lord says. However, we in central government have no evidence of that allegation. If the noble Lord can produce the evidence I shall willingly look at it.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, with the problem of the extreme shortage of nurses, will the Government extend work permits to those people coming from European countries such as Portugal who wish to be care attendants and who can do that job very well for severely disabled people who wish to live in the community?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the noble Baroness has asked a very precise and detailed question. I should like to consider the matter and write to her.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, is the Minister surprised that five months after the report was presented to the Secretary of State, some people who are deeply concerned with community care are not satisfied with an "in due course" response? Does he also accept that Sir Roy Griffiths has spoken of the urgency of the Government's response? Bearing in mind what he said about local authorities, how can he expect local authorities to plan community services for the elderly, mentally sick and handicapped, and physically handicapped, when they have no idea what their future responsibilities will be and when many of them are strapped for funds to do precisely what he says they should do?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I said earlier that both local authorities and district health authorities should get on with the plans which they have already formulated. Whenever the result of the Government's consideration on the report of Sir Roy Griffiths appears, I do not see that that makes any difference to that aspect. Nor should it be suggested that Sir Roy's report is being shelved because it acknowledges the need for further work in the absence of an obviously perfect solution. The framework which Sir Roy has offered needs to be studied before decisions can be reached on the best way forward, but that does not preclude current action.
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, can the Minister say how many patients are likely to be transferred from hospital into the community in the next five years, and what provision of care in the community there will be?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, not without notice, I am afraid.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, the noble Lord specifically said in one of his replies that there was far more that local authorities could now do to help to resolve the problem. Will he explain to the House what they can do if they do not have the resources to do anything more?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I said that there is room for progress within the existing arrangements
1202
while we consider the way ahead. Authorities should be pressing ahead with the development of the services already planned rather than postponing development pending national action. I have already made that point.

Business
3.2 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Committee stage of the Health and Medicines Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7.30 p.m. for approximately one hour and that during this adjournment the Farm Woodland Scheme 1988 will be taken.

Finance (No. 2) Bill
Brought from the Commons, endorsed with the certificate from the speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act 1911; read a first time and ordered to be printed.

Housing Bill: Amendment Proposal
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, I beg to present a petition from the residents of Newham which prays that this House will amend Part IV of the Housing Bill so than more than 50 per cent. of those eligible to vote have to be in favour of the proposition to choose a new landlord for it to proceed, and that the vote be conducted by an independent body and by secret ballot.
Petition presented.

Legal Aid Bill [H.L.]
3.4 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendments be now considered. (The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

>COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[References are to Bill 113 as first printed for the Commons.]

COMMONS AMENDMENT
1 Clause 9, page 7, line 40, leave out subsections (8) and (9).
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 1, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 23 and 25. These amendments deal with the question of providing a passport to non-contributory legal aid for those in receipt of prescribed social security benefits, primarily income support. Under the Bill such an automatic passport was allowed for only in respect of advice and assistance under Part III. By moving the power to Clause 34 (which is what the amendments do) it will enable regulations to

1203
provide for passporting arrangements for all types of legal aid, if that seems appropriate in all the circumstances.
I am sure that your Lordships will agree that this is a sensible improvement that the other place has made to the Bill and I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, we on this side of the House are disposed to agree with the proposition, but I am not sure that we are very enamoured of the Lord Chancellor's reference to "passport". That does not conjure up speed, quickness or efficiency. However, I take it that that is merely a turn of phrase and is not intended to be more significant than that.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, as always, I am seeking one word to explain an idea, and I am sure that the noble and learned Lord has the idea. I hope that as the legal aid scheme is developed, it will more and more give an impression of efficiency and speed.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
2 Clause 14, page 10, line 39, leave out 'or Part VI'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 2 I should also speak to Amendments Nos. 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 27. Your Lordships will remember that during the passage of the Bill through this House I moved a number of amendments to the Bill which were designed to transfer certain care proceedings from Part IV (civil legal aid) to Part VI (care proceedings). That seemed a sensible rationalisation, and your Lordships will remember that I gave the matter quite a lot of consideration.
However, it has since occurred to us that the only way to transfer them back to either civil legal aid or ABWOR without duplication would be by further primary legislation since there is no power to amend the scope of Part VI by regulations. These amendments are designed to give such a power.
The reason it is needed is that it will be necessary to see how the new system works. If it appears in due course that the existing system with its mixture of civil legal aid, ABWOR and special legal aid is better than putting all care proceedings in the special category, then it is obviously prudent to have the power to revert once again to that system. It will also be helpful to have such a power to ease transition to the new system if, for example, we find that the courts are worried about their new workload.
I commend these amendments to your Lordships as giving the necessary flexibility to make this system work properly, and further consideration of the practical problems which might be involved has moved us to suggest this amendment to which the House of Commons has agreed. I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, we are disposed to agree with this; but we are puzzled as to why it should be a one-way power. There is a reference to reserving the necessity of perhaps going back to the initial system, if experience proves that to be necessary. Perhaps I may remind the noble and learned Lord of Lloyd George's famous dictum:
"It is undesirable to traverse a chasm in two leaps".
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I have a recollection of a gentleman from Killiecrankie who did just that without too much success. The position is that Part VI defines this special category including children's cases. If that stands, we would not be able to take cases out of that category. If, however, we have a power to put cases into the other categories it will give us a flexibility which I do not believe will be restricted in the way suggested by the noble and learned Lord. In the circumstances, I believe that this is the wise way in which to proceed. I commend Amendment No. 2 to your Lordships.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
3 Clause 15, page 11, line 33, leave out 'as provided by section 16 or by regulations' and insert 'in so far as he is required under section 16 to make a contribution.'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 3. This is a drafting amendment. Its purpose is to make clear that it is only for the purpose of Clause 16 that there can be any detraction from the generality of Clause 15(6). I commend Amendment No. 3 to your Lordships.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 3.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
4 Clause 15, page 11, line 36, leave out 'due to' and insert 'of.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 4. This also is a drafting amendment designed to avoid the risk of any undue weight being placed on the word "due"where none is intended.
Moved, That the House do agree with Commons in their Amendment. No. 4.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, it is perhaps as well that this amendment should be put in its context. It relates to Clause 15(6), which provides:
"Except as provided by section 16 or by regulations"—
which we shall be coming to later—
"a legally assisted person shall not be required to make any payment in respect of representation under this Part and it shall be for the Board to pay his solicitor for acting for him and to pay any fees due to counsel for so acting".

1205
It is suggested by the noble and learned Lord that the use of the words "due to" gives undue weight in the circumstances. That naturally makes members of the legal profession who may be present a little nervous, hearing in mind the refusal of the noble and learned Lord to agree to the general definition of what should be paid. I believe the relevant phrase is "The principle of reasonable remuneration". Is this intended to reinforce the Government's position that they should not be required to pay reasonable remuneration—at any rate, with those words included in the Bill—or is there something less, wholly 100 per innocent, than at first strikes the eye?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I can assure your Lordships, including any members of the legal profession who are present, that I am not in any way harping back to the arguments about imprecise criteria that existed in the past for legal aid remuneration. This subsection to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, referred provides that it shall be for the board to pay a client's solicitor for acting for him and to pay any fees due to counsel for so acting.
As your Lordships will see, the word "due" is used only in relation to counsel. It would perhaps be a little optimistic to believe that fees would be paid that are not due. We do not have the word included for solicitors and there is therefore a lack of symmetry. As your Lordships know, I am keen on having symmetry in this Bill and it therefore seems right to take out the word. There is nothing more sinister than that. Therefore, I hope your Lordshps will agree with the Commons on this amendment.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
3.15 p.m.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
5 Clause 16, page 12, line 7, leave out 'a lump sum' and insert 'one or more capital sums'.
6 Clause 16, page 12, line 11, leave out 'lump' and insert 'capital'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 5 and 6. It has always been the case that if a person suddenly acquired additional capital resources—for example, from an inheritance—during the time he was receiving legal aid but after the initial means assessment, his means will be re-assessed and he might be either ruled out of scope and have his certificate discharged or be required to pay an additional contribution from his new capital.
We intend that that position should continue, and that has always been our intention. These provisions were altered to take account of considerations raised as the Bill was going through Parliament. As a result, there is some doubt as to whether reference in the Bill to a lump sum in relation to capital would enable us to make that sort of sensible modification.
The first amendment puts it beyond doubt that in some circumstances more than one capital contribution may be required. The second amendment is a drafting change to reflect the language of the first amendment. With your
1206
Lordships' agreement, I put these two amendments together.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 5 and 6. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
7 Clause 19, page 14, line 46, after '21', insert '22'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 7. This amendment is consequential upon the introduction of a new Clause 22 at Third Reading in this House inserting the Widgery criteria on the face of the Bill in response to a request that I should do so by a number of your Lordships, including the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones. At the time it was overlooked that the number should be changed and this amendment corrects that omission.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 7. (The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for making this addition and introducing the Widgery criteria on a firm and clear basis into the Bill.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. It is an indication that, for the most part, the elements of this Bill have been ultimately subjected to substantial agreement.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
8 Clause 19, page 15, line 18, leave out 'or' and insert 'and also includes proceedings instituted under section 115 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (binding over) in respect of an actual or apprehended breach of the peace or other misbehaviour and proceedings for dealing with a person'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 8. This amendment includes binding-over proceedings within the scope of criminal legal aid. Such proceedings are already included in Section 30(11) of the Legal Aid Act 1974 and, due to an oversight, were omitted from the terms of Clause 19. Your Lordships will feel it right that these proceedings should be included.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 8.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
9 Clause 20, page 15, line 46, at end insert 'or to be dealt with in respect of a sentence',.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 9. Clause 20 deals with the courts and authorities which are competent to grant criminal legal aid. Clause 20(4) spells out the circumstances in which the magistrates' courts can

1207
grant legal aid for Crown Court proceedings. It has been pointed out that it is normal practice for magistrates' courts to grant legal aid when they are committing someone to the Crown Court to be dealt with in respect of a range of matters relating to sentence; for example, breach of conditions of sentence. The Bill as it stood probably did not allow for that. This amendment puts the matter beyond doubt and ensures that present practice can continue.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 9.-(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, here again we on this side of the House welcome this amendment. It is a helpful extension.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
10 Clause 20, page 16, line 2, at end insert—
'(4A) The magistrates' court inquiring into an offence as examining justices is also competent, before it decides whether or not to commit the person for trial, as respects any proceedings before the Crown Court on his trial.'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 10. This amendment inserts into the Bill what is currently provided for under Section 2(1) of the Legal Aid Act 1982. It allows magistrates' courts to make only one legal aid order at committal proceedings which will cover both those proceedings and the defendant's trial in the Crown Court, should the magistrates' court decide to commit him there.
These through legal aid orders, as they are called, were introduced to assist early preparation of cases by solicitors and to enable counsel's advice to be taken early where necessary. This is advantageous to the solicitor and, most important, advantageous to the client. It also assists the court. It reduces administrative work in the magistrates' court and preparation should lead to improvements in the reliability of the information supplied to the Crown court for listing purposes and reduce the number of wasteful late changes of plea. For these reasons, I seek to retain this provision.
I believe that all your Lordships will agree that it is most important that preparation should proceed early and that last-minute changes of plea should, if possible, be avoided.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 10.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
11 Clause 23, page 19, line 5, leave out subsection (8).
12 Clause 23, page 19, line 14, at end insert 'where sums due under the order for costs are paid to the Board or the Lord Chancellor under section 20(2) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 (recovery regulations)—'.
13 Clause 23, page 19, line 15, leave out from 'sums' to 'subsection' in line 16 and insert 'so paid'.
14 Clause 23, page 19 line 18, leave out from 'sums' to 'subsection' in line 19 and insert 'so paid'.
15 Clause 23, page 19, line 21, leave out subsection (10) and insert—
'(10) References in subsection (9) above to the costs of representation include any charge or fee treated as part of those costs by section 26(2).'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment Nos. 11 to 15. I speak also to Amendments Nos. 21 and 49. These are largely technical and drafting amendments designed to clarify the relationship between the costs provisions of this part of the Bill and those of Part II of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 with particular reference to the treatment of contributions. The amendments remove what on further examination has been seen to be unnecessary duplication of the 1985 Act. In relation to contributions, they clarify both the proper field of operation of Clause 23(9), which deals with the repayment of contributions in particular circumstances, and also the application of that subsection to the situation governed by Clause 26 where green form costs are to be treated as part of the cost of representation under this Part of the Bill.
The amendments also ensure that while the inter partes costs of an assisted person will not be reduced on account of any contribution, his contribution will not be included in his costs for the purposes of any central funds order. This is clearly right because where the court has power to order the remission or repayment of contributions to a successful assisted person, but the court chooses not to exercise that discretion in the assisted person's favour—where, for example, he is acquitted on a technicality or has failed to give notice of an alibi defence—it would be wrong for there to be a back-door alternative method of recovery by means of any order from central funds. The availability of central funds to cover an assisted person's own out-of-pocket expenses is unaffected by these amendments.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 11 to 15 en bloc.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
16 Clause 27, line 16, leave out 'to care proceedings' and insert ', subject to subsection (1A) below, to the following proceedings (referred to as "care proceedings")'.
17 Clause 27, Page 21, line 34, after 'proceedings', insert 'to which this section applies.'.
18 Clause 27, page 21, line 35, at end insert—
'(1A) Subsection (1) above may be varied by regulations so as to restrict the categories of proceedings for the purposes of which representation is available under this section and section 28.'.
19 Clause 28, page 22, line 17, after 'proceedings' insert 'to which this section applies'.
20 Clause 30, line 22, after 'proceedings', insert 'to which sections 27 and 28 apply'.
The Lord Chancellor: I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 16. In moving this amendment, I have already spoken to Amendments Nos. 17, 18, 19 and 20 with Amendment No. 2, and with the leave of your Lordships, I ask that these be considered en bloc.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 16 to 20 en bloc.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
21 Clause 31, page 24, line 5, at end insert—
'(1A) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1)(b) above, for the purpose of determining the costs of a legally assisted person in pursuance of an order for costs or an agreement for costs in his favour (other than an order under Part II of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985) the services of his solicitor and counsel shall be treated as having been provided otherwise than under this Act and his solicitor shall be treated as having paid counsel's fees.'.
The Lord Chancellor: I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 21. I have already spoken to this amendment with Amendment No. 11.
Moved, that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 21.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
22 Clause 34, page 27, line 5, at end insert —
'(f) make provision for the recovery of sums due to the Board and for making effective the charge created by this Act on property recovered or preserved for a legally assisted person and regulating the release or postponement of the enforcement of any charge (however created) in favour of the Board.'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 22. I also speak to Amendment No. 24.
These two amendments provide a specific power to make regulations regulating to what is known as a statutory charge. The terms of these two amendments almost exactly reflect the existing Section 22 paragraph (e) of the Legal Aid Act 1974. Originally we had thought it unnecessary to reproduce these powers and had intended to make the necessary regulations under the general powers in the Bill. However, on reflection, we believe that a specific power akin to that in the 1974 Act would be preferable and hence these amendments. The only substantial change from the 1974 wording is paragraph (c) of Amendment No. 16.
It was announced in February 1986, and repeated in the Legal Aid White Paper, that the Government intended to make two changes to the operation of the statutory charge. The first is that we intended to allow postponement of the charge on a sum of money ordered by the court to be used for the purchase of a house. This is to remedy a long-standing complaint about the charge. The second is that interest will be charged on all postponed charges. It is the interest point that is covered in paragraph (c). I hope that it will be possible to make the regulations introducing these changes in the near future. Your Lordships who are familiar with the operation of this part of the legal aid system know that there was a most unfortunate distinction between a case where a charge is already
1210
on a house, and the charge on a sum of money to be used to purchase the house. Obviously, if the funds required to fund the legal aid contribution were taken out of the money, there would not be enough to buy the house. It was a most awkward situation. This we have dealt with by making provision to charge interest as is appropriate on the postponed debt.
Moved, that the House do agree with the Commons in Amendment No. 22.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
23 Clause 34, line 26, at end insert—
'(5A) Regulations made for the purposes mentioned in subsection (2)(c) above may provide that the income or capital of a person in receipt of prescribed social security benefits is to be taken as not exceeding a prescribed amount.'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons Amendment No. 23. I have already spoken to this with Amendment No. 1.
Moved, that the House do agree with the Commons in Amendment No. 23.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
4 Clause 34, page 27, line 34, at end insert—
'( ) Regulations made for the purposes mentioned in subsection (2)(f) above may include provisions—

(a) for the enforcement for the benefit of the Board of an order or agreement for costs made in favour of a legally assisted person:

(b) for making a solicitor's right to payment by the Board wholly or partly dependent on his performance of the duties imposed on him by regulations made for the purposes of that paragraph; and

(c) requiring interest to be charged at a prescribed rate in circumstances where enforcement of a charge in favour of the Board is postponed.'.

The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons Amendment No. 24: I have spoken to this amendment with Amendment No. 22.
Moved, that the House do agree with the Commons in Amendment No. 24.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
25 Clause 34, page 28, line 12, at end insert—
'(11A) In subsection (5A) above "social security benefits" means any benefit provided under section 20(1) of the Social Security Act 1986 (income-related benefits).'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons Amendment No. 25. I have already spoken to this with Amendment No. 1.
Moved, that the House do agree with the Commons in Amendment No. 25.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
26 Clause 43, page 31, leave out line 44 and insert 'assigned to them by section 2(2), (3) and (4) respectively subject, however, to the other provisions of that section;'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons Amendment No. 26. This is a drafting amendment designed to reflect the fact that the definitions of advice, assistance and representation can be affected by the other provisions of Clause 2 and in particular subsections (8) and (9).
Moved, that the House do agree with the Commons in Amendment No. 26.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
27 Clause 43, page 31, leave out line 46.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons Amendment No. 27. I have spoken to this Amendment with Amendment No. 2.
Moved, that the House do agree with the Commons amendment No. 27.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
28 Clause 45, page 32, line 39, leave out from 'there' to end of line 41.
29 After Clause 45, insert the following new Clause—
Amendments of Legal Aid Act 1974 pending repeal.
'The Legal Aid Act 1974 shall have effect subject to the amendments specified in Schedule (Transitory amendments of Legal Aid Act 1974) to this Act.'.
30 Clause 46, page 33, line I, leave out from beginning to 'shall' in line 3 and insert '(2) Subject to subsections (3) and (3A) below, this Act'.
31 Clause 46, page 33, line 8, at end insert—
'(3A) Sections 35 (together with the repeal of section 21 of the Legal Aid Act 1974) and (Amendments of Legal Aid Act 1974 pending repeal) shall come into force on the date on which this Act is passed.'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons Amendment No. 28. In moving this amendment, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 29, 30, 31, 53, 56 and 57 and to move Amendments Nos. 28 to 31 en bloc.
The intention of the Government is that the majority of this Bill will come into effect on the day that the board takes over its responsibilities formally which will be early in 1989. However, there are three areas where we believe that it will be helpful to have the new powers of the Bill available earlier than that. In order to make this plain, we have spelt these out in the new schedule which is cast in the form of transitory amendments to the 1974 Act and which will come into effect when the Bill receives Royal Assent.
On the day that the rest of the Bill comes into force, the 1974 Act will be repealed. The three specific powers are: first, the powers to make the changes we have already discussed to the operation of the statutory charge. That is an urgent matter and the sooner it is made the better. I hope to make these regulations before the appointed day for the board to take over. I feel that it would put my power to do so beyond doubt to have a clear reference to the power
1212
to charge interest on postponed charges on the face of the 1974 Act.
Secondly, the new regime for the determination of rates of remuneration for criminal legal aid. Since the profession will know that it is the intention of the Government that when the next round of remuneration discussions on criminal legal aid due to begin in the autumn are to be conducted against a background of the factors spelt out in the Bill, I felt that it would be helpful to put the legislative status of these factors beyond doubt at the earliest possible moment.
Thirdly, it has always been our intention—and the Bill already provides for this—to abolish what is now the 5 per cent. reduction from the High Court bills on Royal Assent. This is now included in the new schedule so that the profession will not have to wait until the Bill is fully in operation to get the benefit of the elimination of this 5 per cent. deduction. I hope that this aspect of the matter will be welcomed by the profession generally.
Moved, that the House do agree with the Commons in Amendments Nos. 28 to 31 en bloc—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
3.30 p.m.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
32 Clause 46, page 33, line 16, leave out subsection (6).
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 32. This amendment simply deletes the privilege amendment. I commend the amendment to your Lordships.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 32.—(The Lord Chancellor.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
33 Schedule 1, page 36, line 6, leave out 'made by the Lord Chancellor under this Act'.
34 Page 36, line 9, at end insert 'and shall make such arrangements for the delegation of functions to committees and persons as may be prescribed'.
35 Page 36, line 10, at beginning insert 'Subject to anything in regulations'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 33 to 35 en bloc. It has always been the Government's intention that the board should continue to establish area committees of practising solicitors and barristers to hear appeals against the refusal of civil legal aid. This is the important effect of ensuring the continuation of the involvement of the profession in decisions on the grant of legal aid. It had been our intention to leave the establishment of such committees to the board as an administrative task. However, on reflection, and in recognition of the importance which many people attach to the continuation of the area committees, it would seem sensible to take the power to provide for the establishment of such committees in regulations. These amendments give the necessary regulation-

1213
making powers. I commend the amendments to your Lordships.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 33 to 35. (The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
36 Schedule 1, page 36, line 26, leave out from 'to' to 'as' in line 28 and insert 'the members of any committee such fees and allowances'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 36. Schedule 1(13) as originally drafted permitted payment of allowances to committee members but not fees. Area committee members are paid fees for their attendance and we would wish this practice to continue. The amendment also deletes reference to the board itself in paragraph 13 since the remuneration and allowancs of the board are already dealt with in paragraph 8. I commend Amendment No. 36 to your Lordships.
Moved, that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 36.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
37 Schedule 3, page 39, line 12, leave out from 'paid' to 'shall' in line 13 and insert 'to a clerk of a magistrates' court in or towards satisfaction of a liability imposed by a contribution order'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 37. Schedule 3 to the Bill repeats the provisions of the Legal Aid Act 1974 in respect of the enforcement of contribution orders for criminal legal aid. Paragraph 4(2) of the schedule to which this is an amendment repeats Section 35(7) of the 1974 Act. I am advised that the wording of the 1974 Act is ambiguous and that it is not clear whether it is the contributions themselves that are referred to or the cost of collecting them. This amendment makes it plain that it is the contributions themselves that are intended to be referred to. I commend Amendment No. 37 to your Lordships.
Moved, that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 37.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
38 Schedule 4, page 41, fine 5, leave out '4(2)(a)' and insert '4(2)'.
39 Page 41, line 5, after 'Fund)' insert—
(a) in paragraph (a)'.
40 Page 41, line 6, at end insert—
'(b) in paragraph (c), the words "for the purposes of this Act" are repealed.'.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Cameron of Lochbroom): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 38 to 40 en bloc The substantive amendment is Amendment No. 40, the two earlier amendments being drafting consequences of that amendment. The effect of Amendment No. 40 is to widen the scope of
1214
determinations which can be made under Section 4(2)(c) of the Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1986. The need for this arises from steps which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is taking, in consultation with the Scottish Legal Aid Board and the Law Society of Scotland, to improve further the administration of legal aid.
My right honourable friend proposes to allow the board to make payments to solicitors who have taken urgent steps in proceedings on behalf of their clients before a legal aid application could be determined but where in due course no award of legal aid is made. He proposes to set stringent conditions for such payments, notably that the solicitor should satisfy the board that he had reasonable grounds for believing that the client was eligible for legal aid, and that the work charged was necessarily, reasonably and actually carried out. This will remove the need for emergency certificates in a sizeable number of cases. The Law Society of Scotland has offered full co-operation in securing a reduction in emergency certificates, based on the availability of this new discretion to the board. The offer of co-operation is most welcome. The amendments are the key to a major improvement in legal aid administration in Scotland and I commend them to your Lordships.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 38 to 40.—(Lord Cameron of Lochbroom.)
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, we welcome the amendments. It is pleasant to be going back to the old scheme before the Legal Aid (Scotland) Act was passed. The application was granted, backdated to the date of the application because the procedure, although we opposed it at the time the Scottish Act was passed, resulted in delays in court. These amendments are a considerable improvement.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
41 Schedule 4, page 41, line 12, leave out 'expenses' and insert 'fees and outlays'.
42 Page 41, line 21, leave out 'the expenses' and insert '—
(i) the fees and outlays'.
43 Page 41, line 23, at end insert—
'(ii) recouping any sums paid out of the fund on his behalf in respect of advice and assistance in relation to those proceedings or to any matter to which those proceedings relate.'.
44 Page 41, line 26, leave out `to "expenses"'.
45 Page 41, line 31, leave out from 'off' to end of line 34 and insert—
(12) An account of expenses which—

