Sitting of 22 June 1988

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  NEW WRIT
  For Kensington, in the room of Sir Brandon Meredith Rhys Williams, Baronet, deceased.—[Mr. Waddington.]
Oral Answers to Questions
  ENVIRONMENT

    Development (South-East)
    Mr. McCrindle: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what new steps he is taking to control over-development in the south-east.
    Mr. Chapman: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will issue a new planning circular to give clearer guidance to local planning authorities about applications affecting scale and density in existing residential areas and other associated matters.
    Mr. Dykes: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will examine possible reinforcements to the existing planned legislation to reflect over-development of land and buildings in the south-east.
    The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): I issued new planning policy guidance in draft on 15 June, for consultation. It urges authorities to extend the coverage of local plans, particularly in the pressure areas, and gives advice on the use of phasing and density policies for residential development.
    Realistic local plans can introduce much greater certainty into development control. The new guidance stresses that where there is an up-to-date plan, both I and my inspectors will be guided by it in dealing with planning appeals.
    Mr. McCrindle: As no more than token development around most of the towns and cities of the south-east can he tolerated, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend has considered the possibility of revising the idea, prevalent in the 1930s, of developing garden cities, thereby concerntrating development in specific areas of the south-east? In conjunction with the encouragement of further development in areas away from the south-east, would that not, at least in some small way, help to prevent the onset of the concrete jungle?
    Mr. Ridley: I hope soon to agree with SERPLAN future housing need in the south-east. SERPLAN accepts that some extra housing will he needed to house the population of the south-east. My hon. Friend may know that, in response to an appeal about a new town, I made
    1108
    it clear that I saw no objection to new settlements in any part of the country, provided, of course, that they were not in the green belt and were suitable and in accordance with structure plans and other guidance, so I have some sympathy with my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Chapman: I appreciate my right hon. Friend's reply, but does he appreciate that there is a feeling, not confined to local planning authorities, that since circular 22/80 was issued there is a need for clearer guidance, particularly about out-of-scale developments in existing residential areas? Does he further appreciate that if he were to issue a new circular, with clearer guidance, his Department would benefit, because fewer applications would come to him on appeal?
    Mr. Ridley: As I said on 15 June, I have issued a new circular which includes, where appropriate, policy guidance on residential densities in rural villages and suburban areas. I think that that is the answer that my hon. Friend wanted to hear.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: In an effort to reduce overdevelopment in the south-east, will the Secretary of State consider a separate use class for second homes? Does he agree that one of the pressures in London, rural areas and towns is for second homes, which leads to excessive development and therefore the problems of which he is well aware? Moreover, does he further agree that it reduces the number of affordable homes for rent and sale available to local people.
    Mr. Ridley: I agree that there is a growing number of second homes, but many of them are well away from the south-east and in the more attractive holiday regions. I do not think that it would be possible to make a rigid distinction between what is and what is not a second home, because sometimes it involves two homes for a couple who may have split. It would be very difficult to make such a definition, but, as usual, I shall consider the hon. Gentleman's suggestion.
    Mr. Blunkett: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, in the light of the considerable pressure which understandably now exists to protect living standards and the quality of life for people who live in the desirable areas of the south-east, it would be sensible to revise his policies towards investing in, and allowing municipal enterprise to react to, the needs of people in the north of England, so that people are encouraged to move to the north to take advantage of lower-cost housing and increased employment there, including that in the public services?
    Mr. Ridley: It is important to put the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question into perspective. In 1981, 12·6 per cent. of the south-east of England outside Greater London was built up. Even if our projections for future needs are fulfilled by the year 2001, that figure will have risen to only 13·7 per cent., which is a very small percentage of the land area.
    As for the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I am sure that he will welcome the establishment of an urban development corporation in Sheffield, which will do just what he seeks. He might like to know that the current rate of investment in the north, in derelict areas and inner cities, is about £3 billion a year.
    Mr. Wiggin: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this storm is blowing not just in the south-east but around