(a) has been agreed between the Board and the solicitor acting for the legally assisted person; or

(b) has been taxed,

shall not be liable to taxation by an auditor of court in any proceedings.".'
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 41 to 45 en bloc. The amendments are all of a technical nature and clarify certain aspects of the provisions within Section 17 of the 1986 Act dealing with contributions and payments out of property recovered. In particular,

1215
they remove ambiguity as to what is meant by "expenses"; they make clear that the board can use sums recovered in a civil action to meet expenditure in related matters handled as advice and assistance; and distinguish this use from the set-off powers of the courts. They also ensure that once an account of expenses is agreed between the Scottish Legal Aid Board and the solicitor it is not necessary for the solicitor to have the account taxed before he can recover any unpaid contribution from the client. I commend the amendments to the House.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 41 to 45.—(Lord Cameron of Lochhroom.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
46 Schedule 4, page 41, line 46, at end insert—
'5A. In section 36(2) (regulations), in paragraph (b) at end add—
"and the power to substitute different amounts for the amount specified in section 10(2) of this Act includes power to substitute different amounts in relation to different cases or classes of case".'.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 46. This amendment is necessary to enable a two-tier prospective cost limit to be set for advice and assistance, including assistance by way of representation. At present the amount of work which a solicitor may himself authorise without requiring the prior approval of the board is limited to a single sum of £50, although under new regulations proposed to be effective from 1st August this will be increased to £60. The limit is now to be differentiated so that in particular circumstances and subject to particular conditions a solicitor may authorise himself beyond and up to a further limit to be set at £150. The facility is again an important part of the improvements to the administration of legal aid discussed with the Law Society of Scotland and the Scottish Legal Aid Board. I commend it to your Lordships.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 46.—(Lord Cameron of Lochbroom.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
47 Schedule 4, page 42, line 11, at end insert—
'PART III
Board's property to be rateable
9. In Schedule 1, paragraph 2(4) is repealed.'.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 47. This amendment provides that the Scottish Legal Aid Board will meet its own rates bill instead of the Government making a payment in lieu of rates. The existing provision has resulted in an unnecessarily complex arrangement for the payments of the board's rates. The change will make the provision consistent with that applying to other major Scottish non-departmental public bodies. There are consequential adjustments to the
1216
list of repeals in Schedule 6 which are contained in a later amendment, Amendment No. 52, to which I also speak. I commend Amendment No. 47 to your Lordships.
Moved, that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 47.—(Lord Cameron of Lochbroom.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
48 Schedule 5, page 43, line 45, leave out paragraph 12 and insert—
'12. In section 19(2)(b) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, the words "(including any legal aid order)" shall be omitted and at the end of that paragraph there shall be inserted the words "or any grant of representation of the purposes of the proceedings which has been made under the Legal Aid Act 1988.".'
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 48. I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 51. These amendments are designed to remedy an omission in earlier versions of the Bill. Having repealed the definition in Section 21(1) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 of "legal aid order" the Bill fails to put anything in place of the parenthetical reference to such orders in Section 19(2)(b). The amendment in Schedule 5 corrects this omission and requires the additional repeal. I commend the amendment to your Lordships.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 48.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
49 Schedule 5, page 44, leave out lines 10 to 13 and insert—
'"(4A) Where one party to any proceedings is a legally assisted person then—

(a) for the purposes of sections 16 and 17 of this Act, his costs shall be taken not to include either the expenses incurred on his behalf by the Legal Aid Board or the Lord Chancellor or, if he is liable to make a contribution under section 23 of the Legal Aid Act 1988, any sum paid or payable by way of contribution; and

(b) for the purposes of sections 18 and 19 of this Act, his costs shall be taken to include the expenses incurred on his behalf by the Legal Aid Board or the Lord Chancellor (without any deduction on account of any contribution paid or payable under section 23 of the Legal Aid Act 1988) but, if he is liable to make such a contribution, his costs shall be taken not to include any sum paid or payable by way of contribution.".'.

The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment when I dealt with Amendment No. 11. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 49.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
50 Schedule 6, page 46, line 3, at end insert—

'1967 c. 80.

The Criminal Justice Act Section 90.' 1967.

The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, this is a technical amendment. Section 90 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 contains a penalty for the wrongful provision of

1217
information about means in connection with an application for criminal legal aid. That is now redundant in view of Clause 39(1) of the Bill which provides such a penalty covering all types of legal aid and thus needs to be repealed. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 50.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
51 Schedule 6, page 46, line 46, column 3, at beginning insert—

Section 16(8) In section 19(2)(b), the words "(including any legal aid order)".'.

The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I spoke to Amendment No. 51 when dealing with Amendment No. 48. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 51.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
52 Schedule 6, page 47, lines 4 to 7, leave out the third column and insert—

'In section 4(2)(c), the words "for the purposes of this Act".

In section 16, subsection (1) and, in subsection (2), the words "in this section and". In section 17, subsections (3) to (8).

Section 18(1).

In section 32(a), the words ", out of the Fund".

In Schedule 1 paragraph 2(4)".'.

Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment when moving Amendment No. 47. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 52.—(Lord Cameron of Lochbroom.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
53 Schedule 7, page 47, leave out lines 15 to 22 and insert—
'Preliminary.
1. In this Schedule—
"the 1974 Act" means the Legal Aid Act 1974; and "the appointed day" means the day appointed by the Lord Chancellor under section 46(2) of this Act for the coming into force of section 3(2) thereof.'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment when dealing with Amendment No, 28. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 53.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
54 Schedule 7, page 47, line 45, at end insert—
'(3A) The Lord Chancellor shall pay to the Law Society such expenses incurred after the appointed day in connection with their functions under sections 15(9) and 18 of the 1974 Act as appear to him to be reasonable.'.
55 Page 48, line 5, after '(2)(b)', insert 'or (3A)'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, with the leave of the House I should like to move Amendments Nos. 54 and 55 en bloc. Schedule 7 deals with transitional arrangements and paragraph 2 deals with the arrangements for winding up the old legal aid fund. After the old fund has been wound up, the Law Society will still have two residual functions; namely, to produce accounts for its final period of stewardship of the fund and to produce a report on that period. This amendment, which the Law Society has requested, provides that any expenses incurred in so doing will be paid by the Lord Chancellor. I am sure that your Lordships will think that that is appropriate in the circumstances. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in Amendments Nos. 54 and 55.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, these amendments relate to Schedule 7 which in effect says farewell to the role of the Law Society in legal aid administration. Therefore it is an important matter upon which to make some observations before we part from it. This is the last opportunity to make observations about the matters which we have discussed, but I do not propose to do so at any length. Perhaps I may just underline one or two matters.
First, what still remains to be done in and by the House is the handling of the regulations, a large number of which the Lord Chancellor is given power to introduce. No doubt in the fullness of time we shall receive and consider them in the House. Some will be dealt with by the ample procedure of affirmative resolution and others by the negative procedure. Therefore, we cannot say farewell to the Bill with any degree of confidence at this stage until we see the full quality and content of the many regulations which are still outstanding. What has already been noted is the very considerable power of direction given to the Lord Chancellor and his department.
Perhaps it may be appropriate if I also refer to the concern which has been expressed in different parts of the House about maintaining the independence of the Legal Aid Board. But we shall have to wait and see how that operates to determine the extent to which that independence is a reality.
There is one other matter which I ask leave to mention at this stage. Great concern was expressed in the House about the possibility that the Legal Aid Advisory Committee may go. It has performed very important duties. Indeed, I remember when I occupied the noble and learned Lord's position that its advice and protection across the whole field of legal aid was of immense value. Therefore we greatly hope that the power given to get rid of the committee will not be exercised.
The power of direction and the independence of the Legal Aid Board are matters which I again venture to refer to because unless they are given reality the Bill will lack a great deal of the true purpose of a reforming legal aid Bill.
3.45 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, as the noble and learned Lord said, in a sense this pair of amendments reflects the end of the Law Society's stewardship when the provision comes into effect. Indeed, it would be most appropriate for me—and I do it with all my heart—to express gratitude to the Law Society for its stewardship of legal aid over such a long period. As I said, I sought to express that by making it clear that the Lord Chancellor will pay the concluding expenses. Surely, in this matter, action is as important as any words that I could have said.
As regards the regulations, obviously there are many of them to come. Many will reflect the existing regulations in substantial part. I shall certainly do my best to earn the confidence of the House in the regulations, as they are being developed, by consultation with those who can help me to get them right.
In regard to the Legal Aid Board, your Lordships have now seen the names of those appointed to it on a shadow basis—that is, looking at the situation—in preparation for taking over formally when the Bill, assuming it gets Royal Assent, is brought into operation. Your Lordships will see that they are people of stature and independence. That is the best possible guarantee for the independence of the board.
As to the Legal Aid Advisory Committee, it is certainly continuing to operate. I have made a formal refrence to it to advise me on a question which I regard as being extremely important; namely, the priorities in respect of the scope of legal aid. I should like to pay tribute to the committee. It is right that we should have power to discontinue it, but I do not intend to exercise that power in the immediate future.
I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for raising these matters and for the general attitude that he and other noble Lords have displayed towards this important Bill.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
56 Schedule 7, page 50, line 1, leave out paragraph 12.
57 After Schedule 7, insert the following new Schedule—
'TRANSITORY AMENDMENTS OF LEGAL AID ACT 1974
Preliminary
1 In this Schedule "the 1974 Act" means the Legal Aid Act 1974.
Regulation of charges on property
2. In section 20(2)(e) of the 1974 Act (regulation of charge on property)—

(a) after the words "receiving advice or assistance or legal aid" there shall be inserted the words "and regulating the release or postponement of the enforcement of any charge (however created) for the benefit of the legal aid fund": and

(b) at the end there shall be inserted the words ": and

(iii) requiring interest to be charged at a prescribed rate in circumstances where enforcement of a charge for the benefit of the legal aid fund is postponed".
Remuneration
3. In section 39 of the 1974 Act, for subsection (3) (fair remuneration in criminal and certain other legal aid cases) there shall be substituted the following—
1220
"(3) The Lord Chancellor, in making regulations under this section as to the amounts payable to counsel or solicitors undertaking any description of legal aid work under this Part of this Act, shall have regard, among the matters which are relevant, to—

(a) the time and skill which it requires;

(b) the general level of fee income arising from it;

(c) the general level of expenses of barristers and solicitors which is attributable to it;

(d) the number and general level of competence of barristers and solicitors undertaking it;

(e) the effect of the regulations on the handling of the work; and

(f) the cost to public funds of any provision made by the regulations.".

4.—(1) In Schedule 2 to the 1974 Act (remuneration in civil legal aid cases)—

(a) in paragraph 1(1), for the words "95 per cent. of the" there shall be substituted the words "the full"; and

(b) in paragraph 2(1), for the words "95 per cent. of the" there shall be substituted the words "the full".

(2) The amendments made by this paragraph have effect in relation to any case in which the order or direction for taxation is made on or after the date on which this Act is passed.'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I spoke to Amendments Nos. 56 and 57 when I moved Amendment No. 28. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 56 and 57.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Health and Medicines Bill
3.48 p.m.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee. —(The Earl of Arran.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The BARONESS SEROTA in the Chair.]
Clause 11 [Charges for dental appliances and treatment]:
The Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Serota): In calling this amendment I should point out to the Committee that if it is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 31.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 12, line 1, leave out subsection (7).
The noble Baroness said: I rise to move this amendment which has been tabled in my name. Although I was not aware that it was to be supported by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, I notice that he has also put his name to the amendment. In the copy of the Marshalled List that I have I do not think that there are any other names added to mine, as yet. However, that is not an issue.
I should happily have brought the amendment forward entirely on my own, and indeed I submitted

1221
it that way. I have received a note from the noble Lord to say that he will join the Committee shortly as he is chairing another committee elsewhere. I understand that as soon as he sees on the monitor that the debate has started he will come to the Chamber. However, my speech will he quite independent and therefore would make no difference to whatever comments he has to make.
I speak as someone who has been in general dental practice in the health service for over 30 years. The suggestion to bring in a charge for a dental examination is a retrograde step. I appreciate the point made on Second Reading when the Minister said that the Government intended to raise more money from dentistry. I appreciate that there may be a need to do that, but there are other ways of doing so. At present there is a ceiling of £150 on any patient's payment. That represents 75 per cent. of the treatment cost up to that value; including the free examination. The Government could have made the ceiling higher. I am sure that such things can be worked out on a financial basis. If one paid 75 per cent. up to £200, that might well more than compensate for all free examinations. I do not know the arithmetic. I do not claim to have gone into it in detail. There are many ways of raising the same money from dentistry as would be raised through charging for a dental examination.
It is the principle of charging for a dental examination that I so strongly oppose. A dental examination is the preliminary to the diagnosis of any condition that a patient may have. Most importantly, it is the time when one picks up the presence of oral cancer at its early, pre-cancerous stage, or at an early and treatable stage. That is when people's lives are in one's hands. If such people are deterred from coming to the surgery they may allow the condition to continue and to reach the point where it is no longer treatable. People's whole lives are affected by small things which lead to some terrible illness that could have been discovered and dealt with.
During all my years of practice, all children's dental examinations have been free. They continue to be so. The importance of going to a dentist for an examination was to ensure that the children also attended. They were the ones with all the dental decay who needed to be seen not twice but three times a year. The Government will still pay for children to be seen three times a year, but children's dental decay is almost a thing of the past. The new problems in dentistry relate to older people who are on beta-blocking drugs for heart conditions or who are on other types of chemical treatment or therapy. They create new conditions in the oral mucosa. It is now the older patient who needs to be seen and checked twice a year, whereas for years we said to older patients, "Do not bother to come. At your age, your teeth do not decay. Come once a year". That has all changed. It is now the older patient who needs to come.
For the person who has no means, the examination will still he free. I have seen many elderly people who have been thrifty and saved a little money. They do not receive supplementary benefit and they have to meet all their costs. Whereas with a prescription they
1222
would receive free treatment, under this provision they will not. Every year some elderly people die of hypothermia even when they have money in the hank. They were brought up to be thrifty and careful, and they will not spend their last penny on heating the house. They will think twice about paying an amount which is now to be £3 but which I am sure, as happened with prescriptions, is just the start. Over the years that amount must obviously go up. How much more seriously will they then think, "I can do without going to the dentist. There is nothing wrong. Why do I need to go?" Often when things are wrong, they are without symptoms. They are pain- and trouble-free. People think that they can put off the visit for another year or so, but they do not know. The charge will he a deterrent.
I noticed that on Second Reading the Minister said that there were about 8 million dental examinations every year for patients who did not require treatment. That sounds as if we might generate £24 million if each person paid £3. However, there was no quantification of how many of those were receiving free treatment. I have no way of knowing whether one-quarter or three-quarters would be free. We cannot discuss what money will be produced by the examination charge.
It is important that one should want to go to the dentist. One may not want to go to the dentist; but there may be someone who loves and cares and is urging one to go for regular checks for preventive purposes, whether it he medical, for dentistry or the optician. I do not want any patient to be able to argue that he or she does not have £3 to spare that week and will put off the visit to the following week, month or year.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: That is what will happen.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: If the examination is free there is no excuse for not going. There is then no cash deterrent for the patient. The amendment is simple. It merely opposes the introduction of charging for a dental examination. I beg to move.
Lord Ennals: I support the noble Baroness. She made out a convincing case on Second Reading. I found it deeply moving. I am glad that she has proposed the amendment in Committee. It is a clear amendment. Many people will be deterred from having the examination. Even though the figure of £3, as she says, is not huge, people know that if they have their teeth examined that may well lead to a number of jobs being done and to considerable expense. I must make an admission to the Committee. Fearing that there was a possibility that the amendment moved by the noble Baroness might not get through, I have been to the dentist to have my free check. The dental examination showed that four teeth needed treatment. During the past few weeks I have clocked up almost £100-worth of treatment. If I had decided not to have my dental examination, I could have avoided that, but at a cost which will happen next year or the year after when I might have had to have teeth removed.

1223
It is clear where the British Dental Association stands on this matter. It believes that charging for check-ups will have a damaging and possibly disastrous effect on dental attendance. It says:
"The price of a check up may seem small. However, in charging for dental advice, alongside free health advice and health care that is offered elsewhere, the NHS would be making the clearest possible statement to patients and prospective patients that regular dental care is thought to be relatively unimportant. This may not be the intention but it is certainly the interpretation which many would put on the introduction of examination charges."
The British Dental Association is strongly against the Government's proposals.
One must ask oneself why the Government believe that they know better than the dentists. The Committee would be wise to accept the view put forward by the noble Baroness. It would also give the lie to the suspicion which is deeply embedded in many people's minds that if this step were taken—the first time in 40 years when there would be a charge for an examination either by a general practitioner for some physical complaint, for eyes or teeth—it would be the first time people would have to pay for an examination. It is a dangerous step. I fear that if the Government take it, many people will feel that it is the first step down a route that could seriously undermine the National Health Service.
We have already worried about the costs of treatment but this is much more fundamental. As the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, said on Second Reading, there is no doubt that very often the process of an examination discovers something which, if left untreated, could have a very serious effect. I believe that that is very important. It is not just a matter of teeth which may need to be repaired, it may well be a question of cancer, for example, as the noble Baroness mentioned.
Although there may be other matters in the Bill with which it can go along, I hope that the Committee as a whole will feel that this situation is not acceptable. I hope that the advice of the noble Baroness will be taken not only because of her position on those Benches but also in view of her professional skills. I hope that the Committee will accept the amendment which stands in her name and which she has proposed so movingly.
4 p.m.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: I should like to speak in support of the Government, who seem to be a little short of support so far, especially after the very persuasive speech of my noble friend Lady Gardner. I correspond with the description that she gave. As I can testify, I still have a mouthful of teeth although some of them need repairs. As she said, it is perfectly true that it is older people who should go regularly for an examination. Mercifully, the children are beginning to show a wonderful record in the health of their teeth and they will continue to receive free treatment. I recognise the cogency of the case put by my noble friend with all her authority as a leading member of the dental profession.
I think that the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, spoke with great discrimination in a field which for him is full of broken glass because he has been responsible
1224
for presiding over the National Health Service in the past and indeed for administering the service which makes charges for dental and other purposes. He has picked out the point that the dental examination is a first step and therefore a very important one which has particular significance in this field.
However, I think it is right to ask the Committee to consider the broad context of the dental charges that we are now discussing. The fact is that all of us in this Chamber, and especially noble Lords who have been in the other place, are well aware that dental and optical charges have, in addition to charges to the taxpayer, been the normal method of raising revenue for the National Health Service ever since the very beginning. No doubt along with some other noble Lords I can recollect the very beginning of this question. In 1951 Mr. Gaitskell in his Budget speech announced the intention to introduce charges for optical and dental purposes, and very dramatic results flowed from it. However, he stuck to his decision and the Labour Government of the day stuck to it, and the fact is that ever since all governments have found it necessary, in order to meet the huge costs of the National Health Service which are ever rising and ever will, to make charges wherever they have thought appropriate.
Over the years those charges have been increased. I suppose that the first major increase was in 1968 and there were considerable increases again in 1976 and 1977, as the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, will remember. The present Government have made further increases since then.
This is a matter for the very expert judgment of the Secretary of State who is running the health service. He must try to raise the revenue that he needs for expansion of the services in a way which he has decided, with the assistance of his expert advisers, will not damage the service. It is a very delicate judgment but Secretaries of State of both complexions have been doing it for years and it is quite certain to continue.
We have to consider the matter in that context and judge whether or not it is reasonable for the Government to consider that these two sets of charges are the way to raise £100 million toward the extra £600 million which they wish to spend on primary health care. An extra £600 million over the next two years so that many desirable things can be done is a very valuable addition which everybody blesses and welcomes. The Government reckon that from these charges they can raise some £100 million toward that total. I must say that if that is their judgment, I feel that they have made out their case.
Let us turn to the particular charge of £3 a time which will be asked of a community whose incomes, except at the bottom end, are increasing annually. There will be exemptions which will exclude some 38 per cent. of the community—all those who are on any system of income support and those who come within the small margin above it. Something like 38 per cent. of the community will be excluded. The rest will be asked to pay £3. It is hard to believe that in our community today that sum will represent a serious deterrent.

1225
The noble Baroness most persuasively said that none of us welcomes a visit to the dentist; it is something that one puts off whenever one can and therefore to have to pay £3 might just be the straw that breaks the camel's back. However, I do not believe that it will. It is not really that much. It will raise the total level of charges for the dental services from the present figure of some 30 per cent. to 32 per cent. I do not believe that that will seriously deter people from going for an examination preparatory to having treatment. I hope therefore that the Committee will see this amendment in that context and despite the very persuasive pleading of my noble friend will not accept this amendment.
Lord Winstanley: I am quite sure that all noble Lords on these Benches will wish to support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner. Speaking on their behalf I wish to say that I agree with every single word she said in a truly excellent and very clear speech in which she explained the purposes of the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Nugent, described her speech as persuasive but he does not appear to he totally persuaded by it and I suspect that that it is because he does not fully understand it.
Never for a moment did the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, say that she was opposed to charges. She referred to charges and the fact that people pay a very substantial proportion of the cost of their dental treatment. She was concerned about the charge for an examination which in point of fact may deter someone from going anywhere near the dentist at all. That would perhaps prevent later charges which might be very much heavier for treatment that the patient ought to have but which he will not have because he does not present himself at all.
The noble Baroness is absolutely right. As a general medical practitioner I know that patients do not like to go to see the dentist. For a variety of reasons, necessary or otherwise, they very much like to go to see the doctor but so far as dentists are concerned there is an inbuilt reluctance to go anywhere near them. If for one moment one once provides some kind of disincentive—and this charge does provide a very clear disincentive—then the plain and simple fact is that people just will not go to the dentist. I agree very strongly with the noble Baroness. She is concerned about the elderly. They are the people who will not go.
In an earlier speech at Second Reading the noble Baroness suggested that perhaps by their splendid work dentists had almost worked themselves out of employment because dental caries has now virtually disappeared. There are a variety of reasons for its disappearance and the work of dental practitioners is not the only one. The noble Lord, Lord Nugent, will know that some part of its disappearance is due to the fluoridation of water supplies. However, I do not wish to tread that stony ground at the moment. Dental caries has also disappeared because of an increasing understanding of dental hygiene and perhaps changes relating to sugar content and so on made in the diet of young children. The number of children who are not allowed sweets now is astonishing compared with the number of children
1226
who insisted on sweets almost every hour of almost every day in the past. That, too, has had an effect.
The noble Baroness pointed out that dentists have not gone out of employment because of the sensational reduction in dental caries. The new situation has meant that there are new dental problems with which dental surgeons have to cope regularly. One of those problems relates to dealing with people who have kept comparatively full mouths of teeth up to quite an advanced age. Elderly people who have kept all or most of their own teeth, although some of them may be loose, are now a common occurrence. They often have the beginnings of gum disease of one kind or another. Those people need attention in a way that they did not in the past as in the past so many of them had all their teeth extracted when they were 17 or 18. It is fortunate that we have passed those days and that people keep until later in life a full set of their own teeth. But that situation produces new and very difficult problems for my dental colleagues. They have to deal with those problems on a daily basis.
The noble Baroness also referred to the screening or examination of people's teeth at different ages which sometimes revealed other diseases. It is important to recognise that dental health is an integral part of health in general. There are many medical and indeed surgical conditions of which dental sepsis and abnormalities in the teeth can be a very important cause. It is often necessary for doctors to advise their own patients of whatever age group to see a dentist in order to have their teeth examined for a whole variety of reasons. One cannot separate the two. Health is health whether it is dental health or general health.
I ask the Committee to accept the objection of the noble Baroness to charges. Some of us on this side of the Committee object to charges of any kind. We should like to see a different method of financing the National Health Service. But that is not the argument of the noble Baroness at this stage. Her argument at this stage is a limited one. It is that the amount of a charge will be, as the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, pointed out, minuscule in comparison with the total amount that some people pay for their dental treatment. But by forfeiting that very small amount of money from the individual patient, the Government will forfeit a great deal more than the amount they would be paying for treatment if those people then needed to have treatment.
The main thrust of the argument of the noble Baroness is that the existence of this charge will undoubtedly prevent many people from going anywhere near a dentist when their health in general—not merely their dental health—makes it advisable that they should see a dentist for regular inspections. I hope that the Committee will support the amendment. I think it is immensely important.
Lord Colwyn: I also do not wish to prolong the debate too much. However, I wish to support my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes. Although I do not presently work within the National Health Service, I have over 20 years' experience of the practice of dentistry, and about 14 years' experience of dentistry in the National Health Service.