    1109
    many of our big cities and that the complaints arise as much from the rate of development and the lack of infrastructure as from sheer housing numbers? Will he consult his colleagues, particularly those in the Department of Transport, to see whether anything can be done to maintain the quality of life, which is what the argument is really about?
    Mr. Ridley: I agree that there is anxiety about how to find the land needed for the houses which the social changes we are going through require us to find throughout the country, particularly in rural areas in the north and the south. The population has to come to terms with the fact that this is an expansion, not of population, but of the requirements for homes of any set number of people. I also agree that there is anxiety about the infrastructure and road system necessary to support a fast-growing economy which is going through a period of great success. As always, I am happy to talk to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, who, I am sure, shares my view and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin).
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: What guidelines will the Secretary of State be giving to planning authorities in regard to land adjacent to cemeteries owned by Westminster city council, sold for £1 and now worth between £5 million and £10 million? Is that affair not the scandal of the decade? Will the right hon. Gentleman give me an assurance that no deals on planning permission will be done with the current owners of the land that will allow Westminster city council off the hook, when it has clearly been negligent?
    Mr. Ridley: The main point of the hon. Gentleman's question does not arise on this matter, but he knows perfectly well that Westminster city council has carried out an internal review and that the police and fraud squad are involved. It would be quite wrong for me to comment. No planning application in relation to this matter has come anywhere near me.
    Sir Peter Blaker: Does not the shortage of housing in the south of England and the high prices that we are seeing as a result make the problem of controlling inflation, which is relevant to the whole country, more difficult?
    Mr. Ridley: I differ from my right hon. Friend, because I think that the way to control inflation is to keep control of the monetary aggregates. If one price goes up—the price of houses in the south of England is most certainly going up—that does not mean that there is inflation across a whole range of goods and services.
    Mr. Soley: The Secretary of State may like to know that we welcome his willingness to beat a strategic retreat on this matter, but, before he simply caves in to those Conservative Members who are worried about the impact on their boundaries, will he consider the question implied in the comments of his hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin), that the real problem in the south-east is the lack of low-cost housing for rent or purchase by local people? What will happen to those local people? When will the Secretary of State come to the House with proposals that will increase the supply of good quality low-cost housing for rent or purchase by people who want to stay in the areas in which they were born and brought up?
    Mr. Ridley: I do not know what the hon. Gentleman means by beating a retreat, but I shall be bringing forward proposals of the sort that he requests before we rise for the summer recess. I shall refer to that at 3.30 pm, or whenever I happen to catch Mr. Speaker's eye in the debate this afternoon.
    Mr. Squire: Regardless of any incentives that may be offered for more investment in the north, is it not a fact that there is a need now for planning for a greater number of households in the south-east? Will my right hon. Friend avoid being stampeded by colleagues who refuse to recognise that self-evident fact?
    Mr. Ridley: I have not changed the basic policy, that in the south-east, as in every other region, we should make provision for as many homes as the best forecasts and estimates that we can obtain suggest will be needed. If those forecasts are wrong, we can adjust as we go along. My hon. Friend is right to say that those forecasts suggest that there will be a need for more house building, including a great deal in London and on the eastern outskirts of London, and some in each of the home counties.

    Council House Sales
    Mr. Haynes: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any plans to assist council tenants who cannot afford to buy their property under the present discount system to do so.
    Mr. Ridley: I have no such plans at present, but I am always interested in ways of encouraging the spread of home-ownership.
    Mr. Haynes: I shall help the Secretary of State. If he sells all the council houses that are left, where will future generations find houses at prices that they can afford? Why does he not bring forward proposals to help first-time home-buyers to buy their own homes, instead of playing Bingo with people's homes?
    Mr. Ridley: I found the thrusts of that question working almost in opposite directions, but I should tell the hon. Gentleman that there are still 4·5 million council and half a million housing association homes to rent. The more of those that are bought by their owners, the happier I shall be. The hon. Gentleman knows full well that we have major plans for expanding the housing association movement and providing a new social rented class of house for the very people whom he has in mind.
    Mr. Heddle: Instead of playing Housey-Housey with the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes), does my right hon. Friend agree that, beneath the skin of every ardent Marxist, there is someone who would rather own his own home than be a serf of the local authority? Will he therefore continue to pursue his policies to expand home ownership and so enrich the lives and environment of those 1 million council house tenants who have already bought under the right to buy?
    Mr. Ridley: I agree with my hon. Friend. He will know that the Housing Bill includes proposals to limit the effect of the cost floor rule on tenants' discount entitlements, measures to enable tenants to counteract delays by landlords and to speed up sales, and amendments to clarify local authorities' powers to assist tenants to move out of

    1111
    their council houses and to buy homes elsewhere. In addition, the £35,000 cash limit on discount is being reviewed.
    Mr. Madden: Is the Secretary of State aware of the difficulties in Bradford and elsewhere involved in buying or selling Dennis-Wild type houses? Will he intensify his efforts to persuade building societies to give mortgages on this type of property, and will he urgently revise the home improvement grant rules so that money is made available to local authorities and others to carry out the necessary repairs on these homes?
    Mr. Ridley: I prefer to write to the hon. Gentleman about the first matter, about which I cannot be expected to know, not having had notice of it.
    On the second matter, however, I can inform the hon. Gentleman that we intend to reform the home improvement grants legislation in a Bill to be introduced at the first possible opportunity—I hope next Session. It has already been announced that extra money will be made available and that it will be targeted on those who need it most.

    Undeveloped Land (Northern Region)
    Mr. Fallon: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many acres of undeveloped land are registered as being publicly owned by local authorities in the northern region.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. David Trippier): Some 7,450 acres are currently registered.
    Mr. Fallon: There is no point in councils in the north-east sitting on this land and not developing it. Equally, there is no point in my hon. Friend sitting on powers that were taken in 1980 to order councils to dispose of land. How many acres have been disposed of by order of my hon. Friend, and why have not more been disposed of in this way?
    Mr. Trippier: The answer to the latter question is that 2,470 acres have been removed from the register. In Darlington, as a result of action that we have taken using section 99 notices, the local authority has been minded to respond positively, by selling land that would otherwise not come into the private market. The first notice to be served in the whole of the country was served in Darlington, so clearly the system works. I am prepared to accept that we have not gone far enough, and that is why, on 7 March, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced new initiatives in this regard under the "Action for Cities" banner.
    Mr. Frank Cook: Is not part of the answer to the question that the Department will not allow local authorities to make use of moneys that have resulted from the sales of council houses and other properties? Is not any condemnation by Conservative Members simply a move to mislead the electorate on this point?
    Mr. Trippier: The hon. Gentleman is not correct, because local authorities are allowed to spend up to 20 per cent. of their assets on a cumulative basis. My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) was referring to
    1112
    the problem of local authorities which are becoming known as land hoarders. We are determined to stop that practice.
    Mr. Holt: Would my hon. Friend care to support the campaign for the building of a motorway to the north from the south on the eastern side of the country, to enable sites to be opened? For example, he has announced that one such site, in my constituency, Hemlington Hall farm, is to be disposed of after being held by Middlesbrough council for many years.
    Mr. Trippier: My hon. Friend will understand if I do not join him in a campaign that obviously concerns the responsibilities of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. The notice to which my hon. Friend has referred, which I signed and sent to him, has proved that the system works. However, because there are development problems with some of the land that is under-used or unused, the Teesside development corporation, which operates near to his constituency, will bring back into use a tremendous amount of land that had been under-used.
    Ms. Mowlam: The Minister's statement that local authorities are land hoarders could be substantiated if he would tell the House how many appeals against local authority planning refusals he has received. Will he do so?
    Mr. Trippier: We are talking about ownership of land, not planning. It is a proven fact that local authorities, public bodies and, in certain cases, Government Departments, have been holding on to under-used land. We are talking about bringing that land back into use. Planning is a different matter.