1227
One aspect of my work has always been very obvious. Here I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley. It is that most of us—and I include myself—do not enjoy having dental treatment. Only 20 per cent. of people visiting a dentist go for regular inspections whether they be at six, 12 or 18-monthly intervals. My profession has continually sought ways to encourage people to visit our surgeries. The fact that the initial examination was free was one of the most persuasive arguments of our long-fought campaign.
My noble friend the Minister will tell me that past increases in dental charges have not deterred people generally from seeking treatment, and that the number of courses of treatment has risen from just over 26 million in 1976 to 32 million last year. But the figures also show that, when charges went up in 1971–72 treatment per course went down by 7 per cent. When charges went up in 1977–78 treatment per course went down by 4 per cent. When charges went up in 1984–85 and 1986–87 treatments went down by 4 per cent. again.
Because of the considerable improvements in the nation's dental health and because of the increasing emphasis on the regular dental examination and preventive treatment, it must surely be a retrograde step to introduce a charge for routine examination. The charge could even be interpreted as a signal to the public that dental checkups are not an important screening activity. I shall not repeat the argument that the Minister will hear time and time again from the dentists at the moment and later on from the optometrists about the opportunity of early detection of more serious diseases. He may be quite correct when he tells us, as I am sure he will, that the incidence of detection of oral carcinomas is rare. But there are many other diseases which can show themselves in the mouth.
I have to admit that the long list of systemic diseases classified by the World Health Organisation, and listed in my brief from the British Dental Association, prompted me to refer back to some of my old dental textbooks, as I had quite forgotten how much information can be collected from a routine dental examination.
I hope that we shall not divide on this matter at this stage. My noble friend the Minister is a sensible, caring and influential member of the team from the DHSS. I am sure that he will be able to persuade his right honourable friend to change the Bill in a way that all sides of this Chamber are now suggesting.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Trafford: We are discussing, or we have been discussing, two different things in all the speeches put forward. The first thing was the question of charges and their deterrent effect. That has been referred to in general terms. The proposition that has been put forward is a perfectly tenable one. It was that there should be no charges whatsoever on any of these things. That is a perfectly acceptable, understandable and tenable position. It is one I do not happen to share because I believe that there is no reason why those who cannot make some contribution should
1228
not have to make a contribution. That is the question of general charges.
But here we are talking about a specific charge for a specific type of treatment or check. One is tempted to say that there have been various types of charges for various types of checks. There have been rather complicated kinds of dental charging up to date. One is tempted to ask what is so special about this provision. It boils down to two things, as I understand it. The first argument is that vast numbers of people will suffer serious dental disasters if they are not prepared to pay a small sum of money—I gather it is a small sum of money—to have their teeth checked. The second argument is that a vast number of diseases will be missed. I know of hardly any group in the medical or the dental professions who could not put forward the same argument about every type of screening imaginable. Very little of that is proven.
It may be that at a later stage in this Bill someone else will raise this particular point. I can already see a Member of the Committee opposite smiling as if he has some intention of raising this point later. I shall be delighted to debate it; but I do not think that we need to do so at this point. I agree with my noble friend Lord Colwyn that it is uncommon for dental examination to result in the finding of significant or serious systemic disease. There are manifestations of disease in the mouth and we have heard of one or two of them. But they are also present in the skin. Perhaps we should all visit dermatologists. Diseases show their presence in a number of different ways. Perhaps we should all visit different types of practitioners so that one way or another these things can be found. There are simpler and cheaper tests which would show a higher return for cancer, if that is what is being looked for, than by a dental check.
For the past 37 years there have been charges of one kind or another for teeth and spectacles. I accept what my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford said as regards the introduction of charges by another party. I do not think it matters who introduced them or who was responsible for them. The fact is we have lived with them for a long time. We have recognised that they are necessary at the periphery and sometimes with the less significant things. No one is suggesting making a charge for some massive or major medical or dental catastrophe. We must remember that something like 40 per cent. of the population will he excluded from charges. We are already protecting a large number of people.
Why is it that we so often feel that we should have no responsibility for our health? Why should we think that £3 expended on our health—I think that was the sum given—is outrageous? But when we arrive at an airport we are charged £3 for some aviation fuel surcharge on a holiday. Similar charges are imposed for all kinds of things. We pay those charges with the greatest facility. But apparently it is something special to be asked to take some responsibility for looking after ourselves.
In one sense, with the greatest respect to the noble Baroness the amendment is based on special pleading. There are many other tests to which that argument could apply equally. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, is nodding yes. He is right. I

1229
accept that he makes the point that there are a number of screening tests to which the argument could apply.
Lord Ennals: Will the noble Lord indicate any screening test for which there is a charge?
Lord Trafford: Offhand, I do not think that I can answer that question. Perhaps there ought to be. However, I was making the point that there are many tests for which one might institute charges with a much better return. I believe that the noble Lord is a brave man. Not many politicians would come to either House and confess that they had recently had their mouths examined.
Be that as it may, it seems to me that it is a special situation if we say that a small charge, in an area where we have had charges for years, should not be made. We know that there will be considerable benefits to other parts of the dental and primary medical services as a result of the income that the proposed charges will generate. I have some sympathy with the amendment. However, I regard it as a piece of special pleading.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: We have a growing problem in that the number of AIDS patients doubles every 10 months. I am told that the first signs of the disease can be found in the mouth. Following a dental examination, the patient is counselled, and it is to be hoped, if the presence of the virus is confirmed, the patient will realise the need to prevent the spread of the disease. We must do everything we can to stop the spread of that terrible condition.
Perhaps I may ask the Minister whether pregnant women will be exempt from charges. They may have dental problems and need extra encouragement to go to the dentist. The reason people do not like going to a dentist is that it often hurts and many people are frightened. Therefore, dental examinations are different from other examinations. I support the amendment.
Viscount Hanworth: In my youth, many comparatively young people had no teeth at all. Whatever may be said about people being logical, the fact is that they are not. When one is young, one does not always think about the future. In my own case, I did not give much thought to my future financial position.
When it comes to making a concrete effort to get a dental examination, many people will put it off and end up not doing it. On the other hand, people who receive dental examinations may find they have problems which they did not know about. If they are then told that something needs to be done, they may be quite willing to pay for it. It is absolutely vital to have free preliminary investigations.
Baroness Blatch: The thing which has united everyone who has spoken both for and against the amendment is the importance of visits to the dentist. That must go unchallenged. The details which were given by my noble friends Lady Gardner and Lord Colwyn contained a list of a number of specific matters which may be detected by dentists.
1230
Therefore, the debate does not concern the importance of going to dentists but whether a charge of £3 will act as a deterrent.
I was struck by a statistic which my noble friend Lord Colwyn gave. He said that only about 20 per cent. of people go to a dentist regularly. We need to ask why that is so. I suspect that it has a great deal to do with the matters which the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, outlined. We do not like to go to dentists because of what happens to us when we get there. I am not sure whether levying a charge of £3 per visit will make it easier or more painful to go to a dentist. The uppermost thought in the minds of most people is the awful feeling of sitting in a dentist's chair with the white coats, the mirrors, the sound of the drills, and so on.
There are people who feel very strongly that levying any kind of charge for an initial check-up will act as a deterrent. However, we do not know that that is the case. At the end of the day, it comes down to a balance between two positions. The first requires the levying of a modest charge and doing what we can to encourage people to go to the dentist. We should overcome the fears that we all have and, in addition, apply the income to needier parts of the health service.
The second position would continue to give free initial check-ups to everyone, irrespective of means. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, whether a charge of £3 would have deterred him from spending £100 on his course of treatment. I am not sure.
Should we continue free check-ups across the board, irrespective of means, and forgo the income from a charge? That is the nub of our discussions today. The question is whether the recycling of money within the health service is worth trying. I cannot believe that a charge of £3 for an initial visit will make much of a dent in the numbers of people going for check-ups.
I also believe we need to make continued efforts to convince people how important visits to the dentist are. The shift in statistics which was mentioned by my noble friend Lady Gardner highlighted the need for examinations for older people. We as parents always have it in the back of our minds that it is essential for our children to go to the dentist and they are protected in the Bill. However, the shift in need for the elderly requires further publicity.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: I recognise (who would not after our short debate?) that the issue of charging for dental and optical services is the most controversial issue in the Bill. Perhaps I may add a reason for that which has not been adduced by the proposers and supporters of the amendment. When people have grown up over two generations with a free service, it comes hard to them to find that those services must be paid for. However, this is a transitory matter. Charges were introduced in 1951 and at other times in the past. In those cases there was a short period of decline of take-up and then the situation righted itself.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, has said, some medical conditions can be spotted at the time of

1231
dental or optical inspection. Whether they are spotted depends on only two things. One is the ability of the clinician to detect them. That is not always the case but it does happen. The other is the likelihood that the individual will go to the dentist or optician. It is what my right honourable friend the Minister for Health calls a most opportunistic method of screening. It depends on getting an individual into the chair at the right moment and then diagnosing a medical condition if it exists.
Clearly the Committee recognises that dentists can and do spot certain conditions—for example, oral cancer or AIDS, as was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham. However, my noble friend Lady Gardner recognised that oral conditions spotted by dentists are extremely rare. I am sure that she will remember referring at Second Reading to a particular case and then saying (at col. 1060 of Hansard for 26th May) that:
"Our practice has picked up six similar conditions in 30 years".
My own advice was that it would normally be expected that such conditions could be picked up twice during a dentist's normal working life. That fits in with what the noble Baroness said.
Better identification of a wide range of conditions which might have oral symptoms, such as diabetes, cancer or AIDS, is something that we want to develop across the primary care services generally. We intend to pursue that through our discussions on the White Paper.
As I indicated in our debate on Second Reading, we need to look at the clause in context. We propose to invest substantial extra resources in the primary care services. Spending on those services has increased in real terms by 43 per cent. between 1978–79 and 1987–88, compared with an increase of 14 per cent. in real terms in overall public expenditure over the same period. Further substantial real terms increases are expected in the years ahead. The White Paper recognised that that extra money has to come from somewhere. In the absence of any concrete suggestions from the consultees, one of the means we have chosen is to ask patients who can afford it to pay towards the cost of their dental examination. We shall do that by treating the examination in the same way as other treatments so that it will attract a charge of three-quarters of the fee.
Currently the department pays dentists a fee of £3.90 for each examination, so that if we were introducing the charge today patients would pay three-quarters of £3.90, which is £2.92. When the charge is introduced the fee will be somewhat higher because fees are due for review this October anyway—I cannot yet say how much they will—be and the charge will be three-quarters of the new fee.
In our debate on Thursday last the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, used the analogy of a Yorkie chocolate bar costing 22 pence. My noble friend Lady Blatch is quite right: the fundamental question is whether charges for dental inspection—very modest charges at that—of, as I have said, about £3 in current terms, which most patients will have to pay no more than once a year, will deter people from going to the
1232
dentist. That £3 is equivalent to 13.63 recurring Yorkies a year—in other words about 0.26 which is fractionally over a quarter of a Yorkie bar a week. Are we seriously being asked to believe that that amount will be a deterrent?
Ah, but—I am about to anticipate the noble Lord, I think. If I am not I shall gladly give way. Ah, say the supporters of this amendment, it is not the amount but the principle of the payment which is at issue.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Of course I am against the principle. I am obliged to the noble Lord for giving way. He and other noble Lords have mentioned the figure of £3. We accept that that is what the fee will be when it is introduced. In 1979 the prescription charge was 20 pence. It is now—or was the last time I paid for a prescription £2.40. Are we talking about a mere £3 or is it likely that the dental inspection charge will increase by the same kind of percentage as the prescription charge?
Lord Skelmersdale: If I may, I shall return to that point in just a second. Obviously it is a very real and very valid point. I would say for the moment that we are not comparing charges for dental inspections with prescription charges. We should be comparing them with the charges for dental treatment, which are rather different. I have told the Committee that the new charge for the inspection will he made on exactly the same basis as the existing charges for treatment.
It is the principle of the payment which worries many Members of the Committee. My noble friend Lord Nugent reminded us that the principle was dented long since, when, in 1951 under a Labour Government, charges in the primary health care field were brought in for dentures. Even if the principle had not been dented we have incontrovertible evidence that today, in 1988, increased charges for dental treatment do not lead to reductions in demand or have any long-term effect on the upward growth in demand over the years. In answer to my noble friend Lord Colwyn, I would repeat the point that I made a few moments ago that there is very often a temporary dip in demand when large increases have been made but the long-term trend is for a continuing upward growth in demand.
I would refer Members of the Committee to the Official Report of the proceedings for last Thursday, 14th July. In col. 1013 there is a table setting out the growth in the numbers of courses of treatment and in the average charge for each year since 1975. Even when there were increases of 35 per cent., as there were between 1975 and 1976, the number of treatments rose.
The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, mentioned pensioners. I can illustrate my point even more dramatically in relation to them. The noble Lord is quite right: their demand for dental care is rising faster than for any other age group. Over the period 1979 to 1986–87, the number of courses of treatment for the over 64 age group rose from 1.2 million to 2.3 million in England and Wales, an increase of 92 per cent. as against an increase for all age groups of 19 per cent. In no fewer than 85 per cent. of cases pensioners pay the full charge. Clearly, pensioners

1233
are seeking dental care more and more and cheerfully paying the charge because they know what good value it is.
When we look at the nation's dental health record in recent years and the contribution made by the general dental service, we see a major success story. There have been dramatic improvements in dental health in all age groups, particularly among children. In 1973 in England and Wales 29 per cent. of five year-olds were free of dental decay. By 1983 that figure had risen to 52 per cent. The proportion of adults with no natural teeth fell from 37 per cent. in 1968 to 22 per cent. in 1985. Attendance at the dentist continues to rise steadily. The percentage of dentate adults attending the dentist regularly—and again I must correct my noble friend Lord Colwyn on this point- has increased from 40 per cent. in 1968 to 50 per cent. in 1985. Scotland has seen improvements on a similar scale.
The figure of 20 per cent. mentioned by my noble friend is the number of courses where there is an examination only. That is not the same as those who attend regularly, a number of whom require treatment. In 1985 the percentage of adults who had regular check-ups was 50 per cent.—still not enough, I accept, but a more encouraging figure than that quoted by my noble friend.
Against the background of these major successes we consider it reasonable to increase the proportion of the cost of the general dental service contributed by patients and thereby help to pay for the developments we all want to see in the primary care services. I shall not repeat here all the developments we propose—they are set out in full in the White Paper.
However, I should like to mention briefly four of those developments. The first is fluoridation. More money is already being provided for new fluoridation schemes to meet a higher percentage of the total costs and to extend payments for the major cost of replacement of outdated plant and equipment. A total of over £1 million is being provided in 1988–89, which is £400,000 above the previously planned total. The additional sums will be further increased in subsequent years.
Noble Lords, very correctly and naturally, are interested in health education. We are funding an initiative in the West Midlands to investigate means of improving the marketing of dental care and increasing the number of people who seek regular dental care. We are also funding initiatives of the Health Education Authority in the North Western region to improve dental awareness and encourage people to seek dental care.
There will be financial assistance towards the cost of establishing and equipping practices in underdentisted areas, which is clearly a good thing to do. We hope to start that scheme from the beginning of next year. Additional resources will be provided to expand the number of places in the vocational training scheme. We want to do many things, which is why we judge that the time is right to get a very small proportion of the money needed from consumers themselves.
1234
Members of the Committee have asked about prevention. The dental examination charge is not in any way contrary to the philosophy of prevention as set out in the White Paper Promoting Better Health. It will still pay people to visit the dentist regularly. Moreover, the charge will help to release resources for positive measures to encourage the prevention of dental disease. These will include more fluoridation, improved and more widespread vocational and postgraduate training for dentists and a new programme to promote dental awareness among young people. It will also help to finance preventive measures in other primary care services. Even with the new charges, many consumers will pay the same amount of money for inspections as they did under the old pre-April system. For some, combined charges will be lower than last year. I cannot see how the charges can possibly deter people from going to the dentist. The existing groups of exempt people, including pregnant women, referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, will of course continue to be exempt.
My noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes very properly suggested another way to raise the money. She offered an amendment in lieu of the proposals in the Bill. I observe that my noble friend cast some doubt on the amount of money to be raised by the dental examination charge. Despite the many exemptions, we estimate that it will bring in some £40 million in England and £49 million in Great Britain. This will help pay for the £600 million additional expenditure in real terms that we plan for the family practitioner services. The maximum charge of £150 is paid by only about 100,000 patients. It would not be possible to raise anything like the £40 million a year in a full year that we expect from the examination charge. Without the examination charge, a back-ofthe-envelope calculation tells me that we should have to increase the proportional charge to 90 per cent. of the cost of treatments from the present 75 per cent. I am sure that the Committee would not want us to go down that route.
The new charges referred to in Clause 11 are identical in scope to charges for treatment; in other words, children, people on low incomes and the other well-known groups will also be exempt from the new charges. Lastly, on the basis of current treatment fees, many of those already paying for treatment as a result of the new charging mechanism introduced in April this year will, even with the new charges, pay about the same amount of money for inspections as they did without the new charges under the old pre-April system. For some people the combined charge will be below what it was last year, again on the basis of current fees.
With the best will in the world, I cannot see how the charges can possibly deter people from going to the dentist, where the medical problems will be picked up in exactly the same way as now. If my noble friend presses the amendment to a vote, I must therefore advise the Committee to reject it.
Lord Winstanley: Can the Minister explain the apparent conflict in the argument that he has addressed to the Committee? He said, among other things, that the money raised by the charge can go

1235
towards other preventive schemes. He referred to those, and told us that they are in the White Paper. The Minister will know that his department is encouraging screening programmes to be carried out for a variety of different conditions. To make sure that those screening programmes are carried out, it is proposed to pay medical practitioners to carry out the screening. To make sure that dental screening continues, it is now proposed to make the patients pay for the screening. As a parallel, that seems to me to be just about perpendicular.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: I am not sure that one can have a perpendicular parallel. I did not refer to the point because I thought that my noble friend Lord Trafford had dealt with it very well when he spoke about the cost effectiveness of screening. With the very small number to which I referred, it simply is not sensible to set up a detailed screening system comparable, for example, with breast cancer or cervical smear screening. I do not regard this opportunistic form of screening as conventional screening. I referred to it earlier as better identification of a wide range of conditions that might have oral symptoms. This is something that we want to develop across the primary care services generally and intend to pursue through our discussions on the White Paper. I think that my noble friend Lord Trafford and I between us have answered the point.
Lord Ennals: In his original intervention and in his supplementary intervention the Minister appeared to fall into the same trap as his noble friends Lord Nugent of Guildford and Lord Trafford. They spoke as if charges for screening or examination were just the same as charges for treatment. At this stage we are not discussing charges for treatment, although the Minister did so in his response.
If one goes back to 1951, there was no introduction of charges for examination. There has been no charge for examination in the National Health Service in the 40 years of its existence. Sight testing, dentistry, cervical screening, breast cancer screening and pregnancy testing are all carried out free. Surely the logic of what the Minister and his two noble friends are saying is that, if it is all right to get some of the money that the health service desperately needs from preventive treatment because the Chancellor will not produce it, then why not do the same in regard to breast screening, cervical cancer and a visit to the general practitioner? The initial visit to the GP is to find out what is wrong. The next step is the treatment of what is wrong. The Minister cannot deny that, if the Bill goes through in this form without the amendment now proposed, it will be the first time in 40 years that charges for health examination have been introduced. I plead with Members of the Committee not to go down that route. Once we start down that route, where will it stop?
Lord Skelmersdale: The noble Lord is trying to compare two quite separate things. There have never been charges for screening, and we are not proposing charges for screening now. As I said in answer to the
1236
noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, the dental inspection and indeed the optical test are not conventional forms of screening. This is the most opportunistic form of screening that could be invented.
Lord Hunter of Newington: The Minister said on Second Reading that after a careful examination of priorities the Government had concluded that it was reasonable to find some of the savings from within the general ophthalmic and general dental services. Can the Minister say whether the Government think that the risks in regard to these two things are broadly similar? If one is to assume that savings have to be made somewhere, it would be helpful to have an indication of the Government's view about the relative dangers of doing either of these things.
Lord Skelmersdale: We are talking not about savings but about the expected extra expenditure of around £600 million on the primary health care services over the next three years, as I have now said several times. The money has to come from somewhere. The Government have concluded that the time is now right for a small proportion of it to come from charging for dental inspections.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Perhaps the Minister can give us some clarification, because he has confused me and, I think, other Members of the Committee. He said that a dental examination was not a screening. If it is not a screening, what on earth is it? Are we now being told by the Government that before a person goes to the dentist he or she has to have toothache, by which time it is probably too late to save the tooth? That is what the Minister appears to be saying.
Lord Skelmersdale: As has been explained, screening is where one has a system of call and recall aimed at 100 per cent. of a target population. I think the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, would agree with that. Under the existing or proposed system, in no way could that definition be given to the activities of dentists carrying out dental inspections.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I understand that when my noble friend Lord Colwyn moved an amendment earlier in Committee on this Bill, the principle was accepted that school children needed dental screening and that that meant an examination. Therefore, it has already been accepted by Members of the Committee that a dental examination is a form of screening. I certainly so consider it. I was quite disturbed to hear the view of my noble friend Lord Trafford that there was no reason in the world why screening should continue to be free. That was the message that I received from his speech. It is worrying if my noble friend is suggesting that this is only the tip of the iceberg and that we may find a charge for all other screenings. The point is made even more importantly. If this is the first charge for any form of screening or examination in the health service then this will decide the future of all other types of screening that we have to consider.
I accept the point the Minister has made that money has to come from somewhere. I support the

1237
view of trying to find extra ways of bringing money into the health service. I am still convinced that there would be other ways of raising the same amount of money from patients as there would be through this charge, and I should not be opposed to that. The patient who is paying the £150 ceiling and perhaps receiving treatment worth £1,000 or £2,000 is getting a real bargain. I believe that there is room for changes within the costing. However, I cannot accept that this is the way to start. Before people walk through the door, they know that they have a charge to meet. It is not a matter of what the charge is because it has varied over the years.
I do not believe the point made by my noble friend Lord Nugent, or perhaps by my noble friend Lord Trafford, that there had been dental charges since they were first introduced in 1951 to be correct. Yes, there have been dental charges for treatment, but never dental charges for examination. That is the difference with this amendment. I regret that I am not satisfied with the answers. I have to seek the opinion of the House.
4.53 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 30) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 118; Not-Contents, 97.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Galpern, L.