    Graffiti
    Mr. Favell: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans Her Majesty's Government have to combat the incidence of graffiti; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Trippier: Under the urban programme, over £500,000 will be spent this year on anti-graffiti and anti-vandalism projects. A further £18 million will be spent on cleaning up buildings in town centres and improving council estates, including graffiti removal. The estate action programme is also helping to combat graffiti on run-down council estates. UK 2000 will be launching a number of anti-graffiti initiatives this year.
    Mr. Favell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend's Department for the work that it is doing to combat a scourge that is sweeping the country. With graffiti on London's tubes and buses costing £2·5 million per annum on Birmingham's buses £2 million per annum, and at an estimated cost to the country of £1·5 billion, which is £23 for every man, woman and child, is it not time that the criminal law took the gloves off to deal with those who spread graffiti? What about banning the sale of aerosol sprays to anyone under the age of 16 years?
    Mr. Trippier: I share my hon. Friend's disgust at those who perpetrate such uncivilised behaviour. I shall draw his suggestion to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. It is essential that I should remind the

    1113
    House that under the Criminal Damage Act 1971 penalties for vandalism include up to 10 years' imprisonment, or an unlimited fine, on conviction on indictment.
    Mr. Ashton: Is the Minister aware that there used to be a rule that, when people bought weed killer, the chemist had to take their names and addresses, and that that drastically reduced the number of poisoners? Will he introduce a similar rule that when people buy a can of spray paint they must give their names and addresses to the auto-parts shop, for example, from which they buy it, so that the police can swiftly chase those in the neighbourhood who have used it for unlawful purposes?
    Mr. Trippier: The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not my responsibility, but I shall happily draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to what he has said.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will my hon. Friend take more seriously the views that have been expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House during this short exchange? Does he agree that it is unacceptable that retail outlets are not asked to accept any responsibility for the sale of aerosol sprays? My hon. Friend's Department, with other Government Departments, must seek to obtain the co-operation of the retail sector. Names of purchasers of aerosol sprays should be taken. If any are found guilty of acts of vandalism we should impose a bit of hard labour and get them to remove what they have done to desecrate the community.
    Mr. Trippier: I assure my hon. Friend that the matter is being taken seriously. It is clear from my substantive answer to the question that the Department is doing a great deal. The issues that have been rasied in supplementary questions must be directed to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. I know that there is concern that legislation should act as a deterrent. In my answer to the supplementary question of my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell) I referred to the legislative provisions that are to be found on the statute book. I cannot interfere with sentencing, and I would not wish to do so, but there are legislative provisions that could act as a deterrent.
    Mr. Rees: Despite the amount of money that is spent on eradicating graffiti, the fact is that graffiti is still with us. Will the Minister undertake to go with one of his civil servants to the underpasses at the Elephant and Castle to inspect the graffiti there and then ask himself whether the money that is being spent on the eradication of graffiti could be used in a better way? The underpasses at the Elephant and Castle are indescribable. They are smothered in graffiti, yet nothing is done.
    Mr. Trippier: I have every sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman's argument. It is clear that we must tackle the problem on a number of fronts. I have dealt at some length with one of the cures. We must tackle more carefully the task of carrying the local community with us. A number of the programmes for which we are responsible actively involve local residents in anti-graffiti campaigns. That may be appropriate in this particular instance.

    Central Berkshire Structure Plan
    Mr. Andrew MacKay: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many representations he has received relating to his proposed modifications to the central Berkshire structure plan.
    Mr. Trippier: I assume that my hon. Friend intends to refer to the countywide replacement structure plan for Berkshire. My right hon. Friend has received approximately 2,500 representations to his proposed modifications to that plan, together with petitions totalling about 30,000 signatures.
    Mr. MacKay: Has my hon. Friend noted in those representations that every Member representing a Berkshire constituency, every local authority, every parish council and, I suspect, virtually every member of the public, is opposed to the proposed modifications to the structure plan? This is not because they are against any further development in the area, but because they have already experienced the building of many extra houses. Equally, they are not suffering from the NIMBY factor. They wish to protect their environment and to encourage development in the hard-pressed regions.
    Mr. Trippier: My hon. Friend has made those representations before. I assure him that his views and those of all parties will be considered before a final decision is made. It is important that I should emphasise that Berkshire county council's proposals for 41,000 dwellings are not that far removed from the figure of 43,500 dwellings suggested by my right hon. Friend in his proposed modifications.
    Mr. Rooker: Given the fact that the Minister is answering for the Secretary of State for the Environment, I wonder whether he realises that the extra few thousand houses over and above the number already agreed by the county and district councils will be at the bottom of someone else's garden? As the Minister is replying on behalf of the Secretary of State, will he reaffirm that it is still his right hon. Friend's view, as expressed by him at the Dispatch Box, that people should be able to live where they want?
    Mr. Trippier: The House will forgive me if I take some offence, as my right hon. Friend probably takes offence, at the implication of that question, which was less than worthy of the hon. Gentleman. We are aware of the point that he makes.

    Lead-free Petrol
    Mr. Sackville: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps are being taken to ensure that motorists are getting enough information about the use of lead-free petrol.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Colin Moynihan): The Department has produced an information pack listing cars that can run on unleaded petrol and the location of petrol stations selling it. I am sending copies to all hon. Members to enable them to respond to inquiries from their constituents. We have grant-aided CLEAR, the Campaign for Lead-Free Air, to increase public awareness and provide a public