Adrian, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.[Teller]

Airedale, L.

Glenamara, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Ardwick, L.

Auckland, L.

Gregson, L.

Aylestone, L.

Halshury, E.

Banks, L.

Hampton, L.

Birk, B.

Hanworth, V.

Blease, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Bonham-Carte, L.

Hart of South Lanark, B.

Bottomley, L.

Hatch of Lusy, L.

Brightman, L.

Headfort, M.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Hughes, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Hunt, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Carter, L.

Hylton-Foster.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Jacques, L.

Colwyn, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Cornwallis, L.

Kennet, L.

Cudlipp, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Lawrence, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Listowel, E.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Lockwood, B.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Longford, E.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Lovell-Davies, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Ellenborough, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

McNair, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Manton, L.

Ennals, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Faithfull, B.

Mayhew, L.

Falkender, B.

Merrivale, L.

Falkland, V.

Middleton, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Molloy, L.

Foot, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Fortescue, E.

Mulley, L.

Gallacher, L.

Nicol, B.

1238

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Stallard, L.

Oram, L.

Stedman, B.

Paget of Northampton, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Parry, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Peston, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Thurlow, L.

Raglan, L.

Tordoff, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Rea, L.

Underhill, L.

Richardson, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Wells-Pestell L.

Rochester, L.

Whaddon, L.

Sainsbury, L.

White, B.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Serota, B.

Willis, L.

Shackleton, L.

Winstanley, L.

Simon, V.

Wise, L.

Somers, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Kimball, L.

Allerton, L.

Kimberley, E.

Alport, L.

Kitchener, E.

Arran, E.

Layton, L.

Balfour, E.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Bauer, L.

Long, V.

Beaverbrook, L.

McFadzean, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Beloff, L.

Marley, L.

Belstead, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Bessborough, E.

Monson, L.

Blatch, B.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Borthwick, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Brookeborough, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Broxbourne, L.

Munster, E.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Nelson, E.

Burton, L.

Northesk, E.

Caithness, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Orkney, E.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Oxfuird, V.

Carnock, L.

Pender, L.

Cathcart, E.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Chelwood, L.

Polwarth, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Poritt, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Cox, B.

Reigate, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Renwick, L.

De Freyne, L.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Rodney, L.

Eccles, V.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

St. Davids, V.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Savile, L.

Ferrers, E.

Selborne, E.

Gisborough, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Strange, B.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Strathspey, L.

Harvington, L.

Swinfen, L.

Havers, L.

Swinton, E.

Hesketh, L.

Terrington, L.

Hives, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Trafford, L.

Hood, V.

Trumpington, B.

Hooper, B.

Windlesham, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Joseph, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
5.1 p.m.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Alport): Amendment No. 31, Baroness Gardner of Parkes.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I understood the Deputy Chairman to say that Amendment No. 31 could not be moved if Amendment No. 30 was agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I beg the Committee's pardon. That is quite right. I was so surprised at the last result.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 12, line 7, at end insert—
("(9) Section 81(b) of the National Health Service Act 1977 and section 73(b) of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978 shall cease to have effect.").
The noble Baroness said: I do not wish to take long on this amendment and I certainly do not intend to divide the Committee on it. The amendment would bring about a change in doing away with a form which is hardly used now. If a patient says that instead of a denture he would like a bridge, the dentist has to fill up a very complicated form and send it in. The dentist is still not allowed to agree a fee with the patient and still has a fee sent back by the National Health Service.
For that reason it is such a frustrating and complicated procedure that hardly anyone uses it. I believe that only 95 cases used the scheme out of all the millions of cases last year. I understand from the Minister that this may be one of the subjects to be discussed with the general dental services at a later stage, so this is really a probing amendment at this stage. I beg to move.
Lord Skelmersdale: I fully understand my noble friend's intention in moving this amendment. It is to remove from the National Health Service Act 1977 and its Scottish equivalent a regulation-making power under which a long-standing provision has been made enabling a dentist to supply under the National Health Service, at the patient's request, a denture, bridge, crown, gold filling or inlay of a type more expensive than the dentist considers clinically necessary, the patient paying the excess cost in full. The main advantage of the scheme is that it enables patients to top up out of their own pockets what the NHS is prepared to provide by paying the extra cost of an item which goes beyond what is needed for the strict purposes of dental fitness.
I take the point that the level of demand for this extra service has fallen to a low level over the years. It is clear therefore that the time has come for a review. I believe that I can give my noble friend the assurance she is seeking in putting down this amendment that we shall he discussing its future with representatives of the profession probably in the context of the negotiations on the new dental contract when these begin formally, which I hope will be later in the year.
I should perhaps clarify one point, however. This is that whatever is decided for the scheme, whether it is to extend its scope or to reduce it or to abolish it altogether, or revise it in the context of the new contractual arrangements which will emerge from the negotiations, we can proceed by way of amendment to the regulations. In other words, an amendment to this Bill would not be required.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I thank the Minister for his reply and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 12 [The Dental Estimates Board and the Scottish Dental Estimates Board—change of name and extension of functions]:
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 13, line 3, leave out from first ("to") to end of line 6 and insert ("carry on any such additional activity relating the provision of general dental services as may be prescribed and, without prejudice to the generality of this subsection, to conduct or commission surveys or other research relating to the provision of such services.").
The noble Lord said: This is a technical amendment. In Committee in another place my right honourable friend was pressed on whether the current wording in subsection (3) (b) (1C) was sufficiently wide to allow sensible research activity on the general dental services to be undertaken by the boards. This amendment clarifies the position and removes any unintended inflexibility. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 13 [General ophthalmic services and optical appliances]:
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 13, line 18, leave out subsection (1).
The noble Lord said: With this amendment I speak also to Amendments Nos. 45 and 46 in the name of my noble friend Lord Mottistone and the noble Lord, Lord Ennals. I find myself in some little difficulty since the Committee has agreed that the principle for charging for examinations or screening for dental health shall be free. I am concerned with the eyes.
I was proposing to deliver a fairly long argument as to why the fees for eyesight testing or eye screening should not be applied, but it seems to me that the Committee would sooner accept the argument which is precisely the same as that put forward by my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes. She spoke about the 40 years. She talked about the costs, whether it is £3 for dental inspection or £10 for an optical inspection. Here we already have charges building up. We have dealt with all that.
About 12 million eye examinations are carried out annually, the bulk of them through ophthalmic opticians and ophthalmic medical practitioners. About one-twelfth of those examinations and screenings show a health defect, an abnormality or disease. It might be sufficient to alert the Committee to the fact that we are talking of a similar problem. One can overcome this in some ways by the GP— until such time as a consultation fee is imposed for him—being able to refer patients directly to the eye hospital so momentarily avoiding a charge. Again the argument is the same concerning the age bracket, in so far as eye disease is more prevalent as one gets older, starting about 45 or 50 years of age.
We are an ageing society. We cannot get away from that, so we shall have more problems with eye disease among the population in 10 or 15 years' time. I do not propose to argue about whether the charge which the Government estimate they will receive of some £80 million against the £10, or just short of £10, which the Government pay the ophthalmic profession is right or not. What I do know, however, is that the cost of maintaining a blind person is about £3,500 a year. This seems to me to be a very odd equation. That might raise £80 million. I have to ask my noble friend how much he estimates in 20 years' time we shall spend on the hospital service for the maintenance of blind or partially blind people and the attendant social costs. I believe that the cost is vastly in excess of £80 million. Therefore we are deferring a payment to another day and that does not seem to be a good practical sense.
Essentially that is the argument. It is a fact that in 1982 a small survey was carried out at the surgical unit at the University of Southampton. It was found that 63½per cent. of the patients in the survey were diagnosed as a result of their seeking advice for ocular symptoms. Those patients went to the opthalmic optician and said "Please test my eyes. I am not seeing as well"; or "The television is fuzzy". Disease was determined by that examination.
I believe that whatever the fee, people will put off the evil hour to spend it. When they finally do so it will be too late. I am not an optician or a doctor but I am told, that, for example, wide-angled glaucoma does not have a tangible feel about it. It is almost symptomless until one day it is there and it is too late to do anything about it. I shall return to that matter in respect of another amendment concerning drivers. I believe that that symptom could slip through the net and we shall be in trouble on a number of fronts.
That is the basis of the argument for the continuance of free examinations. We make a weekly payment to the National Health Service so it is not actually free, but I believe that the Committee knows what I mean by the word "free". I believe that we should continue the present system as regards eye testing, as the Committee has agreed in respect of dentistry, and that we should continue to make available a free screening, examination or inspection. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I must advise the Committee that if the amendment is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 35 to 44 inclusive.
Lord Ennals: I hope that that will be the case because it will save the Committee a good deal of time. I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, who made the case for the amendment extremely well. In his last few remarks he said that a condition of the eye may not be apparent. I understand that there are a number of sight-threatening conditions which are symptomless, particularly in the early stages. They include glaucoma, diabetic retinopathy and muscular degeneration.
In the early stages those conditions can be detected only by thorough sight-testing. There is no pain and no one will have a reason to visit an optician. The
1242
condition will be discovered only if they have an examination. In 1980 glaucoma caused 2,000 people to lose their sight. Opticians identified two-thirds of sufferers as a result of the tests. I believe that 70 per cent. of diabetic blindness can be prevented if eyes are checked regularly.
I believe that the case for this amendment is even stronger than that for the previous amendment. There are a wider range of eye conditions which can be detected only by a proper professional examination. They can all lead either to great pain or total blindness in one eye or both. As a consequence people who have not visited the dentist will have pain, but they can receive treatment for that. In the case of sight tests, by the time they make their visit it will too late if the condition has not already been determined.
Another argument for saying that this is a more important amendment is that the sum involved is likely to be in the order of £10 as a starter, compared with £3. It has been argued that £3 is not a deterrent—although I said that it was—but £10 may well be so. I believe that the arguments are overwhelming. Having set off in a healthy track by agreeing to the last amendment, I hope that, without much further ado, the Commmittee will agree the present amendment so ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Winstanley: The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, would be surprised if I did other than assure him of the full support of my noble friends on these Benches. He has said that the arguments are the same as those put forward in respect of the earlier amendment. Substantially they are, and I do not wish to repeat them because it is unnecessary. They carried weight in the Committee and in the Division Lobby.
There is one marginal difference and I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me for pointing it out. I believe that essential to the amendment is the next clause of the Bill, Clause 14. In the past many routine examinations were carried out by opthalmatrists. They were purely examinations of refraction and many were not as full or as searching as they should have been. Clause 14 gives the Secretary of State rights and powers to prescribe the nature of the examination which is carried out. It would be a mistake for Members of the Committee to believe that in the past the routine eye test has invariably included a test for glaucoma. That is not true, although in some cases it has. I make those comments without fear of contradiction.
There are many ophthalmic opticians who have the necessary apparatus and skills and who carry out the test. However, it is not obligatory under present regulations but it will become so under Clause 14. If the Committee fully supports that clause, which will change the nature of the examinations, it will make wholly valid the arguments put forward earlier by a noble Lord. At the moment they are valid in some cases but not in all.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: I should like to add my voice to the debate on the amendment. I am worried about the whole clause because I believe that it is

1243
wrong to dismantle or privatise two-thirds of the general ophthalmic services and give the impression that a better system of screening for eye problems and diseases by GPs is being planned when it is clear that that will not happen, as I hope to show.
During the Second Reading debate I inquired about the negotiations which the Government were said to be having with the BMA in respect of this matter. On that occasion my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale assured me that the specific negotiations to which I had referred:
"have indeed started in the past five days. The more general ones have been going on for some time".—[Official Report, 26/5/88; col. 1090.]
I gratefully accept my noble friend's apology contained in his letter to me dated 21st June. He said:
"I fear that you and indeed other noble Lords may have gained the impression that discussions with the GMSC over screening programmes by GPs for glaucoma and diabetes had started within the five days before the Second Reading debate. That is not so, and I apologise if I have misled you and the House over this point".
That was a most misleading remark about a vital issue. I feel sure that my noble friend will wish to make clear to the Committee that what he said was quite inaccurate.
Negotiations with the BMA have not started and it may save time all round if I now give the Committee the text of a resolution passed by the General Medical Services Committee:
"The GMSC is opposed to the proposals in the Health and Medicines Bill to abolish the universally free NHS sight test. This would, undoubtedly, deter many patients from coming forward for a sight test and there would be a consequential reduction in the detection of eye diseases. The White Paper "Promoting Better Health" made no proposals which indicated that the Government wishes to encourage general medical practitioners to assume responsibilities for general ophthalmic services and the GMSC has no policy to seek such a role for general practitioners".
I repeat:
"the GMSC has no policy to seek such a role for general practitioners".
That is a quotation from a letter sent to me from Dr. Michael Wilson, chairman of the BMA's medical services committee, which states very clearly the reaction of GPs to any such proposal. It certainly calls into question any chance of satisfactory negotiations between Her Majesty's Government and the BMA.
I find it impossible to accept the Government's argument that people will not be deterred from going to their optician if they have to pay for a sight test. There will undoubtedly be a psychological deterrent even in the case of those who may be able to afford it. It seems rather strange that a government who believe in the operation of the mechanisms of the market place should seek to deny the deterrent effect of an increase in cost and even more so the imposition of a charge on something which had previously been free.
I am particularly concerned that many elderly people, which is probably the group most at risk, will go without. That is particularly worrying in view of a survey carried out by the British College of Optometrists last January which showed that the over-60s are significantly more likely than younger people to suffer from medical conditions the signs of
1244
which had been observed in the course of the free NHS eye examination.
Many people have tried to make the point that having to pay for sight tests will deter people from having those tests. The Government have doggedly taken the view that that will not happen. The BMA thinks it will; the RNIB thinks it will; and Age Concern thinks it will. All optical bodies are sure it will. However, it is a matter of judgment. We have one on one side and half a dozen on the other. It is difficult to know who is right, but there is a clue. Eleven months ago the Alberta Government imposed charges on people between the ages of 19 and 64—charges which had never been imposed before. Eleven months later, following a decrease in the number of sight tests of about 35 per cent. the Alberta Government have reversed their legislation. That seems to be the best proof that one could have of the deterrent effect of charging for eye tests.
I could go on but I do not think I will. I am very glad to support my noble friend's amendment.
Lord Rugby: While we are discussing glaucoma and the various tests required to diagnose the state of glaucoma, should we not be appraised of exactly what are those tests? As I understand it, in the ophthalmic optician's department there are very few people who have any equipment which is capable of testing for glaucoma, even in a fairly primitive way. If one is to carry out the full test, very complicated and expensive equipment is required. Beyond that, there is also required a great deal of background medical knowledge relating to the case history of the person concerned. That would seem to me to be outside the realms of a refraction test.
Lord Auckland: I support the amendment very strongly. Quite apart from glaucoma and diabetes—two very serious conditions, made far worse by had eyesight—there are a number of other medical conditions. One of those from which I, like, I am sure, a number of Members of the Committee, suffer, is migraine. As I understand the Bill, migraine sufferers are not excluded from the proposed eye test charges. There are a number of other medical conditions which I could mention, but I shall not weary the Committee in the interests of time.
There is another important aspect. Governments of all parties have spent a lot of money encouraging people to have eye tests. There have been enormous publicity campaigns—and quite rightly. The conditions in Clause 13 of the Bill seem to go well against the grain. Also there are a number of people over the age of 60 who, although they may not be on state-related benefits, will find the cost of the tests very expensive. How much money will be raised by the tests? I believe that the Minister gave a figure, or I have seen a figure quoted, of about £70 million. That is a gross figure.
What is the net figure after all the administration costs which will be needed? I hope that my noble friend will take these matters on board. Of course we need to raise more money for the National Health Service, but I submit to the Committee that we need to do that by far more practical means.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: I appreciate the dilemma in which my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth finds himself in moving this amendment. It is paralleled by my own dilemma to an extent in responding to it. I would argue that irrespective of the arguments for and against charges for teeth inspection, the detail of the health arguments for charging for eye examinations is quite different.
I do not wish to repeat many of the arguments used in responding to the last amendment. But yes, we have indeed been involved in negotiation with doctors on bringing the White Paper into effect. My noble friend Lord Cullen said that he was sure I would take the earliest opportunity on the subject of eye tests to apologise to the Committee and to the Chamber about a remark I made on Second Reading. When referring to discussions with the General Medical Services Committee about the role of general practitioners in glaucoma screening, I said:
"The specific negotiations to which my noble friend referred have indeed started in the past five days. The more general ones have been going on for some time—. (Oficial Report, 26/5/88: col. 1090.)
I accept that I was wrong in making that pronouncement. I was aware that the general issue of glaucoma screening and other screening by GPs was under discussion but not, I admit, in that particular forum. I therefore apologise for misleading the Committee in that regard.
Not surprisingly, much of this debate has centred on glaucoma; and diabetes mellitus is another disease which can be picked up through examination of the eye. Some noble Lords would argue that those diseases are so serious, as they affect people's sight, that that alone knocks for six the principle of charging. I accept, as I did earlier, that these diseases can be identified by sight testing in many instances. However, this time I suggest that it depends not on two factors but on three—the fact that practitioners do detect them; the fact that people have their eyes tested; and, finally, the fact that they have them tested at the right time to show up those diseases.
The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, mentioned a sometimes little referred to proposal in the Bill that we intend to specify in regulations what should go into the standard eye test. That we fully intend to do. It is found in Clause 14, page 18 line 3 (the new Section 20B(1)(a) in the Opticians Act); again on page 15, line 7; and, the Scottish equivalent, page 17 line 28.
It is important to realise that we cannot guarantee now that people have their eyes tested at all. Of course we have never had any control over that. Nor can we now, under the proposed arrangements, ensure that people present themselves for eye tests at the time when glaucoma, the effects of diabetes, or any other disease of the eyeball or socket are visible to the practitioner, even under a well-conducted statutory eye test. Those two factors therefore will not change.
What we can do is make it easier for people who have, or may have, those particular diseases of the eye to present themselves more readily by giving them free eye tests. We gave an assurance in another place that that is what we would do. Today I am able to go
1246
further and announce that we will lay regulations to give free tests to children and siblings of known glaucoma sufferers who are 40 or over.
Having said that, I believe that we must put this issue of glaucoma into proportion. It is principally an hereditary disease. The risk for close relatives of glaucoma is 10 times greater than for those who are not known to have such a relative. While it is estimated that 5 per cent. of those relatives over-40 will develop the condition, only half of 1 per cent. of the rest of the over-40 population will do so. Of the 5 per cent., 5 per cent. will be new cases.
We cannot guarantee to pick up that small number of people now, so we do not suggest that charges will make it any more or less likely, but we shall do so in future. Criticism of our proposals is again based on the fear that people will be deterred by price from having private sights tests and as a consequence eye conditions such as glaucoma will go undetected or be detected only at a later stage when treatment may be less effective. At this time it must he a matter of judgment what effect our proposals will have on the number of sight tests.
My noble friend Lord Cullen referred to the situation in Alberta, Canada. I understand that the letter from the profession in Alberta accepts that there is no statistical evidence available. The claim of 30 per cent. to 40 per cent. reduction in eye tests seems to be based on anecdotal evidence. However, as I said in answer to the last amendment, it would not be surprising if there was a temporary drop in the early days of charging. People who knew that the change was coming would bring forward their tests to avoid the charge. That does not mean that they will avoid the charge in future. In the letter there is no mention of exemptions, which are well understood in our proposals.
The experience of our spectacles measures shows that replacing the National Health Service with private supply has not resulted in fewer visits to opticians and that competition has resulted in reasonable spectacle prices for the consumer. A recent survey shows that in the United Kingdom retail sales of spectacles have increased by about 10 per cent. from £250 million in 1984 to £270 million in 1986. In that same period the annual number of sight tests increased by nearly 1 million. We see no reason why this trend should not continue.
Finally, my noble friend Lord Cullen referred to the concerns expressed by the General Medical Services Council. My right honourable friend the Minister for Health replied to its letter on these concerns on 8th July. He said:
"The Government do not envisage screening programmes for diabetes and glaucoma of the systematic call and recall kind developed for breast and cervical cancer. What we certainly do envisage, however, is encouraging practices to take a more systematic interest in identifying potential problems of which the patients themselves may not yet he aware. I made several references during the Committee debates to the leaflet of a practice which actively urges patients aged 30 to 65 to come and have their blood pressure checked at least every five years and I believe the same practice also seeks to identify diabetics. We want to encourage this kind of approach especially in relation to elderly patients. For example, if a general practitioner thinks it is desirable for a patient to be assessed for glaucoma a referral for eye examination would be the right course".

1247
In conclusion, it is necessary in consideration of this issue to look at the Government's total revised proposals under these two clauses. The priority groups will be protected, and we have already responded to the fears expressed. It should be remembered that many groups will continue to be entitled to free National Health Service sight tests on income or clinical grounds: children under 16; full-time students under 19; people on family credit; people on income support; those with incomes a little above the qualifying level; the registered blind and partially sighted; people who are entitled to a NHS spectacle voucher for contact lenses; diabetics or people with glaucoma who are referred for tests by the doctor or clinic managing their condition; and the children and siblings of people with glaucoma who are 40 years and over.
In all, between 19 million and 20 million people will be covered by these arrangements. The others are well able to afford the modest cost of a sight test and I believe it is right to ask them to do so to help fund the development of our primary care services which have been generally welcomed.
My noble friend Lord Auckland asked how much we expect to receive from this, net. The answer is the £70 million to which I referred, because there are no extra costs involved in collecting this money—we simply will not be paying it out. Therefore if anything the net receipt is marginally above the figure I have mentioned.
It has been suggested that the hospital eye services will be overloaded, but I believe I dealt with that point on Second Reading. I do not believe that will be so. Doctors will only refer, as now, people to the hospital eye service who require that service for medical needs as identified by the doctor.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I greatly admire the manner in which my noble friend has dealt with this part of our debate. I am sorry that he did not follow my example by being less wearisome to the Committee since we have dealt with the problem. I do not propose to comment further. I have made my observations, as have other Members of the Committee. They stand on the record and I press the amendment standing in my name.
5.40 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 34) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 120; Not-Contents, 94.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Adrian, L.

Bottomley, L.

Airedale, L.

Brain, L.

Ardwick, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Auckland, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Aylestone, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Banks, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Birk, B.

Carter, L.

Blackstone, B.

Chelwood, L.

Blease, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

1248

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Colwyn, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Cornwallis, L.

McNair, L.

Craigavon, V.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Cudlipp, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Mayhew, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Molloy, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Mountbatten of Burma, C.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Mulley, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Nicol, B.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Oram, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Parry, L.

Ennals, L.

Peston, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Faithfull, B.

Raglan, L.

Falkender, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Falkland, V.

Rea, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Foot, L.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Fortescue, E.

Rochester, L.

Gallacher, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Galpern, L.

Seear, B.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Seebohm, L.

Glenamara, L.

Serota, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Shackleton, L.

Shannon, E.

Greenway, L.

Simon, V.

Halsbury, E.

Somers, L.

Hampton, L.

Stallard, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Stedman, B.

Hart of South Lanark, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Hooson, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Hughes, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Hunt, L.

Teviot, L.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Thurlow, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Tonypandy, V.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Tordoff, L.

Jacques, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Jeger, B.

Underhill, L.

Kennet, L.

Vernon, L.

Killearn, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Lawrence, L.

Whaddon, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

White, B.

Longford, E.

Willis, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Winstanley, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS

Allerton, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Arran, E.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Balfour, E.

Donegall, M.

Bauer, L.

Dormer, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Dundee, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Beloff, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Belstead, L.

Ferrers, E.

Bessborough, E.

Gisborough, L.

Blatch, B.

Glenarthur, L.

Boardman, L.

Grantchester, L.

Borthwick, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Broxbourne, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Burton, L.

Harvington, L.

Caithness, E.

Hesketh, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Hives, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Holderness, L.

Carnock, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Cathcart, E.

Hood, V.

Clitheroe, L.

Hooper, B.

Coleraine, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Joseph, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Kimball, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Kitchener, E.

1249

Layton, L.

Reigate, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Richardson, L.

Long, V.

Rochdale, V.

Luke, L.

Rodney, L.

McFadzean, L.

Rugby, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Marley, L.

St. Davids, V.

Merrivale, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Savile, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Skelmersdale, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Strathspey, L.

Munster, E.

Sudeley, L.

Nelson, E.

Swinfen, L.

Newall, L.

Swinton, E.

Norfolk, D.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Torhichen, L.

Orkney, E.

Trafford, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Trumpington, B.

Oxfuird, V.

Whitelaw, V.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Windlesham, L.

Polwarth, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
5.48 p.m.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Alport): I was under a misapprehension. I was wrong in saying that Amendments Nos. 35 to 44 fell; it was Amendments Nos. 35 to 41. Therefore we now turn to Amendment No. 42 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley.
Lord Winstanley: I am not sure that that is right. I believe that the Minister is anxious to be helpful because he usually is. However, in order to speak at all I move Amendment No. 42 in my name.
Page 13, line 32, leave out ("19") and insert ("22").
The noble Lord said: If the Minister wishes to intervene at this stage it may be helpful.
Lord Skelmersdale: As I understand it Amendments Nos. 42 and 47 fall to be discussed en bloc. They seek to extend the scope of the free sight test but since free sight tests have already disappeared, it would be appropriate not to move this amendment.
Lord Winstanley: Having formally moved the amendment and in order to enable the Minister to assist me, I request leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 43, 43A, 43B and 44 not moved.]
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 15, line 11, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment with Amendment No. 34. I beg to move.
Lord Skelmersdale: I obviously have nothing to say, as this is linked to the previous amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 45A to 45C not moved.]
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 15, line 41, leave out subsection (4).
The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 34. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 46A to 47E not moved.]
Lord Winstanley Lord Winstanley moved Amendment No. 48:
Page 17, line 45, at end insert—
("( ) References to optical appliances in the National Health Service Act 1977 or the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978 shall not include any appliance designed to correct, remedy or relieve a gradual diminution in the focusing power of the eye which is wholly attributable to the condition known as presbyopia and—

(a) subsection (1) of section 21 of the Opticians Act 1958 (restriction on sale and supply of optical appliances) shall not apply to the sale of any such appliance; and

(b) the said subsection (1), as applied by subsection (2) of that section, shall not apply to the supply of any such appliance if the supply was effected in pursuance of arrangements made with any body on whom functions are conferred by or by virtue of the said Act of 1977 or, as the case may be, the said Act of 1978.").

The noble Lord said: We have arrived at an amendment which has not been overtaken by our previous success. The amendment refers to a related but rather different matter. It is a controversial one, and I think I am right in saying that even though I speak from the Front Bench today it does not necessarily follow that all my noble friends on these Benches will wish to support the amendment. I also understand that noble Lords on the other side of the Committee will have a free vote on this matter.
As people have been so heavily lobbied by various interests, perhaps I may make it absolutely clear that I have no interest to declare in any of the companies or firms which would benefit or would not benefit, as the case may be. I move this amendment because 1 believe that it is a wise provision. What is it about? I have always believed that the requirement that elderly people who gradually suffer from presbyopia —in other words, they gradually become long-sighted and merely need magnifying lenses—should have a full ophthalmic examination before being allowed to buy magnifying lenses is about as sensible as insisting on their having a full orthopaedic examination before being allowed to buy a walking stick.
Lord Ennals: Surely not.
Lord Winstanley: I know that there are other views on this matter but I want to make it absolutely clear, as I hope it is by now from discussion on previous parts of the Bill, that I am wholly in favour of people having regular eye tests. I have said not once but time and again that as a general practitioner I depended deeply on local opticians. I frequently sought their advice about patients and I frequently referred my patients to them.
I am also aware that the examinations carried out by optometrists occasionally disclose certain other diseases such as glaucoma. I say "occasionally", reverting to something I said previously in relation to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth. The importance of that amendment

1251
depended on the next clause of the Bill, Clause 14, which enables the Secretary of State to make regulations with regard to the nature of the examination which is carried out by the optometrist or by the ophthalmic optician. In many cases those examinations are purely superficial and consist merely of refraction and nothing else. It would be misleading for the general public to think that every visit to an optician for refraction necessarily includes detailed examination of the eyes in order to detect these other matters.
I accept that many ophthalmic opticians carry out those examinations and have the equipment to do so. I also accept that Clause 14 of the Bill enables the Secretary of State to make regulations which will improve the general standards of those examinations. In general I believe that the more important diagnostic work is done by the eye hospitals, by the ophthalmic medical practitioners and in other ways. However, I do not for a moment take away from the excellent work done by many of the opticians, some of whom have complained about this amendment and some of whom have not.
People are on different sides in this matter. I have been advised by senior consultant ophthalmologists. At least three have said that they support my amendment, and I am aware that others do not. It may be of interest to the Committee to know that I have had letters from a married couple, both of whom are ophthalmic medical practitioners. One is wholly in favour of my amendment and the other is opposed to it. It shows that there is a reason for argument; and why not?
I should like to make it absolutely clear that there is no evidence that wearing the wrong spectacles does anybody the slightest harm. It is true that one might not be able to see and that one might be run over, or something of that kind. However no medical harm results directly from wearing the wrong spectacles. In my period in general medical practice I saw that in some families glasses were handed down from the eldest member of the family to the next, and so on, as people's eyes progressively changed with age. They did not necessarily have the best possible glasses but at least they had glasses through which they could see. Using those glasses did them no harm whatsoever.
What does my amendment seek to do'? The amendment is rather complicated. Some Members of the Committee will recollect that originally I tabled a much simpler amendment which I withdrew on the advice of officials within the department. They told me that it would be better if I used the wording which they devised. I do not fully understand this wording but they tell me that this wording achieves my object, which is merely to enable people to purchase simple magnifying lenses—spectacles—containing two equal lenses of certain limited diopters without ophthalmic examination. I see no dangers arising from that and I see a great deal of convenience to many people who will be able to go in and choose spectacles which suit them for those purposes.
1252
It is not my object to deter people from having regular ophthalmic examinations. I believe that they should have them. It is my purpose to try to make things simpler for a whole group of people who I am quite sure would benefit from this simple provision. It has been discussed over many years not only in this Chamber but in another place. I should like to hear what is now the department's attitude to this possible development and what other Members of the Committee may think. Although I know what some Members think, I do not always agree with them. I beg to move.
Lord Bruce-Gardyne: I strongly support the argument advanced by the noble Lord. Perhaps I should start by making it quite clear that I have no interest to declare either, except that I must confess to the Committee that I come before it this evening in the posture of a felon. My glasses, I regret to say, were acquired without the benefit of prescription. I went into a shop—not on the other side of the Atlantic but not a thousand miles from this Chamber—where I was presented with a board with script upon it in different sizes. I was invited to choose a pair of glasses and I did so. We have lived happily together ever after—for a period of some 18 months. I have no doubt that I have broken the law and I suppose that if I am not careful I shall have the long arm of the law upon me.
What concerns me about the present position is that it is possible for any Member of the Committee to visit the same establishment. It is still, so far as I know, in business and there are a number of such establishments round the country. However, as the law stands at present they are constantly under threat of being challenged by the authorities in the profession who can fairly easily demonstrate that the establishments are selling spectacles without the benefit of prescription. They can then be drummed out of business. The consequence is that many of our fellow citizens who, like me and, I venture to suggest, a large number of Members of the Committee, suffer from the sad effects of advancing years upon our ability to read, are denied the facility and convenience which comes from our being able to go to a shop and buy our spectacles over the counter—the practice, as we all know, for many years in most other countries.
I listened carefully to what my noble friend the Minister said on the earlier amendment which was carried by the Committee. I do not think I would be maltreating his arguments if I ventured to suggest that he demonstrated most clearly that the connection which tends to be advanced between detection and prevention of diseases like glaucoma through sight testing is at best a somewhat tenuous one. The real reason, I submit—I think we all know this -for the obligation upon those who wish to have reading glasses first to obtain a valid prescription appearing in the substantive legislation was that it was a special concession to the optical profession at the moment when its monopoly was being withdrawn.
In practice, I submit, it has not worked out satisfactorily even from the point of view of the opticians. The individual is given a sight test, then

1253
takes his prescription round the corner to a general emporium where he can buy his glasses. Understandably, the opticians are resentful about that practice, but it is entirely within the scope of the law.
I submit to the Committee that by carrying this amendment, moved so effectively by the noble Lord opposite, we will eliminate an anomaly, simplify greatly the lives of many of our fellow citizens and add—so far as one can by changing the law—to the sum total of human satisfaction. Therefore I hope that we shall do that tonight.
6 p.m.
Lord Ardwick: Can the noble Lord tell the Committee what his off-the-peg spectacles cost him?
Lord Bruce-Gardyne: I should not like to be asked on oath about this, but I think it was £9·50.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: You bought them on spec.
Lord Rugby: I regard myself as having been singularly unfortunate in life in that the Opticians Act 1958 applied at the very moment that I was entering what is known as the presbyopic age; that is, around 45. Therefore, if one takes the seven ages of man as portrayed by Shakespeare there are at least three which could be the presbyopic age. There is early middle age; there is advanced middle age; and there is old age. The three ages amount to almost half of one's life. Throughout, one is subjected to a compulsory sight test merely in order to cater for the perfectly normal progression of one's age, which is presbyopia. At certain times one might not need very strong spectacles. But as one goes through life one might need slightly stronger ones.
When what became the 1958 Act was going through this House under the auspices of the noble Lord, Lord Crook, he stood up and said that if people were permitted to choose their glasses, as they had done previously, they would be in serious danger of going blind. Because of that the spectacles were taken off the market and put on to the health service. I believe that a great injustice was done. The presbyopic person—that is, the middle aged, the advanced middle aged or the elderly—must now have the right restored to him to cater for advancing disability by being able to choose his own reading glasses.
Lord Hunter of Newington: The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, and others have argued eloquently that there should be unrestricted sale without prescription of ready-made spectacles. There was a time when 1 had a good deal of sympathy with the proposal, but I have changed my views. I should explain why. I do not think there is much in this from the point of view of cost. I am assured that properly prescribed spectacles made to the appropriate British standards are available at prices in the same range as, or below, those governing ready-made spectacles.
So, why have I changed my view? A patient with an ophthalmic problem, as we have heard this afternoon, has a choice at the moment as to where he
1254
seeks advice. For example, he may choose to consult a general practitioner, an ophthalmic optician or an ophthalmic medical practitioner. He may also attend the eye hospital casualty department. Studies have shown that for many patients the eye hospital casualty department is where ohpthalmic primary care is provided. Ophthalmic medical practitioners provide care under the general ophthalmic services, usually on the premises of dispensing or ophthalmic opticians.
A recent study has shown, as has been said, that above the age of 54 all patients require spectacle correction. However, there are many sight-threatening conditions which are symptomless to the patient in the early stages but which can he picked up by opticians. The important change which has taken place is that with new technology, glaucoma, diabetic retinopathy and macular degeneration—mentioned once, by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals—can be detected. Treatment in the early stages can prevent significant sight loss.
In 1980 glaucoma caused several thousand people to lose their sight. Diabetes is the commonest cause of blindness in the United Kingdom, but 70 per cent. of diabetic blindness is now preventable. Macular degeneration is responsible for 50 per cent. of blind registrations after the age of 65. Identification within the first few weeks is essential if treatment is to be effective. Laser techniques are developing rapidly and there is a high success rate, with patients often retaining useful vision for the rest of their lives. Perhaps this group is the most urgently in need of early diagnosis and treatment.
Lord Orr-Ewing: I should like to express my support for the amendment. Like the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, I have been concerned with this matter for some 30 years. It is interesting that extra enthusiasm for it was triggered when the EC exposed the fact that a pair of glasses is not really a medical appliance and that it was perfectly natural for people to buy glasses as they do throughout the OECD countries and as they do in America in all but two states. Everyone is allowed to do so. All those countries are just as careful about people's eyesight and have technology which is as good as that we have here. Therefore, I cannot see why we should superimpose a continuing burden from Nye Bevan's day when it arose for good reasons, which no longer exist.
I should not like to argue with the noble Lord who has just sat down because he has so much more experience in this field. But certainly the arguments put forward up till now say that glaucoma will be detected. The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, exposed that and I have discussed the matter with other specialists—optical surgeons of the highest calibre and experience. All say that what is so sad is that something like 90 per cent. of the people referred to them have the wind put up them. They think, "Good gracious, I am going to go blind. I shall have glaucoma or something incurable", and so on. That is totally unnecessary because the people who are testing do not have the experience to justify the diagnosis. Therefore people are unnecessarily alarmed. I am afraid that emotion plays a part in this;

1255
indeed, it would affect anyone. For example, if one was asked unscrupulously, "Well, wouldn't you sacrifice some extra money for a few more tests, if you somehow put off the moment when you went blind?" it would alarm one to such an extent that one would stop at nothing. The noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington, said that that condition would be detected. If it would be, why has every other nation abolished the monopoly of insisting on a prescription test? Would they all not be doing this? Why has the EC said that it will not carry out the tests which do not involve medical equipment. It is natural for everyone to need spectacles when they reach the age of 45.
I have a caretaker at home when I am in this place. I saw her wearing a new pair of spectacles last weekend. I asked her how much they had cost. She told me that she had paid £69. I asked her whether she knew how much the spectacles I was wearing cost and told her that they had cost £23.50 with VAT. I am afraid that the man who supplied them to me has been closed down after threats from solicitors and many others who uphold the monopoly. There must be a great deal of money to be made in opticians' shops. One has only to walk down a high street, as I do in Newbury or Thatcham, and almost every time there will be a new opticians' shop tempting one inside. They would not be doing it if there were no profit in it.
We should be able to buy spectacles in this country from £9 as they can in every other advanced country. My good friend at home told me that she had bought a rather better pair of spectacles because she was paying for the frame. That is good salesmanship. One puts the ugly frames on the cheap spectacles and the more gracious frames on the expensive spectacles, charges three times as much as is necessary and makes three times as much profit.
I hope that after all the arguments and the testing of the semi-monopoly that has existed since the end of the war we shall do what other nations have done and shall pass the amendment.
Lord Monson: When introducing Amendment No. 34, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, spoke of "eye disease" starting between the ages of 45 and 50. A tiny minority of unfortunate individuals may contract an eye disease at that time, but, as has been pointed out, the condition which leads most people to start needing reading glasses sometime between the ages of 45 and 55 (presbyopia) is no more a disease than one's hair thinning or growing grey between those ages is a disease.
The term "patient" so beloved by opticians, which enables them to justify every type of mystique and pretension of quasi-medical professionalism, is entirely inappropriate to describe purchasers of simple reading spectacles. As the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing pointed out, that was confirmed by the recent EC ruling. On previous occasions the Government have admitted that no harm can result from the purchase of reading glasses without a prescription, but they try to justify the compulsory eye test on the grounds that glaucoma might be detected as a by-product of the test.
1256
As the noble Lords, Lord Rugby and Lord Winstanley—who knows what he is talking about—pointed out, only a minority of eye tests are capable of detecting glaucoma. I believe that that answers the point made by my noble friend. The Minister has reminded us how few non-hereditary cases of glaucoma are found. All sorts of diseases in adults remain undetected for years. That is part of the price one pays for a free society. If every adult were compelled by law to submit to a full hospital checkup every three to five years there might be some logic in the arguments of the opponents of the amendment. It is no more logical to require those buying reading glasses to submit to an eye test than it would be to require those buying calamine lotion to submit to tests for skin cancer or to require those trying to buy a packet of aspirin for a headache to submit to a brain scan. Highly civilised and advanced countries such as the United States and Canada permit glasses such as the ones I bought in Toronto for about £9·50 to be sold across the counter. Why cannot we be as civilised and progressive as the United States and Canada?
6.15 p.m.
Lord Rea: I do not have any strong feelings about the amendment. Once while I was in the United States I benefited when I left my glasses on top of my car and drove off. I was able to buy a new pair over the counter. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, can answer my question. Many of the conditions which are detected by the screening by opticians occur at the ages when presbyopia appears. If someone has developing glaucoma or macular degeneration when presbyopia is also developing and he buys spectacles over the counter, he will experience a degree of improvement in his vision. Will that not put him off going for the treatment which the early condition needs?
Lord Winstanley: Perhaps I may answer, as the question has been put to me directly. No, I do not think that it will. If I thought that it would, I should have second thoughts. I merely seek to enable people to obtain simple magnifying lenses, as the noble Lord did in America when he left his spectacles on the top of his car.
I believe that the safety net which has been referred to—the testing, screening and weeding out of other conditions—which we are alleged to have had in the past has been nothing like as safe as has been made out. That is why I so warmly welcome Clause 14, which gives the Secretary of State powers to change the nature of the eye test. It is faintly misleading, and gives people a false sense of security if they believe that a simple test for infraction optometry gives them automatic screening in relation to various diseases.
I am in favour of people having their eyes looked at regularly. I am in favour of certain people having their eyes looked at by ophthalmic medical practitioners or perhaps even at an eye clinic; but I do not believe that the ability to buy simple magnifying lenses without a prescription will prevent people from having that kind of regular supervision.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: I find it difficult to accept what the noble Lord has just said. If so-called

1257
ready-made spectacles are legalised, it will encourage people not to have eye tests. If they think that there is something not too good about their eyes they will go to one of those shops and pick up a cheap pair of spectacles. One scrabbles about and finds a pair of spectacles that makes one see rather better. That does not necessarily mean that one sees as well as one should, which is important. There is not only the medical aspect of people not being screened for disease: they will not see as well and as comfortably as they should when their spectacles are not of the proper quality.
It seems like old times to be discussing ready-made spectacles. We have done it so often in the past eight years or so; usually at the instance of the noble Lord, Lord Rugby, supported by my noble and old friend Lord Orr-Ewing. I sometimes wonder from where he obtains his spectacles. He and the noble Lord, Lord Rugby, do not seem to like opticians very much.
Lord Orr-Ewing: It is not that I dislike opticians. I wish to give the public the benefit of new practices and cheaper glasses. I should like the millions of people to benefit rather than selected opticians.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: I could not agree more about that. One of the great things about the present arrangement is that one can now obtain budget glasses from any optician at about £15·50. That is what it costs with a voucher which a fortunate 30 per cent. obtain free. Magnavision, a firm which has been illegally selling reading glasses for the past three or four years is now charging £17·50 or £19. The managing director recently said that there was no way in which they could reduce their prices and make a profit.
I entirely agree with my noble friend. We must have the best quality glasses at the most reasonable prices. That is what is happening at the moment. I cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley. I was interested to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, with all his experience, does not agree either. I certainly hope that the Committee will not agree to this amendment.
Lord Monson: Before the noble Lord, Lord Cullen, sits down, would he not concede that his argument in reality is an argument that all medicines, including analgesics and stomach remedies, should be sold on prescription only?
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: Would the noble Lord say that again?
Lord Monson: Is not the noble Lord's argument in effect an argument that all medicines of every sort should be sold only on prescription?
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: I do not think so. I am simply saying that a test is a very good thing. It is good for people to have their eyes looked at, say, every couple of years. If one legalises ready-made spectacles it will simply discourage people from having tests. If people can see perfectly well with something that they have picked up, for years they will go from one ready-made pair of spectacles to
1258
another as their eyes become steadily poorer. They will not go near an optician or have a proper eye examination.
Lord Rugby: Is the noble Lord suggesting compulsory medication for people who have no desire to have that medication by compelling them to go and have their eyes tested by people with whom they do not wish to do business?
Lord Nugent of Guildford: Perhaps I may add one further word to this interesting debate. For the sake of my noble friend on the Front Bench I could have wished that this amendment had been taken before the last one since it might have changed the voting. I am someone who has his eyes tested regularly and I believe in getting a prescription. In fact, although I see reasonably well one of my eyes is slightly different from the other and so I need two somewhat different lenses. I agree with my noble friend Lord Cullen that legalising ready-made spectacles will undoubtedly encourage people not to have tests. Of course it will.
I should have thought that that would be moving in the opposite direction to the way in which we wished to go. I still believe that a £3 charge would not stop anybody from having the test, but I shall not go over that argument again. However, it is curious that we seem to have moved round in a circle. I am very glad to find myself in step with my noble friend Lord Cullen because I believe that on balance the arguments come down in favour of retaining the present law, especially if it encourages people to have tests.
I do not know whether the Government will leave the Bill amended as it is, but if they do not or if the Bill proceeds anyhow I should have thought that competition in the field of sale is such that more and more opticians will reduce the cost of testing and will throw that in, so to speak, with the sale of the spectacles. I do not believe that there is any harm in keeping the law as it is if it encourages people to continue to have tests.
Lord Ardwick: Speaking from personal experience, my own glasses cost £24, which I believe is the same as the noble Lord paid for his spectacles. I also have one eye which is different from the other and my reserve spectacles—my secondary paircost £17.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: Perhaps I may come in on this discussion, although I certainly do not intend to be anecdotal. I oppose the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley. I noticed when he was speaking that he said that what he wanted to do was to make available a simple magnifying lens. I do not know how he will do that with this amendment. It seems to me that the amendment would allow ready-made spectacles of wide varieties of shapes, sizes and distances off the nose and so on, all of which have a bearing on seeing.
I do not want to go back over the necessity of having a test. Certainly I refute the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Rugby, who said, "But these people don't have the equipment to do it". I am not sure that he is absolutely right about that. Ophthalmic prescribing doctors, as I think they are

1259
called, and the ophthalmic optician are increasingly taking advantage of the new technologies and are equipping themselves. That is not to say that they can diagnose immediately from an eye test that such a person suffers from something. They can diagnose that something is wrong. They know when someone does not see straight and can deal with that, but they also realise that something else may be wrong. It may be that the pressure is not right or it may be a question of general health. They advise a visit to the doctor. That is how it goes.
I am very surprised that, particularly from where he sits, my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing should cast aspersions upon the profit motive. I know Thatcham. I do not know that new opticians' shops are opening every week in Newbury and Thatcham. The signs may change over the shops and so may the windows and the displays. The Government are continually telling us the same story, and they repeated it about car repairs the other day: shop around for a bargain. The market place for spectacle frames is wide open and working.
No, I did not intend to be anecdotal and I shall not repeat any anecdotes; but I know that not many yards from here one can get a very nice pair of spectacle frames for £18 and it costs £7 or £8 for a simple lens. The whole thing costs about £25. The noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, and those who support the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, have totally failed to demonstrate where the benefit lies and to whom it falls. There is no consumer benefit and there is no price benefit. I have evidence of being able to buy spectacles—not in Hong Kong and not a thousand miles away—in the lower price ranges, say, for under £20. It can be done if one shops around.
Not only have the noble Lords failed to demonstrate the benefit but they have all left open the one matter which the Committee decided in two Divisions earlier this afternoon when it agreed that screening was necessary. This amendment precludes that screening by virtue of what is on sale. There is then a health risk so there is a disadvantage.
Lord Bruce-Gardyne: I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way. Before he sits down I should like to reply to the point he made when he said that we have been unable to demonstrate in this amendment any consumer benefit.
Has my noble friend never experienced—as I certainly have on more than one occasion—the appalling situation of losing one's glasses, as one noble Lord opposite confessed? In the days before there were shops which offered glasses over the counter one sometimes had to wait days before one could obtain a replacement, and during the interval one could not even read adequately. I have experienced that more than once. I find it incredible that anyone can suggest that there is not a consumer advantage in being able to find a shop at which one can obtain the necessary implement across the counter.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: If the noble Lord asks me a direct question I can tell him that I have lost my spectacles on more than one occasion. Most
1260
frequently I leave them in the Library. I then go to Mr. Scott's office and he says, "Here is a drawer full, my Lord. Will you choose one that will do?" So I take the spectacles and perch them on the end of my nose. I then ring up my supplier and say, "You have my prescription and I want exactly the same thing. How much will they be and when can I have them?" I can obtain a pair within 24 hours if I like to pay a little premium. I can get them in a week if I like to pay a little less. I think that is the market place.
Lord Ardwick: I too have sometimes lost my spectacles. On two occasions I have gone into an ordinary opticians who supplied me with a pair of some kind with which I could carry on until I could have proper spectacles made.
Lord Trafford: We seem to be going round in circles, as my noble friend said. It is true that screening is useful and that we wish to encourage people to attend for eye tests. Earlier today the Committee agreed that they should remain free of charge. The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, who moved that amendment, said that it encouraged people to go and have eye tests.
Why do people have eye tests at all? In 90 per cent. of cases it is for the reason that we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Bruce-Gardyne-namely, that they cannot see quite so well as they used to, and that their arm is no longer long enough to hold the London telephone directory. Therefore, they go to their doctor or their optician and have an eye test. That is the main reason why people ever have an eye test.
All the diseases that were mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Hunter and Lord Rea, are symptomless. But they may be found when a person who needs magnification through lenses goes to the optician because he is having difficulty seeing. It does not seem to me logical that we can possibly agree to this amendment having just passed the previous one.
I opposed the previous amendment on the grounds that I did not see anything wrong with charges. I have made that absolutely clear. It was clear that the majority of the Members of the Committee did not agree with me. That is fair enough, but I cannot see the logic of the Committee passing two amendments which propose the encouragement of screening and testing then turning round and saying, "Let's not bother with all this. Let's just go down the road and let's hope that by putting a couple of lenses in and reading the big letters and the little letters we can put it right." To do that in the presence of eye disease would be to stick one's head in the sand. One would suffer worse troubles if one lost one's glasses in those circumstances than the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, suggested. He might not know which lamppost he would hit. That situation can arise from a number of circumstances. Therefore, it appears to me that it is not logical for the Committee to pass this amendment having rejected the other two.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Monson: The answer to the noble Lord is that the free screening for which the Committee has voted twice this afternoon is voluntary and not compulsory. That is the whole point.
Lord Skelmersdale: If I may, I shall put the Government's view on this amendment before the Committee. Clearly the arguments on both sides of this particular amendment run thick and fast. In the circumstances, the Government wish to be guided by the views of the Committee on whether the prescription requirement should be retained or not.
If this matter comes to a vote today, which, incidentally, I hope it will not for reasons that I shall shortly explain, Members on this side of the Committee will be free to vote according to their own judgment upon the principle of whether or not the unrestricted sale of equal dioptre lensed spectacles should be allowed without presentation of a prescription.
No one, with the partial exception of my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has so far mentioned the detail of the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, said that it was put down on advice from someone in my department. Those were very vague words and I do not know who that person could he. However, I can say that the advice was not given with the knowledge of the parliamentary draftsmen. I say that because the detail of the amendent before us today is unacceptable to the Government for three reasons. First, it would be impossible for a supplier to identify an appliance as being designed to correct a condition—here I quote from the amendment:
"wholly attributable to the condition known as presbyopia"—
because spectacles of a given power may be used for reading or indeed any other purpose.
The only way consumers could know that such appliances were appropriate for them would be to know that they suffered from poor reading vision. That implies a sight test, which means that the amendment would be largely self-defeating. I am sure that that is not what the movers of the amendment have in mind.
Secondly, even if that can be cleared up, we should then be in difficulty with regard to children. The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, in particular will know and approve of the modern trend towards identifying problems that children have with their health and bodily functions from a very young age indeed, even on occasion in utero. That early identification does not happen with eyes. But these days most children have eye tests at least from the age of five, and a growing number have them from the age of three. Otherwise if children have defective sight—for example, a squint—they will undergo severe learning difficulties when, for example, they are unable to read the blackboard at school.
The Government are proud of the activities of the primary care services in regard to children. Indeed, they have been praised this afternoon. The Government want to see those services continue and even expand. We conclude that this particular amendment would be a step backwards for children and should be amended specifically to exclude them.
There is a third, and I am sure unintentional, effect of the amendment. It is that it would prevent people from using the voucher scheme in full or partial payment of their fees for what the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, called reading spectacles. A good
1262
amendment would continue the present arrangements for the remission of costs.
These are matters of detail. I appreciate that it is the principle that has engaged Members of the Committee this afternoon. But I should point out that if the principle were agreed today, the Government would need to bring their own amendments covering these points to amend the original amendment. It may perhaps be more proper to defer discussion of this until the next stage of the Bill. However, that is entirely up to the movers of the amendment, and is certainly not a matter for me.
Lord Ennals: I intentionally waited until after the Minister made his speech before making my contribution from these Benches. I totally disagree with the last conclusion that he reached. On the basis of the arguments which the Minister and a number of other Members of the Committee such as the noble Lords, Lord Cullen, Lord Trafford and Lord Hunter, have advanced, I think that the best thing is to defeat the amendment and not have to come back to it again. It seems to me a fairly offensive amendment and one which has some dangers to it.
It is said that the Chamber is always at its best when noble Lords are making personal reminiscences. In that case this must have been a great debate. But I do not think that it has been a great debate, because it has concentrated very much on the interests of those Members of the Committee who have supported the amendment and not very much on the interests of the other 12 million people who undergo eye tests.
As was said by the noble Lords, Lord Trafford and Lord Nugent, if this amendment were to be carried it would he a great disincentive to people to have eye tests at all. I was reading a letter that was received very recently from Ian Bruce of the Royal National Institute for the Blind. That body must know something about this problem. The letter stated that, if the amendment were carried, it would,
"decrease still further the number of people who have the benefit of an eye examination as part of a sight test, and will inevitably contribute to a rise in the number of people who lose their sight unnecessarily."
That is a pretty powerful argument.
Lord Orr-Ewing: No, no!
Lord Ennals: I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, said "No, no!" But the letter comes from the Royal National Institute for the Blind and I do not think that we can simply dismiss it out of hand. The British College of Optometrists, which has carried out a survey states:
"Twelve million 'sight-tests' or eye examinations are carried out each year in Great Britain under the NHS: in nearly a million of these cases, it is estimated that the patient is referred for medical investigation or his or her doctor is notified. If the results of the College's survey are applied to these figures, it will be seen that there may be up to a quarter of a million people each year who might experience no discomfort in using self selected reading spectacles, but who, if they bought such spectacles without first having had their eyes examined, would have put their vision or their general health at serious risk."
Obviously some of those people who experience no discomfort in using self-selected reading spectacles

1263
are Members of the Committee. I submit that the British College of Optometrists also has some knowledge of this matter. I was a little worried that the Minister was not really giving a lead to the Chamber in this respect, because we discussed these matters very fully back in 1984. The Federation of Ophthalmic and Dispensing Opticians states:
"Since the beginning of 1985 it has been legal for unregistered traders to sell and supply spectacles to adults provided they comply with the Sale of Optical Appliances Order-in-Council 1984",
and so on.
We decided in 1984 that any such sales:
"must be in accordance with a written prescription given by a doctor or registered ophthalmic optician following a sight test".
I do not understand what has happened since 1984 to change the views of the Committee or of the Ministers who strongly commended that position the last time we debated the issue. Ministers repeatedly stated during the early stages of the Bill that it is not the Government's intention to:
"allow people to walk off the street into any shop that cares to display spectacles and to buy spectacles that have no relation to some measurement of what their eyes need".
I agree with that. I wish that it had been said by the Minister in his brief comments this afternoon.
The legislation of ready-made spectacles would make a nonsense of the government amendment to the Bill, now incorporated in Clause 14(1). That proposes to give the Secretary of State the power to regulate what duties are to be performed in the course of a sight test by ophthalmic opticians and ophthalmic medical practitioners for the purpose of determining injury, disease or abnormalities of the eye. What would be the point of those provisions if a sight test could be avoided altogether by the purchase of ready-made spectacles?
By deciding that they will have a free vote and by not commending any action to the Committee, the Government have put themselves into an absurd position. Since 1945, numerous specs shops and unregistered traders have sprung up. Cases have been known of spectacles being sold from market stalls and even from barrows. The precise number of unregistered traders cannot be provided because it is inherent in the situation that there is no requirement for registration and no control by any regulatory body.
This is an issue on which, although the Government have not sought to impose the law, the General Optical Council has done so. As some of us will know, one of the major firms supplying those appliances in the UK is Magnivision. That firm has mounted a major campaign to change the law. I suppose that that is one of the reasons for the amendment which is before us today. It claims that there would be a significant price advantage for the consumer if sales were allowed. I do not believe that that is the case. Magnivision is currently the subject of several prosecutions being taken by the General Optical Council in respect of its sales of those items.
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Cullen, quoted an official of Magnivision who said:
"We have recently increased our prices to £17·95 and £19·95. There is no way Magnivision would ever be able to profitably operate at lower retail prices".
1264
The result of change in the law in this respect would therefore not produce any price advantage to the consumer but it would induce a significant health risk. No one has proved to us that there is a significant advantage in that for the consumer. It has been well proved to us by those who are experts—the noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington, is one of them—that there are dangers if people are discouraged from having sight tests.
I want the Minister to give a clear statement of the views of the Government to the Committee, based on the same evidence which led them earlier in the consideration of the Bill to come out clearly against what is contained in the amendment. Whether the Government care to do that or not, from this side of the Committee I strongly urge that the amendment be put to the vote and that we defeat it.
Lord Monson: Before the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, sits down, will he accept that those of us who support the amendment resent the insinuation that we are acting at the behest of Magnivision—a company of which I for one have never heard? Secondly, he asked how the position has changed since 1984. What has changed is the recent EC ruling which states that the provision of reading spectacles is not a medical matter.
Lord Ennals: I recognise that the noble Lord's second point has been mentioned during this 52-minute debate. I did not intend to suggest that those who moved the amendment were doing so as a result of a campaign run by Magnivision. However, the noble Lord can hardly have been following what has been going on in the field of medicine or comfort or whatever he may call it if he is unaware of the Magnivision story, which has gained tremendous publicity. I do not suggest for a moment that any Member of the Committee has been influenced by that commercial enterprise.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, said that several noble Lords had spoken from personal experience and without regard to the consumer. I disagree with him. Having listened to the noble Lord and his supporters, it seems to me that they have the consumer in mind.
The purpose of the amendment is to allow magnifying spectacles to be made available across the counter. It may well be that they will be available in supermarkets, on barrows and suchlike places of which the noble Lord disapproves. However, if glasses of that sort cause no damage to the eyes—the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, has indicated that that is the case—it seems to me to be wholly desirable in the interest of consumers that they should be more widely available. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, will press the amendment.
Lord Winstanley: A noble Lord who tables an amendment to a Bill is wholly responsible for the wording of it. I have been reliably informed that the wording of the amendment is defective. I therefore accept that the fault is clearly mine. However, I hope that the Committee will accept that I did my best. I first tabled a simple amendment which merely

1265
prescribed that a pair of spectacles containing a pair of identical magnifying lenses should be exempt. I was informed that that did not wholly meet my intention. I was advised by someone in the department, who did not come down on one side or the other of the argument, that the present amendment was a better way of achieving my objective. Apparently that was wrong. I shall have to make inquiries about whether I should revert to the old wording.
I do not feel that there would be great benefit in pressing the Committee to divide on an amendment which is defective. I shall have to think carefully about whether I shall table the amendment again. One consideration is that if I tabled the amendment in another form, I should have to listen to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, again. I should not wish to bring that down upon myself. I should also have to consider carefully some of the arguments advanced.
I was astonished at the arguments advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Trafford. I have great respect for his clinical judgment. He is a consultant physician and ranks higher than I do in the medical profession. I have always believed that consultants should spend a certain amount of time in general practice. No doubt the noble Lord will say that he has done so. However, I am sure that if he were to spend time in general practice he would agree with me that if he, as a general practitioner, suspected one of his elderly patients might conceivably have incipient glaucoma, he would not send that patient to an optician. He would send his patient to an eye hospital or to a consultant ophthalmologist.
The previous arrangements with regard to eye testing were not the great safety net which some noble Lords have portrayed. I believe that people who think that are misleading themselves. There are reasons for considering the amendment further. This is not the right time to put the matter to a vote. I shall consider the matter and new wording further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Ennals: I believe that the noble Lord requires the permission of the Committee to withdraw the amendment. I wish to oppose the withdrawal of the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committee (Earl Cathcart): Is it your Lordships pleasure that this amendment be withdrawn?
Noble Lords: No!
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: The Question is that Amendment No. 48 be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say "Content"; to the contrary, "Not-Content". I think the Not-Contents have it. Clear the Bar.
6.49 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 48) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 84; Not-Contents, 80.

DIVISION NO.3

CONTENTS

Arran, E.

Hunt, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Joseph, L.

Balfour, E.

Kilbracken, L.

Boardman, L.

Kimball, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Borthwick, L.

Long, V.

Bottomley, L.

Luke, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Mar, C.

Bruce-Gardyne, L. [Teller.]

Mersey, V.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Monk Bretton, L.

Burton, L.

Monson, L.

Caithness, E.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Mountevans, L.

Carnock, L.

Norfolk, D.

Clitheroe, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Colwyn, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Peston, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Polwarth, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Rankeillour, L.

Donegall, M.

Renton, L.

Dundee, E.

Rugby, L.

Elibank, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Erroll, E.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Savile, L.

Ferrers, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Greenway, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Swinton, E.

Halsbury, E.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hanson, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L. [Teller.]

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Thurlow, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Torphichen, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Trumpington, B.

Harvington, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Willis, L.

Hesketh, L.

Windlesham, L.

Holderness, L.

Winstanley, L.

Hooper, B.

Young of Graftham, L.

Hooson, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ardwick, L.

Hughes, L.

Auckland, L.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Bauer, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Birdwood, L.

Jay, L.

Blackstone, B.

Jeger, B.

Blease, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Brain, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Brookeborough, V.

Kirkhill, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Lawrence, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Layton, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Longford, E.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Cathcart, E.

McFadzean, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Marley, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Dormer, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Merrivale, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Ennals, L.

Milverton, L.

Faithfull, B.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Gallacher, L.

Mulley, L.

Galpern, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Nelson, E.

Gregson, L.

Nicol, B.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Northesk, E.

Headfort, M.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Hives, L.

Orkney, E.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Parry, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Howie of Troon, L.

1267

Prys-Davies, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Rea, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Rochdale, V.

Tonypandy, V.

Rodney, L.

Trafford, L.

Seebohm, L.

Underhill, L.

Serota, B.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Stedman, B.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

White, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
7 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 13, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Skelmersdale: Perhaps I may say a very brief word. Although clearly we have lost the meat of the clause it contains other important features. It will enable us to extend the spectacle voucher scheme; it will enable us to make payments for the cost of repairing or replacing spectacles for children and the handicapped. I am sure that the Committee will consider that a welcome extension of the scheme. For that reason I should like to see the clause remain part of the Bill.
I understand that my noble friend Lord Bruce-Gardyne wishes to put a question to me on the clause.
Lord Bruce-Gardyne: I wish to intervene in regard to matters that my noble friend has just mentioned—other provisions of the clause that we have not discussed at any length—with special reference to Clause 13(3). I am concerned about a related matter, of which I have given my noble friend warning. It is a narrow point but one that I believe will be of considerable concern to a small number of people. I hasten to say that it is not entirely germane to the clause. I shall therefore be brief. It concerns another category of appliance that the health service may supply—commercial hearing aids for the small number of people who are unable to benefit from NHS hearing aids. My interest in the matter arises from the fact that I have a son who has always been in precisely that position.
Because of a recent decision of the European Court, it has been decided that VAT must apply to commercial hearing aids in a way that it has not hitherto. The anxiety arises because, under the provisions of the clause, the health service has an obligation to supply a commercial hearing aid where a specialist or consultant says that the patient needs one and cannot benefit from an NHS appliance. Because of financial pressure, local health authorities have already been finding it very difficult to fulfil that requirement. The addition of VAT to the cost of commercial hearing aids will obviously add to those financial pressures and will increase the difficulties of a small number of people who are genuinely dependent on the health service for access to hearing aids.
At this stage I ask my noble friend to look into the matter sympathetically and see whether something can be done—I ask for no undertaking now—to alleviate what is a narrow but serious problem for a small number of people.
Lord Skelmersdale: My noble friend gave me a few days' warning of his question, and I have been able to look into it.
I understand that the European Court judgment is binding on the United Kingdom and there is no room for manoeuvre over its application to hearing aids. Because the subject under discussion is value added tax and not specifically medical aids, this would therefore be a matter for the Finance Bill and Treasury Ministers.
I should make clear that the exemption against which the court has ruled covered only the sale of hearing aids to users by hearing aid dispensers; it did not cover purchases by the NHS from suppliers, who already pay VAT. The court ruling will not therefore increase prices to health authorities, which I understood to be my noble friend's major point. Health authorities provide hearing aids to patients on free loan, so that neither the health authorities nor the patients will be affected by this imposition of value added tax.
Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 14 [Sight-testing]:
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne Lord Cullen of Ashbourne moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 18, line 11, leave out from ("require") to end of line 18.
The noble Lord said: Clause 14 in general terms is designed to give the Secretary of State power to lay down in regulations exactly what the duties of an OMP or ophthalmic optician are when carrying out a sight test.
I am president of the Federation of Ophthalmic and Dispensing Opticians—FODO—which does not object to the general proposition that it may be desirable to prescribe minimum standards for the content of an eye examination, although it seems something of an interference with private contracts to do so in the case of private eye examinations. The provision that we find objectionable is paragraph (b) of subsection (1), which requires the prescriber to give all patients following a sight test a written statement, first, that he has carried out the examinations that the regulations require; and, secondly, that he is or, as the case may be, is not referring him to a registered medical practitioner. We do not understand the reasons for including in the clause a duty to hand to patients a written statement that the practitioner has carried out the required examination in accordance with the regulations.
Ophthalmic medical practitioners and ophthalmic opticians are already liable in negligence at common law if they fail in their duties when carrying out an eye examination. We do not see that the statutory obligation to perform certain duties is strengthened in any way by including a statutory requirement to give all patients a written statement that the examination has been conducted.
There seems no real reason to doubt that whatever is specified in the regulations will be carried out. The requirement to certify their completion in this clause seems very heavyhanded and bureaucratic. Patients

1269
are already entitled to be given their prescription and, in effect, the prescription should itself be the evidence that they have been given a proper eye examination by the practitioner concerned. I beg to move.
Lord Ennals: I need say no more than a few sentences as the noble Lord, Lord Cullen of Ashbourne, has set out the matter clearly.
Like the noble Lord, I do not know why the Government decided to include this bureaucratic regulation in the Bill. Whether it implies some lack of confidence in the practitioners concerned I do not know. I hope that the Minister will think again and decide that this is an unnecessary and time-wasting provision. I shall be interested to hear what he says.
Lord Skelmersdale: I assure the Committee that there is no ulterior motive here. The requirements that the amendment seeks to remove are not intended in any way as a slight to the profession; they are simply part of our measures to help the consumer. I do not think it unreasonable that patients should be given written confirmation that the practitioner has carried out the eye examination required by regulation.
The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, earlier praised the regulations, which for the first time will make a form of eye test prescribable under Clause 14. The written confirmation will be useful should any dispute arise over the sight test. A statement of the practitioner's advice where the patient is being referred to the doctor will serve as a useful reminder.
I do not think that these requirements will be onerous for the practitioners as, along with details of the prescription or statement that spectacles are not required, they could be included on a single piece of paper. This provision would have taken on very much more significance in the light of the proposal for a large increase in the number of private sight tests. But it is of importance even when that proposal has not met the wishes of Members of the Committee. It is an important consumer protection measure.
I must confess that these are my preliminary thoughts on the issue. If my noble friend would like to have consultations with me, involving perhaps talks between his advisers and my advisers before the next stage of the Bill, I should be very happy to agree to that.
Lord Ennals: The Minister made the point that when this was put into the Bill in another place it was on the assumption that there would be sight tests that would be paid for—therefore private sight tests. That has now been deleted. Is there not an argument for his thinking again as he suggests?
Lord Skelmersdale: Clearly this is one of the considerations between now and the next stage of the Bill. However, as I said earlier, it is not the only consideration.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: It is obvious that we all have to think again about this. I am grateful to my noble friend for offering consultation between now
1270
and Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 14 agreed to.
Clause 15 agreed to.
Clause 16 [Limits on reimbursement of expenses]:
Lord Ennals Lord Ennals moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 20, line 3, at end insert—
("and, (iv) for the purposes of (ii) above, the expenditure attributable to reimbursement of expenses shall relate only to expenditure attributable to the reimbursement of expenses made in respect of the Cost Rent Scheme and the Direct Payments for Ancillary Staff Scheme (provided for in accordance with Regulation 24 of the National Health Service (General Medical and Pharmaceutical Service) Regulations 1974, as amended.)").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that cash limits affect expenditure only on the cost rent scheme and payments for ancillary staff.
I made clear at Second Reading that I have no objection in principle to cash limiting. If I had objected the Minister would have been at my throat, my having played a role in cash limits at an earlier stage in my life. I said on Second Reading that Clause 16 concerning reimbursement of expenses provides for a cash-limited grant to family practitioner committees from the DHSS to reimburse those family practitioner services of various expenses—providing principally, I presume, for taking on additional staff within GP practices, as was suggested in the White Paper. One would welcome that. I do not object to it. That is the position I take now.
However, I wish to make certain that cash limiting is not extended to other aspects of the general practitioner's work. I believe very much in the clinical judgment of a general practitioner. I do not wish to see cash limiting affecting his clinical judgment and the practices that he furthers as a result of using that clinical judgment. Nor do I wish it to affect the cost of the prescribing that he undertakes.
I wish the Minister to tell me that the cash limiting applies only in the two particular respects I have mentioned. If he does not say that, of course 1 shall wish the amendment to be passed in order to make it clear. If he is able to give me an absolutely clear assurance, then it will not be my intention to push the amendment to a Division.
Lord Skelmersdale: The cash-limiting provisions—the noble Lord was good enough to say he was not against them in principle—that we seek in this clause have very positive advantages in targeting resources where they are most needed to improve patient care. The clause will enable the Government first to remove a number of central constraints on the greater use of practice team staff and, second, to improve surgery premises. However, the source of funds is, as usual, not a bottomless purse. The greater local flexibility we are aiming to create must be balanced by a central mechanism for controlling the expenditure. Otherwise, one practice might well be very highly staffed whereas another practice, not

1271
many miles down the road, could have many fewer staff. That would be inappropriate. In other words, we wish to keep a balance. We wish to keep a measure of control.
Having said that, we believe that it is right to maximise local decision-making with the minimum degree of central control. The cash limiting provisions will achieve this. However, we know that there is concern about how the provisions will be used. The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, referred rather obliquely to that concern.
The Government have already made clear—and I repeat again—that they have no plans to use the cash-limiting powers other than in respect of GPs' premises improvements and practice team staff. Nevertheless, for the reasons that I have already given, we believe that cash limits will be of considerable value in ensuring the effective targeting of resources in these two important areas of service development.
I think that I have given the reassurances that the noble Lord was seeking. If not, I have no doubt that he will come back to me.
Lord Ennals: I am grateful to the Minister for what he said. Having a suspicious mind, I always cavil a little at statements like, "I have no plans". Sometimes, three months later, someone then has plans. I remember at the time of an election a few years ago, the Prime Minister said that she had no intention to increase prescription charges. At that moment she had not; but as soon as she became Prime Minister she jolly well did and we have suffered from them ever since.
I wish to read carefully what the Minister has said and to consider whether I ought to raise the matter at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 51 and 52 not moved.]
Clause 16 agreed to.
7.15 p.m.
Clause 17 [Transfer of staff from civil service to health authorities]:
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendments Nos. 53 and 54:
Page 20, line 26, leave out from second ("a") to ("on") in line 28 and insert ("body constituted under the National Health Service Act 1977 or the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978 or section 91(2) of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984").
Page 20, line 32, leave out ("health authority") and insert ("body whose employee he becomes")
The noble Earl said: Before turning to these two small amendments to Clause 17, I should like to pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Holderness who has been chairman of the Disablement Services Authority since July 1987. In that capacity he has been extremely active in promoting the work of the DSA. His chairmanship has been most valuable and he has been supportive of the proposed changes put forward in the clause.
These amendments are of a tidying-up nature. They are designed to extend the employment protection offered by the clause to transfer to any body constituted under the National Health Service Act 1977, the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978 or Section 91(2) of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984—not just health authorities, as currently drafted. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 18 agreed to.
Clause 19 [Instruction of staff in matters relating to health and welfare]:
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 55:
Page 20, line 44, leave out from ("63") to ("in") in line 45 and insert ("of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968—

(a) in subsection (6)(a), after the word "section" there shall be inserted the words "and for ancillary administrative purposes,"; and

(b) in subsection (8),").

The noble Earl said: Clause 19 extends our powers to make grants to local authorities for the training of social services staff. We attach great importance to training as a means of improving the quality of services which are provided. It is also important for improving the effectiveness with which the resources—human and financial—which we devote to social services are used. This year we have launched the training support programme directed at certain groups of social services staff working with the elderly. The programme has been enthusiastically received by local authorities and welcomed by noble Lords. All 109 personal social service authorities have submitted a successful bid for a grant under the programme.
Many training sessions are now under way. The powers we are taking under this clause will allow us to extend the programme to other priority areas of social services. For example, my right honourable friend the Minister for Health announced as part of his response to the Butler-Sloss report that, subject to the passage of the Bill, we shall be launching a training support programme for child care staff.
The amendment is needed because the clause as drafted would not allow the funding of administrative staff—for example, the student placement officers—which is an important part of the initiative proposed for the training of child care staff. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 20 agreed to.
Lord Ennals Lord Ennals moved Amendment No. 56:
After Clause 20, insert the following new clause:
("Prescription by nurses.
. —The following shall be substituted for subsection (2)(a) of section 55 of the Medicines Act 1968 (exemptions for doctors, dentists, veterinary surgeons and veterinary practitioners) —

"(i) to the sale or supply of all medicinal products that are not prescription-only medicines, where the product is sold or supplied by a registered nurse of a category specified in an order made by the Health Ministers for the purposes of this paragraph in the course of her professional practice;

1273

(ii) and to the sale or supply of prescription-only medicines which, by virtue of an exemption conferred by an order made under section 58(4)(a), may be sold or supplied by a registered nurse of a category specified in an order made by the Health Ministers for the purposes of this paragraph, otherwise than in accordance with a prescription given by an appropriate practitioner; or".").

The noble Lord said: At present, nurses have no power to prescribe even the simplest drugs and appliances, including simple painkillers which can be bought over the pharmacist's counter. Frequently district nurses and other nursing staff working in the community waste considerable time obtaining items such as new dressings for their patients. They must first obtain a prescription from the doctor, who may never even have seen the patient. They then have to obtain the item from the pharmacist and take it back to the patient. Delays in treatment and inconvenience to patients can thus occur and nursing time and travel costs be wasted.
In many cases the community nurse is in reality the prescriber and the GP merely the authoriser. There has been fairly wide agreement that there would be much merit in introducing nurse prescribing in certain situations. It could be said that some groups of nurses, including occupational health nurses, midwives and some nurses in the armed forces, already possess these powers. Nurses with special training have in recent years been assuming responsibilities for various dosages and amending treatment within carefully controlled protocols agreed with doctors. Indeed, in many instances patients themselves are tending to be self-prescribers with medicines provided to them as over-the-counter preparations. It is not unreasonable to suggest that nurses are at least as competent as patients (and, some might think, as doctors) in the areas we are talking about.
This has been accepted in principle and it was my feeling that it ought to be enshrined within the Bill. Though this is not an amendment that I have any intention of pressing to a vote—it is in part a probing amendment—there are a few questions I should like to put to the Minister. I know that a committee has been established to discuss this matter with the professions, including the Royal College of Nursing. I should like to know what stage these consultations have reached. What is the remit of the committee? In other words, is it considering the principle of nurse prescribing or the details? What work has the committee carried out to date? What is the timetable for the committee's future work? When does it expect to complete its work? Who are its members? These are all questions the answers to which I should find very interesting, as I am sure would other members of the Committee. I know that the Royal College of Nursing and other organisations involved with nurses would very much like to know what progress is being made. I beg to move.
Lord Trafford: It is somewhat of a pleasure for me to be able to support an amendment moved by the noble Lord. Whether it has exactly the correct wording I am not sure, but I support the principle of nurse prescribing, certainly for the simpler preparations. It has not perhaps escaped the attention of some noble Lords who attend health
1274
debates that I am a very strong supporter of the role of nurses. They are absolutely critical in the health service and I support this movement in principle though, as I have said, I do not know whether the wording is entirely correct.
To allow nurses to play a bigger part in their delivery of health care is important. As some of your Lordships may know, it is my duty in another field to run a renal dialysis and transplant unit. The nurses are specially and highly trained. It would be utterly ludicrous if one expected many doctors to know as much about the activities that these nurses carry out as they do in another field in which I operate; the intensive care unit. I therefore strongly support the idea that nurses can be most useful.
There is plenty of scope for prescription. Nurses can do an enormous amount to contribute materially to the patients. I do not believe that they necessarily need to have imposed upon them the ludicrous restrictions that now apply. Nurses very frequently are not able to prescribe the most simple of remedies and are not able to obtain items such as dressings, ointments and so on to treat, for example, the varicose ulcers with which they deal very frequently in general practice. I make that point because of the comment made on my experience in general practice by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley. I point out to him that I also did some general practice in my time. This is an extremely useful measure.
Even in the field of hospital service, where nurses are more closely supervised, the same would apply, because they are in more immediate contact, and I support such manoeuvres. I do not wish to detain the Committee, but it may interest Members to know that frequently in these more specialised procedures the nurse knows as much or more than the attending junior doctor before he has been fully trained. It is always amusing to see the way in which the nurse or the sister carefully instructs the junior doctor in what will be the best steps to take with regard perhaps to the dialysis machine or the respirator or how to use the defibrillator or whatever the instrument may be. I remain deeply impressed by the capacity of nurses, given their head, though perhaps not all that freely in the sense that there must be some degree of control in such a situation. I support the general principle behind the amendment.
Lord Winstanley: As has been apparent, I have not been in total agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, throughout the whole of the proceedings in the Committee today. Therefore it gives me great pleasure to say that I support him entirely on that amendment. The point that the noble Lord, Lord Trafford, made is valid. He mentioned varicose ulcers. When I was in general practice with a patient with a varicose ulcer at home, he or she was looked after in the main by the community nurse, as she is now called. The nurse would dress the ulcer with whatever it needed to be dressed with and would constantly make changes. She would always have to come to me to ask for a prescription for this, that or the other. She would tell me what she wanted the prescription for and, having given her the prescription, she would have it made up for the patient. Then she would apply the different items to

1275
the patient. It was an absurd situation. There cannot be any argument against a procedure such as this, limited though it is. I hope that the Minister will tell us that the Government intend to follow this route, whether by this means or another, I know not.
Lord Rea: The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, says that it was an absurd situation for the nurse to tell him what she wanted so that he could write out the prescription. It still is an absurdity. It is still happening. The amendment would be much welcomed by many workers in primary health care as well as in hospital. I fully support it.
The Countess of Mar: I should like to support the amendment. For a number of years I worked in a busy casualty department of a Scottish hospital attended by a GP; there was no permanent doctor. The sister and staff nurse frequently decided on—rather than prescribed—the treatment to give to a patient. The amendment would bring community nurses on to a level with sisters in the same kind of situation.
7.30 p.m.
The Earl of Arran: We are glad that there is a certain amount of unanimity in the air this evening, particularly from all sides of the Committee. I believe that I shall be able to help the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, in respect of some of the points that he raised.
We made it clear when we issued the primary health care White Paper and since then we have been in favour of giving nurses more freedom to prescribe a limited range of items and to exercise their professional judgment in relation to the timing and dosage of certain drugs prescribed by doctors. It is hard to detect among the many supporters of the idea—Members of the Committee not excepted—any general agreement about what nurses should be able to prescribe and in what circumstances. These and other related matters need careful thought. We believe that the amendment, which would pre-empt any decision on them in respect of non-prescription only products, goes too far at this stage.
Following an initial approach to the professional standing advisory committees we have now set up a joint working party to examine the professional and ethical issues of nurse prescribing. I am happy to be able to tell the Committee and the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, that the working party meets for the first time today. I believe that as yet it is a little too early to say when the work will finish.
It is also too early to say precisely what products nurses should be allowed to supply or what legislative measures might be needed in consequence. As regards provisions of the Medicines Act, we are advised that there are sufficient powers at present in the Act to enable any necessary changes to be made by subordinate legislation.
I hope that, in view of the reassurances I have given to the Committee and in particular to the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Ennals: I should like to thank the noble Earl for his constructive reply. I should also like to thank the three doctors who fully supported the principle underlying my amendment. It was most encouraging and I know that members of the nursing profession will also find it so. I indicated that it was not my intention to press the matter to a Division.
I am glad that the working party met today. I do not know whether the fact that I had tabled an amendment speeded up the date of the meeting. I was a little worried about when the meeting would take place and I am happy that the committee has met today.
Perhaps the Minister can say something about the possibility of regulations being introduced under existing primary legislation as a result of the work of the working party enabling nurses in certain fields to prescribe. I do not know which Act applies and I had not realised that such a power could be introduced without primary legislation. If the Minister does not have the answer I do not wish to press him but perhaps he will write to me. I asked a number of other questions concerning the composition and terms of reference of the working party and I should like to have that information together with the possibility of regulations. If the Minister can answer my questions now, it will save half the letter that I hope he will write to me. I shall listen to his answer and then indicate my intention.
The Earl of Arran: I believe that it would be achieved by regulations under the Medicines Act 1968. The noble Lord asked about the composition of the committee. It is chaired by Dr. June Crown, director of service evaluation development of the Bloomsbury Health Authority, and four other people.
Lord Ennals: I thank the noble Earl. Under those circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 21 and 22 agreed to.
Clause 23 [Commencement and transitional]:
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 57:
Page 23, leave out line 27 and insert ("section 1 (including Schedule [Provisions supplementary to s.1] (and sections 2 to 6;").
The noble Earl said: The amendment has already been spoken to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 23, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 24 [Northern Ireland]:
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 58:
Page 24, line 22, leave out first ("section") and insert ("sections 14 and").
The noble Earl said: On behalf of my noble friend, I beg to move Amendment No. 58. It is a technical amendment correcting an accidental omission from Clause 24. It ensures that Clause 14, an amendment

1277
to the Opticians Act, which is a United Kingdom Act, is commenced in Northern Ireland as well as in Great Britain.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 24, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 25 agreed to.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 59:
Before Schedule 1, insert the following new schedule:

PROVISIONS SUPPLEMENTARY TO s/
1. Subject to the provisions of an order under section 1(1) above, any agreement made, transaction effected or other thing done by, to or in relation to the Corporation which is in force or effective immediately before the day specified under that subsection shall have effect as from that day as if made, effected or done by, to or in relation to the successor company, in all respects as if the successor company were the same person, in law, as the Corporation; and accordingly references to the Corporation—

(a) in any agreement (whether or not in writing) and in any deed, bond or instrument;

(b) in any process or other document issued, prepared or employed for the purpose of any proceedings before any court or other tribunal or authority; and

(c) in any other document whatever (other than an enactment) relating to or affecting any property, right or liability of the Corporation which vests by virtue of section 1(1) above in the successor company,

shall be taken as from the specified day as referring to the successor company.
2. Where immediately before that day there is in force an agreement which—

(a) confers or imposes on the Corporation any rights or liabilities which vest in the successor company by virtue of section 1(1) above; and

(b) refers (in whatever terms and whether expressly or by implication) to a member or officer of the Corporation,

the agreement shall have effect, in relation to anything falling to be done on or after that day, as if for that reference there were substituted a reference to such person as that company may appoint or, in default of appointment, to the officer of that company who corresponds as nearly as may be to the member or officer of the Corporation in question.
3. — (l) It is hereby declared for the avoidance of doubt that the effect of an order under section 1(1) above in relation to any contract of employment with the Corporation in force immediately before the day specified under that subsection is merely to modify the contract (as from that day) by substituting the successor company as the employer (and not to terminate the contract or vary it in any other way).
(2) Accordingly—

(a) any period of employment with the Corporation; and

(b) any period of employment which would, immediately before the day specified under section 1(1) above, have been treated as such employment,

shall count as employment with the successor company.").
The noble Earl said: The amendment has already been spoken to. I beg to move.
Lord Ennals: I do not believe that the amendment has been spoken to, but if it has I apologise. It looks as though it is a little more than a technical amendment and perhaps the Minister can explain it to the Committee.
Lord Skelmersdale: Perhaps I may help the Committee and the noble Lord. At the beginning of the first day in Committee last Thursday we dealt with Amendments Nos. 3 to 6 as a group. In a sense
1278
they were paving amendments for Amendment No. 59. It was the substantive amendment of that group.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Consequential Amendments]:
Lord Winstanley Lord Winstanley moved Amendment No. 60:
Page 25, line 3, at end insert—
("Opticians Act 1958
. In section 30(1) of the Opticians Act 1958 (interpretation), at the end of the definition of "optical appliance" there shall be added the words "and includes glasses, contact lenses, eye drops and cleaning fluids".").
The noble Lord said: The amendment deals with the availability of contact lenses to certain people. As I understand the present regulations, there appears to be some doubt as to whether a patient has a legal right to a copy of his prescription for contact lenses. If he has obtained contact lenses as a result of attending a properly qualified practitioner and obtaining a prescription, there is some doubt as to whether there exists a legal right to that prescription. However, whether or not the legal right exists, I am assured that in practice patients have the greatest difficulty in extracting the prescription from the supplier.
The difficulty may arise when people who are a long way from home lose their contact lenses and require some more. Under the present arrangements the only way in which they can obtain others is to travel 200, 300 or 400 miles back to the original supplier. If they had a right to the prescription and actually possessed it they could go to another supplier to obtain the lenses.
It is my understanding that the amendment provides for that and it appears to be necessary. I gather that the other items—cleaning fluids, eye drops and so forth—are necessarily associated and must also be exempted in the same way in order to make it easier for people to obtain a duplicate pair of contact lenses. Noble Lords will know that such a need frequently arises but not always in the area in which the contact lenses were originally obtained. It can be desperately inconvenient and very costly for somebody to be forced to go back to the original supplier. The object of my amendment is to see that people are not so forced. I beg to move.
Lord Skelmersdale: I certainly agree that a wise consumer carries around a prescription for his current pair of glasses or contact lenses, or whatever, in his handbag, or rather in her handbag or his wallet. The noble Lord laughs, but it is not beyond the wit of man that even in England a man may carry a handbag. I know several who do, although I do not actually do it myself. Having said that, I am advised that there is no legal right for a prescription for contact lenses. Clearly I shall have to consider this because this amendment brings the matter to my attention for the first time. I was rather surprised and thought it likely to indicate quite a different line of questioning. Since I find that it has not, perhaps I can get back to the noble Lord before the next stage of the Bill.
Lord Winstanley: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his reply. He has confirmed my suspicions that there is no legal right. I thought there might be such a right to the prescription but I knew that in practice, however much they argued, people could not get the prescription. The noble Lord has said that there is no legal right and I hope he agrees with me that there should be a legal right. The person can then carry the prescription and in an emergency he can obtain the contact lenses. The noble Lord has promised to look into the matter and I hope that he will do that with a view to remedying the situation because I believe there is a deficiency in the present provisions.
Lord Ennals: If the consultation between the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, could include handbags then people would be even better equipped!
Lord Skelmersdale: As long as there is no suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, that we should end up throwing them at each other, yes.
Lord Winstanley: I am not concerned about the contents of the handbag of the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, but with regard to the amendment I hope that the Minister will look at it sympathetically and realise that there is a deficiency which should be remedied and perhaps will devise a remedy for that situation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 61:
Page 25, line 17, at end insert—
("5A. In subsection (1)(a) of section 83A (remission and repayment of charges and payment of travelling expenses) after "78(1)" there shall be inserted "or (1A)".").
The noble Lord said: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 62. Before I do that perhaps I may say what a pleasure it has been for me to conduct this Committee stage in this spirit of friendliness, even if not always total agreement. I am very grateful to Members of the Committee on all sides for the way in which they have approached their task in being part of the Committee.
This is a technical amendment needed as a result of Clause 11 to ensure that dental charges may continue to be remitted as at present. That was not included in the clause as originally drafted as it is a consequence of the Social Security Act 1988 which was not an Act when this Bill was drafted.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 62:
Page 26, line 2, at end insert—
("11A. In subsection (1)(a) of section 75A (remission and repayment of charges and payment of travelling expenses) after "70(1)" there shall be inserted "or, (1A)".").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move.
Lord Ennals: Perhaps I may respond to the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, to say how much we have appreciated the way in which he has dealt with the issues. We have not always agreed on everything, but
1280
where we have not agreed wisdom has prevailed. I appreciate the role of the Minister in the handling of this Bill.
Lord Winstanley: Perhaps I may associate myself with those words.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Farm Woodland Scheme 1988
7.45 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington) rose to move, That the draft scheme laid before the House on 4th July be approved [32nd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this draft scheme is to be made under Section 2 of the Farm Land and Rural Development Act. Many of the details were discussed when we considered that Bill together six months ago.
The Farm Woodland Scheme is intended to encourage farmers throughout the United Kingdom to plant new woodlands on some of their productive agricultural land. Paragraph 1 of the instrument says:
"this Scheme shall apply to Great Britain".
However, I should make it clear that the scheme will also operate in Northern Ireland, where it can be implemented without a statutory instrument under different primary legislation.
Noble Lords may recall that at the Second Reading of the Bill I announced that, as a result of last year's consultation exercise, we had decided to change the main focus of the scheme. It will now concentrate primarily on arable land and improved grassland up to 10 years old. The definition of eligible land appears half-way down page 2. Restricting eligible land in this way will help to ensure that CAP savings are achieved and will discourage planting on marginal land which, especially in the lowlands, is more likely to be of conservation interest.
The minimum area of planting, which is laid down in paragraph 7 of the scheme, will be three hectares per agricultural unit and the minimum size for each block of woodland will be one hectare. This too will help to ensure that chunks of productive land are taken out and that planting will not simply be on odd unproductive corners of the farm.
Paragraph 9 and Schedule 1 lay down the rates of grant, and paragraph 10 and Schedule 2 their duration. The rates range from £100 to £190 per hectare in relation to improved land, with a lower rate of £30 per hectare for the 3,000 hectares of unimproved land in the less favoured areas which will be accepted into the scheme. These rates of aid will be reviewed by September 1991 and at intervals of no more than five years thereafter. However, this provision is in the parent Act rather than this statutory instrument as a result of the advocacy of my noble friend Lord Radnor.
The duration of the payments ranges from 10 years for planting traditional coppice up to 40 years for oak and beech planting. Noble Lords with an eye for detail may have noticed in Schedule 2 that we will allow up to 10 per cent. of other broadleaved trees to be planted with the oak or beech in the 40-year category. This is because we were urged by conservation interests not to insist on monocultures, even of such desirable species as oak and beech.
Another important feature of this scheme is the hectarage limit. The powers for Ministers to operate this limit appear in paragraph 12, although this is expressed in terms of financial resources rather than hectares to give us a little extra administrative flexibility. We have made it clear from the beginning that the scheme is an experimental one initially and will be limited to a total of 36,000 hectares of planting over the first three years. Within this total, as I have just indicated 3,000 hectares over three years will be made available for unimproved land in the less favoured areas. I believe that answers a worry expressed to me by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt.
For allocating places in the scheme, we cannot sensibly operate a first-received, first-served system because applications will take different lengths of time to process, especially when consultations with other bodies are required. We do not want all applications to have to wait for the slowest one. We intend therefore to allocate places in the scheme broadly in order of the applications being approved. Once the total of approvals reaches the hectarage limit—either 12,000 hectares in the first year or 36,000 hectares taking into account approvals in respect of the two subsequent years—the scheme will be closed. The same system will operate for the part of the scheme relating to the 3,000 hectares of unimproved land. As well as this limit on approvals, we shall be monitoring applications as a sort of early warning system. If it becomes clear that the scheme is going to be oversubscribed and that sufficient applications have already been received to reach the limit (once they have been processed) we shall be able, using our power in paragraph 12(1)(a), to close the scheme to new applications.
Once an application is approved, the relevant agricultural department will write and offer the farmer a place in the scheme. He in turn will then have to confirm his intention to plant the trees in the year, or years, in question. If he subsequently fails to carry out this planting as stated, and unless he could show reasonable cause for failing to do so, he would lose his entitlement to a place in the scheme (paragraph 14).
Some noble Lords may be interested in the cost of the scheme. The cost will depend on how quickly the scheme is taken up; and of course the cost will take some time to build up because the annual payments will only start to be made a year after planting when the impact of the lost income from agriculture is starting to be felt. However, we estimate that the cost of the scheme, if fully subscribed, will be between £9 million and £10 million in 1989–90, the first full year of payments, and about £12 million the following year. This includes planting grants, at the enhanced rates following the Budget, annual payments and administration. I should, however, remind your
1282
Lordships that these are gross costs. The scheme is intended to reduce agricultural production and we expect this to lead to savings in agricultural costs continuing for many years.
This brings me on to matters which are not exactly explicit on the face of the draft instrument. First, I should like to mention the link with the Forestry Commission's Woodland Grant Scheme. As we explained during the passage of the Bill, there will be a back-to-back arrangement at least during the first three-year experimental period and the Forestry Commission will be responsible for the planting grant element of the scheme. Farmers will only be asked to complete one application form but their application will have to be approved by both the Forestry Commission and the relevant agricultural department. This is referred to in paragraph 3(1)(c) of the scheme.
At this point I must pause for a brief diversion, because at the time that the Bill was before your Lordships' House the Forestry Commission's Woodland Grant Scheme did not exist. It was introduced following the tax changes in this year's Budget. The main implications for the Farm Woodland Scheme are, first, that it is a single scheme replacing two previous schemes. This not only makes it simpler, but it means that higher rates of planting for broadleaves will apply both to pure broadleaf planting and to the broadleaf component of mixed woodland. Secondly, the new scheme contains a strong environmental element and all applicants are asked to state explicity their proposals on environmental aspects of their proposed planting.
Thirdly, and most important, the rates of planting grant have been increased. But for the Farm Woodland Scheme, we have decided to increase the rates for broadleaves only, including the broadleaved element of mixed planting, while keeping the rates for conifers the same as those which previously applied. At the new rates, broadleaf planting under this scheme will receive between two-and-a-half and four times as large a grant as conifer planting. I know that many of your Lordships are stout defenders of the virtue of the conifer, and I am not decrying them, but we have taken the opportunity to weight this scheme more in favour of broadleaves because we are talking about comparatively small woodlands, mostly in the lowlands, and we have been convinced that a greater incentive to broadleaf and mixed planting—as an alternative to the minimum proportions of broadleaves advocated by noble Lords opposite—makes good environmental sense.
Following on from this, I should mention briefly some other environmental aspects which are important but because of the way we are arranging things do not feature in the instrument. As I have just explained, the planting grants are weighted in favour of broadleaf and mixed planting and this will be encouraged further by the longer payment periods for woodlands with over 50 per cent. broadleaves.
On larger schemes and in designated areas the Forestry Commission will be consulting local authorities and/or the statutory bodies about the planting proposals. Both the Forestry Commission and the agricultural departments will be very aware

1283
of their responsibilities under the Wildlife and Countryside (Amendment) Act 1985 and Section 17 of the Agriculture Act 1986 which we explicitly included in the Farmland and Rural Development Act at the request of the noble Lord, Lord Carter. We will, if necessary, turn down schemes, whether small or large, that would create environmental damage. This should enable us to fulfil the sort of assurances which I gave to the noble Baronesses, Lady Nicol and Lady White, several months ago.
One other aspect not obvious from this instrument is the link between the Farm Woodland Scheme and set-aside. The set-aside regulations have also been laid before your Lordships' House and are due to be debated next week. However, for tonight's purposes I can simply say that those wishing to plant woodlands under set-aside will have the option of entering the Farm Woodland Scheme. If approved, the woodlands planted would then receive payments at the Farm Woodland Scheme rates, and for the longer periods provided for in the Farm Woodland Scheme. This would, however, count towards the 20 per cent. set-aside area. Our hope is that the Farm Woodland Scheme will come into force on 1st October this year. In September we shall be issuing an information pack to farmers who express an interest in the scheme.
Finally, looking ahead as we must, perhaps I may say that we shall be monitoring the scheme carefully so that we can undertake a full review before September 1991. I look forward, as I am sure your Lordships do, to finding what has happened in practice. Naturally, having put the enabling legislation through this House with your Lordships' help, I hope the scheme is a great success. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft scheme laid before the House on 4th July be approved [32nd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Trumpington.)
8 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I begin by thanking the Minister for her excellent exposition of the scheme, which we broadly welcome. We believe that the scheme will go well and that it will certainly fare rather better than the scheme for setting aside agricultural land that she mentioned. Whether the Government will actually achieve their planting target of 90,000 acres in three years is perhaps doubtful with the initial level of compensation proposed. I should like an assurance from the Minister that the Government are sure there will be enough nursery stock to plant up and reach the planting target.
Having mentioned the set-aside scheme, I refer briefly to a point I made in the forestry debate which I introduced earlier in the Session and which I believe is relevant to farmers who will be considering whether or not to join the scheme. As a farmer I can sign up for set-aside and draw the compensation of £80 an acre for five years with an opt-out after three years and my land is available to return to mainstream agricultural production immediately if I care to repay the set-aside compensation. Against
1284
that, under the Farm Woodland Scheme, I must put land aside for at least 20 years and perhaps up to 40 years and receive an income through compensation which will be slightly less per acre than the amount for set-aside.
In the forestry debate I said that comparing the two schemes will require some sophisticated calculations in order to decide which way to go. It will also require a great deal of hunch, particularly since the changes to taxation on forestry in the Budget, and it is even harder to see which of the two schemes the farmer should choose. I suspect that the level of compensation for the woodland scheme should have been set rather higher than that for the set-aside scheme if enough farmers are to be encouraged to join the woodland scheme.
I have a number of points to make regarding the details of the scheme. As the Minister said, there is a 40-year time-scale in the scheme for broadleaved woodlands. That seems to be an awfully long time for a farmer who is used to annual rotational crop production. Is there enough encouragement in the scheme to plant a conifer nurse crop which could produce some income after 20 years? I am puzzled by the reason for excluding improved and permanent pasture. There is some very productive permanent pasture around the country which is quite as productive as some of the so-called improved grasslands defined in the scheme. I refer to the famous fattening pastures in the Midlands. Their products are adding to the beef surplus. I should like to know why the improved and permanent pastures are excluded from the scheme.
Returning to the system for payments under the scheme, I repeat the plea made by a number of noble Lords during the passage of the Farm Land and Rural Development Bill for the indexation of payments. I shall not ask the Minister to comment on my belief that the Ministry of Agriculture may favour indexation but, like so many other departments in so many other cases, has been unable to overcome the objections of the Treasury. I ask the Minister this. If it is clear that the Government's planting targets will not be reached, will the Government undertake to reconsider indexation to encourage the uptake of the scheme by farmers? Since the annual grants are intended to replace the lost income from the planted land and the agriculture that comes from the planted land, surely the review of the level of payments should also take into account the cost of maintaining the woodland? Can the Minister say why applicants with more than one agricultural unit can only enter the scheme on one unit? I fail to understand why this should be so. Do the Government wish to reach the planting target or not? It is not at all clear, if there is a farmer with more than one agricultural unit, why he is restricted to membership of the scheme for only one unit.
With those reservations, which are points of important detail, I am pleased to repeat the broad welcome from this side of the House for the Farm Woodland Scheme and we wish it well.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness for explaining the Farm Woodland Scheme. From these Benches I give it a sincere if

1285
qualified welcome. I congratulate the Government on their efforts to draw an acceptable line between the undoubted need to encourage and enable farmers to resort to forestry in diversifying the use of their land both in their own interests and in the national interest of home grown timber, and on their attempts to encourage the environmentalists as regards their particular concerns for the environment in general. I believe that the judicious combination of hectarage and cash limits intended to favour planting on improved land—without denying upland farmers on less favoured areas the opportunity, albeit on less favourable terms, to avail themselves of this scheme—has been skilfully designed to serve both the basic interests involved.
Over the weekend I was discussing with a friend who farms in the uplands on the Welsh borders as to his knowledge of the scheme and of what benefit it might be to him. He turned to some of the deep grass pasture dingles extending from the heights of Offa's Dyke beside my cottage. He assured me that he did not think that this scheme would be of much value to him through the grants offered for filling those dingles with trees. With my environmental bias I heaved a sigh of relief.
I used the word "qualified" in my opening remarks because the proof, as the Government in another place have made perfectly clear, and as the noble Baroness has repeated this evening, does lie in the eating, if that tag can be appropriately attached to so indigestible a crop as timber. For this reason I am glad that the individual schemes are to be monitored over a three-year experimental period because there may well be adjustments to be made ad interim pending the overall review in 1991.
In that constructive spirit I have a number of questions to raise and one or two points of criticism to offer. I apologise in advance if I missed a point made by the noble Baroness in her opening remarks. She referred to me at a point when my mind was slightly elsewhere. I exonerate her from replying to any of these questions if she has answered them already. Nontheless, I shall ask the questions.
Can the Minister clarify the position as regards the limit of 3,000 hectares on planting in the less-favoured areas during the experimental period? I am not entirely clear whether this is for the whole period at 1,000 hectares per annum or whether it is 3,000 hectares each year. Is that figure of 3,000 hectares included in the total of 36,000 hectares, which is the limit on all planting applications, or is it an additional figure? Perhaps the noble Baroness can make that point clear if she has not done so already.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, perhaps I may answer the noble Lord's question now. I covered that point. The figure of 3,000 hectares is included in the 36,000.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, I am covered with shame, but knowing the noble Baroness so well, I can wear it.
My second point is that the scheme relates to grants for future woodland planting and its management. But what about the management of
1286
existing pasture woodlands? In my speech on Second Reading on 5th November last year of the Farm Land and Rural Development Bill I pointed to the importance of providing inducements to farmers to maintain their existing woodland which at some time has been converted from pasture. I am not clear yet whether the Forestry Commission's woodland grants scheme may provide for that. On the assumption that it may not (I may be wrong) there would seem to be the provision of grants for that purpose in Section 2(1)(a) of the Farm Land and Rural Development Act, the last half sentence of which makes it clear that grants may be given for planting,
"or the management of land that has been so converted".
Some examples of this land are to be seen—I am now drawing on my personal experience—in the oak woods which flank some of the valleys along the Welsh borders where I live. They are among the glories of that landscape and they must be protected and conserved. Otherwise, their scenic value will he destroyed. Perhaps the Government will reconsider this point in their intended review in 1991 if it not already covered by the woodland grants scheme.
My third point is that in her speech on Second Reading of the Bill on 5th November, at col. 1093 of Hansard, the Minister said that consultation with local authorities on planting proposals would, on environmental grounds, take place where the area exceeded 10 hectares. I am concerned about the lack of consultation below that level. For instance, within the permitted total hectarage for all planting there could easily be dozens of schemes which are very small proposals for small blocks of tree planting, the aggregate of which would be highly objectionable environmentally. Surely, an appraisal of the environmental impact should apply right down to the smallest eligible hectarage permitted of one hectare.
In support of that, when he was speaking in the House of Commons Standing Committee B on the order on 13th July, Mr. Gummer said:
"We will turn down schemes—small and large—which will create environmental damage".
So will the Government keep this question under review?
My fourth point is that there remains some concern in wildlife circles about the safeguarding of the existing plant and wildlife habitats(which are not protected as SSSIs) lest they be ploughed up and put to agricultural use in replacement of land converted to woodlands. This replacement, or displacement effect—I have not seen it yet—has been taken into account in regard to the set-aside scheme. Yet amendments to close that loophole in the Farm Woodland Scheme in Standing Committee B on 29th March were not accepted by the Government. Again, can the Minister please comment on that?
My fifth point is that under paragraph 8(1)(b) of the statutory instrument an undertaking is required of a participant in the scheme that he will maintain converted woodlands,
"in accordance with the rules and practice of good forestry"
I hope I am right in assuming that this will embrace environmental aspects as well as commercial considerations. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that that is correct.

1287
My sixth and final point is that as the scheme develops I hope that the matter of public access to and enjoyment of these new woodlands will not be lost sight of. Clearly the question cannot arise in the early years but renewal of grants at some stage after the review in 1991 should be made contingent upon this important environmental consideration. Subject to those questions and observations, I too wish this scheme well.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, from these Benches I should like to commend and support the scheme. It must be the first occasion in the House when during a discussion on tree planting I have been able to enter into debate without necessarily defending the planting of conifers in the uplands and on marginal land. This is a different category entirely. We are talking about planting on much more favourable land for the growing of broadleaved trees. It must be understood by those who talk about forestry that there are certain species for certain sites. That applies also in relation to broadleaves. There is no doubt that the planting of sycamore may be preferable and may give a better economic return than the planting of oak on certain sites. Therefore I am delighted that the great wisdom and experience of the Forestry Commission will be used in discussing operational plans which will make them attractive to the farmer and be environmentally acceptable.
This is a relatively modest scheme, although 12,000 hectares per annum over three years—36,000 hectares—is exactly the planting target for forestry for the United Kingdom, a target which the Government have failed to achieve over the past 10 years and are not likely to achieve under the new grant structure this year or next year. However, I wish them well in achieving this kind of target within the grant scheme. I am delighted that the Forestry Commission will offer its sensible advice in this area. I am sure that even the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is less apprehensive these days about the Forestry Commission and its concern for the environment.
I should like to refer to an important point that was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Carter. When one enters a scheme of this kind the management costs can be quite high and may not be covered by the grants. If one has to do weeding for 15 years, which is quite acceptable in a well-managed estate, the cost and the difficulties that may arise will, I hope, be explained to the people who enter the scheme. I was glad to hear the Minister assure us that the scheme will be monitored. I hope that all aspects of the scheme will be monitored and that people who enter the scheme will accept their obligations in full. It is quite possible to take an annual grant, not manage the land as set out in the operational plan but turn it into scrub and simply let it for shooting. I hope that that will be avoided and that there will be the careful monitoring which the Minister has explained.
I have one other suggestion. Forestry and planting in general have certain tax implications. Once one adds trees to the land one affects tax liability, particularly in relation to inheritance tax. There should be advice not only in relation to the best use of the land, the appropriate species on the land and
1288
the environmental impact of the scheme but also on the tax implications for the farmers concerned.
With those comments I am delighted to commend and support the scheme. I wish it well.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, I welcome the scheme and thank the noble Baroness for her exposition of it. The principles are absolutely right and the grants are reasonably generous. However, there are one or two details to which I should like to draw attention for a moment, particularly in Schedule 2, which sets out the categories of the converted woodlands. Category 1 is the most favoured of them. Those woodlands can receive up to £190 per hectare for a maximum of 40 years but they have to be almost pure pedunculate or sessile oak or European beech, though there may be 10 per cent. of other species growing among them. It is a pity that particular broadleaf trees have been specified. Although both the oaks and the European beech are noble and valuable trees which take a long time to reach maturity, others are just as desirable; in particular the ash, which I think is not only very beautiful but is perhaps the most, or possibly the only, profitable broadleaf tree to grow; the sycamore, the Spanish chestnut, the southern beech and so on. I do not know why these other broadleaf species should be discriminated against, particularly when the land in question is a little wet or has the wrong characteristics and may not be at all suitable for the species listed in category 1.
The other point I want to make is that to qualify for the maximum grant the 10 per cent. or less that do not belong to those species must consist of other broadleaf trees. That does not show very great knowledge of the ways trees are planted. If you do not want monoculture and you are going to plant other species with them, I cannot imagine a woodland in which the 90 per cent. is pedunculate oak and the other 10 per cent., 8 per cent. or whatever it may be are some other broadleaf tree. One would be much inclined, as my noble friend on the Front Bench mentioned, to put in a nurse crop of conifers which might amount to 10 per cent. In my opinion it would be better forestry practice to put in perhaps 20 per cent. or 25 per cent. of conifers. These are fast growing. They bring in a quick return after 35 to 45 years and when they reach their economic maturity they are cut out and the broadleaf trees are left to grow on by themselves. So you end up with what you want, which is a lovely oak woodland or a beech woodland or whatever it may be, but the conifers have helped the hardwood trees to get up, to keep straight and to keep competitive.
The good forestry principle deserving the maximum financial encouragement would therefore be a planting in which perhaps 70 per cent. are oak and beech and the other 30 per cent. are European larch or whatever you happen to choose. But if you do that you must come down into category 2 and you do not get the grants for 10 years. It is a very big grant. In category 1 you are going to get a maximum of £7,600 per hectare over a period. That is over £3,000 an acre, which is more than the land is worth.

1289
That is a big incentive and I think that that should be paid if an oak wood is planted in the right way rather than in the wrong way.
Lord Burton: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Baroness for missing her opening remarks. I should like to make two brief points. One is that two, if not three, of the noble Lords opposite have mentioned the question of a nurse crop. That is from the forestry aspect, but from the conservation aspect there is also considerable advantage in having softwood trees in among the hardwood trees. After all, in the winter, which is a cold time, all the leaves of most types of hardwood trees are blown off and if you have some evergreens among them it makes very nice roosting for the birds and gives much more shelter. I do not require an answer from the noble Baroness on these points but I just wanted to make them.
The other point is that I have felt for a long time that foresters have underestimated the actual cost of growing trees. They do not seem to realise that if you are going to invest X amount of money in planting a piece of ground, which also includes all the necessary other works like fencing, you should tot up the amount you have invested with compound interest until you get a return. People are saying that it is a generous grant, even the maximum one, but when you take compound interest into account it comes to a terrifying amount by the time you come to harvesting, especially of hardwoods which take much longer.
It seems to me that basically the grant will cover about half of the interest of your planting costs, although it varies from one type of planting to another. That means that you will still have quite a substantial interest rate each year to add on compound to your initial costs. I doubt very much whether people will tot up the cost. Perhaps some of them will do it for other reasons; for example, environmental reasons or because they think it looks nice one way or the other. If anyone is going into this on a financial basis I regret to say that I think it would be a had financial investment. I can state quite categorically that I have lost more money on forestry than on any other enterprise in which I have invested during the course of my fairly long life.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, has the noble Lord perhaps thought when he gets his grant of investing that himself for compound interest?
Lord Burton: My Lords, I am sorry; but perhaps I may just reply to that one point. You will receive so much per year and that will only cover about half of your interest.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am most grateful for the kind welcome accorded to this statutory instrument by the noble Lords, Lord Carter and Lord Hunt. Indeed, everyone has mixed their queries with a great deal of praise which makes me very happy.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, first asked me about adequate supplies of nursery stock. We had several discussions with nursery growers' representatives after announcing the scheme. They seemed confident
1290
about meeting the majority of demand from domestic sources. We have kept in touch with them about our developments but we have not had any indication that they have changed their view.
As regards indexation, we spent some time discussing the subject during the Bill's passage. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, will not expect me to go through all that again. We explained why we did not favour indexation and I do not think that we shall change our view. Instead, I should remind the noble Lord that we accepted the amendment tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Radnor which obliges the Government to review the rates of aid at regular intervals and to report the results to Parliament. Therefore the noble Lord will have many future occasions upon which he will he able to question the Government about whether the right rates have been set.
In relation to application forms, the SI allows us flexibility in this as the noble Lord will see if he looks at paragraph 5(2)(b). Initially, because there is limited space in the scheme, we intend to limit the scheme to one application per person. However, if the scheme is not fully subscribed, we may consider relaxing that so as to allow more than one application per person. After all, it is an experimental scheme which will be reviewed and we shall have to find out the result.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, also mentioned that farm woodland rates should be higher. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said, the proof of the pudding is in the eating and time will tell. We believe that the annual payments offer an adequate return and I should point out that the enhanced rates we announced in November, now incorporated in the SI, were welcomed by the farming representatives.
As regards the question of excluding improved permanent pasture, we decided to retarget the scheme towards the most productive land. Because of that we had to use a definition to try to draw a line in a simple, enforceable and effective way. I do not deny that some pasture might be highly productive without having been cultivated and reseeded during the past 10 years. But allowing that land in would mean having an arbitrary cut-off point between productive and unproductive pasture. The system would then he open to abuse and even if enforceable it would require a large number of specialist staff to operate it and would therefore be costly. We constantly strive to keep the administration costs of the scheme down so that more of the benefits get through to the farmer in grants. Finally, most of the conservation bodies favour the more restrictive definition which we proposed.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, asked me several questions. I have answered his first and I do not think I need repeat my reply I hope that he will read it. So far as management of existing woodlands is concerned, I certainly remember the points that the noble Lord made on Second Reading. Indeed, we went into the issue thoroughly. Grants for existing woodlands do not fulfil one of the aims of our scheme, which is to reduce surpluses. Moreover, there is no significant loss of agricultural income to the farmer. Therefore the annual payments would be

1291
less justified. However, none of that excludes the possibility of our reconsidering the position at some point in the future.
Finally I remind the noble Lord that the Forestry Commission's new Woodland Grant Scheme with its higher rate of grant includes provision for natural regeneration of broadleaved woodland. The grants range up to £1,575 per hectare payable in three instalments, of which the first is payable on completion of approved work such as the fencing out of livestock. Such provisions are therefore already in place. I wholeheartedly agree with the noble Lord that the environmental impact should be assessed even on small schemes. The point is that we shall be doing this ourselves, taking due account of the responsibilities we have under Section 17 of the agriculture Act and under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. What we shall not be doing in the smaller schemes, except in designated areas, is going through the bureaucratic and time-consuming process of consulting local authorities because we do not believe that to be necessary, given the other environmental safeguards I have described.
As regards the noble Lord's other point, we are certainly concerned about protecting plant and wildlife habitats. That is why we have targeted the scheme primarily on improved land. The set-aside scheme is concerned with arable cropping on the whole holding but the farm woodland scheme does not apply to the whole holding in the same way. Indeed, in some cases there might only be a small number of hectares on a very large holding to be entered into the scheme. In those circumstances it would be disproportionate to apply controls to the whole holding and might even deter farmers from entering the scheme.
So far as the rules and practice of good forestry are concerned, I can confirm that this would embrace environmental as well as commercial considerations. On public access, we shall certainly be encouraging farmers to think about the possibilities. We also require applicants to maintain any existing rights of way and to enter into discussions with the local authority about new ones if the local authority so request.
The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, asked about allowing land to return to scrub and monitoring. I assure the noble Lord that the land will be most carefully monitored and if planting is not
1292
properly maintained the grants will be reclaimed. I was most grateful to the noble Lord for the very nice words he said about the Forestry Commission, which I know will be greatly appreciated.
On taxation, there will be some general advice on this but tax is a complicated matter, as we all know, and it usually makes sense for occupiers to take professional advice on the matter. In that respect I could not agree more with my briefing.
With regard to nurse crops, mentioned by my noble friend Lord Burton, following consultation we have acknowledged the value of nurse crops by increasing the original payment period for over 50 per cent. broadleaved from 20 years to 30 years.
The noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, asked why only oak and beech were specified. The incentives are greater for broadleaves, but we have introduced a special 40-year category—a long time for government—because oak and beech are especially desirable and take a long time to mature, much longer, for instance, than ash or sycamore. If the noble Lord wishes to come back on that point and would like to talk to me about it later, I shall be happy to write to him. He is far more experienced than I am.
I should like to thank all your Lordships who have spoken for your helpful contributions. This may be one of the rare occasions when we consider a piece of legislation whose results we may see taking shape in the countryside within a year or two and, we hope, gracing it for many years to come.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

St. George's Hill, Weybridge, Estate Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and referred to the Examiners.

Imperial College Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments; the amendments considered and agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-nine minutes before nine o'clock.

  NHS: VACANT POSTS
  NHS: VACANT POSTS
  DIABETICS: INJECTION EQUIPMENT
  DIABETICS: INJECTION EQUIPMENT
  MURDER: SELECT COMMITTEE INQUIRY
  MURDER: SELECT COMMITTEE INQUIRY
  POWER: LOSSES IN TRANSMISSION
  POWER: LOSSES IN TRANSMISSION
  PLUTONIUM TRANSPORT: COMPENSATION AND INSURANCE ARRANGEMENTS
  PLUTONIUM TRANSPORT: COMPENSATION AND INSURANCE ARRANGEMENTS
  CHAPTER 2 JET AIRCRAFT
  CHAPTER 2 JET AIRCRAFT
  DEER: CONTROL OF TRANSPORTATION
  DEER: CONTROL OF TRANSPORTATION
  PASSPORT OFFICES: COMPUTERISATION
  PASSPORT OFFICES: COMPUTERISATION
  IMMIGRATION CASES: GUIDELINES ON REPRESENTATIONS
  IMMIGRATION CASES: GUIDELINES ON REPRESENTATIONS
  EC FUTURE FINANCING AGREEMENT
  EC FUTURE FINANCING AGREEMENT