    1115
    information service. Many other organisations have a vital role to play, and their work is co-ordinated at regular meetings of the unleaded petrol group, which I chair.
    Mr. Sackville: While welcoming my hon. Friend's statement, may I ask whether he agrees that, given what we now know about the harmful effects of leaded petrol on children's health in particular, the extent to which motorists in the United Kingdom have fallen behind those in other countries in switching to unleaded fuel is as shocking as it is shameful? Much of the blame must also be laid at the door of the oil companies for failing in their responsibilities to the community.
    Mr. Moynihan: My hon. Friend will be aware that, since the price differential announced as a result of the Budget, a major step forward has been taken in terms of consumption. He will be pleased to know that we expect that there will be about 2,000 petrol stations—an additional 900—stocking unleaded petrol by the end of this year. I endorse my hon. Friend's point about the importance of oil companies playing a major part in promoting the use of unleaded petrol. I congratulate in particular Shell and Esso on advertising on television, and all the other companies on taking a very active lead both in the national press and locally.
    Mrs. Ray Michie: Does the Minister agree that there is a classic chicken and egg situation in regard to the sale of unleaded petrol, because petrol companies face increased distribution costs for low sales returns, which are not offset by the lower rate of duty? The Minister has welcomed the action that Shell and other companies have taken, but does he agree that the Government should take an exciting new initiative by mounting a joint campaign with the petrol companies to highlight the benefits of unleaded petrol?
    Mr. Moynihan: As a result of our involvement in CLEAR, we are participating in the information campaign, and I have been travelling around the country promoting the use of unleaded petrol, which I believe is significant in environmental terms. As to consumption patterns, the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) is right to draw attention to the importance of making people aware of the price differential. Of equal importance is referring to one's dealer, to ensure that one's car can either run on leaded petrol without modification or can do so with a minor modification, or whether it is a model that cannot run on unleaded petrol.
    Mr. Ashby: Does my hon. Friend agree that those petrol companies which are making vast profits from having motorway franchises should be made to install more than one unleaded pump at each of their stations —not next month or next year, but tomorrow? They could afford to take that action, and they should be made to do so.
    Mr. Moynihan: There is no doubt that oil companies have an important role to play in ensuring that unleaded petrol is widely available. My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that from 1990 all new cars must be manufactured to run on unleaded petrol. That, in turn, will have a major impact on the oil companies' attitudes.
    Ms. Walley: Does the Minister accept that if the Labour party had won the last election we would have had a Ministry for Environmental Protection, which would have meant a comprehensive approach to the problem?
    1116
    Why cannot the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders ensure that car manufacturers make cars that run on lead-free petrol? Why is it not possible to buy a British made and assembled estate car that runs on lead-free petrol? Does the Minister agree that a full programme is needed, that 1,200 outlets are not sufficient, and that more needs to be done by way of public education and information and by manufacturing cars that are environmentally sensitive?
    Mr. Moynihan: A lot more is being done by the Government than was done by any Labour Administration when it comes to the problems associated with vehicle emissions and unleaded petrol, and we shall continue to work energetically towards ensuring that cars can run on unleaded petrol and that every hon. Member can promote the use of unleaded petrol in his constituency. However, I regret that too few are promoting unleaded petrol through their constituency organisations and the local press. I hope that the letter that I have written to every hon. Member will assist in that direction.
    Mr. John Browne: Does my hon. Friend accept that, in addition to advertising the availability of unleaded petrol, his Department could contribute a great deal by emphasising to people, particularly through television, the ease and cheapness of converting some 7 million of the 18 million cars on the road to unleaded petrol?
    Mr. Moynihan: I agree that we should continue with the active promotion of that sort of information, in which we are already fully engaged.
    Mr. Allan Roberts: The only acceptable thing that the Minister has said is that he has been going up and down the country. That is true. But the Government's response to the problem is woefully inadequate. The Government are responsible for the fact that unleaded petrol is not readily available in Britain, unlike in other Western European countries. Is the Minister aware that the Motor Agents Association accurately estimates that any motorist converting his car to take lead free petrol at a low cost of £20 would take over 18 months to recoup that with the 5p a gallon concession that was introduced in the Budget? Is the Minister further aware that there would be no need to design new engines or adjust existing ones if the oil industry were to provide unleaded petrol of the quality needed by most cars—four star, premium grade, 97 octane? That has been available in the United States for years, but not a drop has been sold in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Moynihan: It is clear that the hon. Gentleman has not been going up and down the country, because many garages are offering free conversion to motorists. The cost of converting many vehicles is well under £20 and, in some cases, is free.
    Mr. Rowe: Since my part of the country is rapidly becoming a rally circuit for lorries, can my hon. Friend give us any encouragement about pollution from diesel lorries?
    Mr. Moynihan: Pollutants from diesels are already low. Nevertheless, it is important for further work to be done on diesel particulate traps as well as looking at advanced diesel engine design. I hope that my hon. Friend will share

    1117
    with me the belief that there are many exciting new possibilities in this technology which will lower the incidence of pollutants from diesel engines.

    Freeholds
    Mr. Pike: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to facilitate the purchase by leaseholders of flats of the freehold of their property.
    Mr. Ridley: The Government have no plans to give leaseholders of flats a right individually to buy the freehold. The Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 gives most leaseholders of flats rights of collective purchase in certain circumstances.
    Mr. Pike: Since the Labour Government gave householders the right to buy their freeholds many years ago, is it not now time that the right was extended to people who live in flats to buy the freeholds of their properties in exactly the same way?
    Mr. Ridley: The Labour Government at that time did not give the right to leaseholders to buy flats, partly, I think, because they did not think it was desirable, but, secondly, because the freehold of the individual flat is not a satisfactory form of tenure under English property law as it now stands. The Law Commission has produced a report on commonhold, which proposes a statutory framework within which it would be satisfactory to own individual flats freehold. The report made no recommendation about compulsory conversion, but the Lord Chancellor has asked the Law Commission to prepare legislation to bring in a system of commonhold.
    Sir George Young: What information has my right hon. Friend about the rights that were given to leaseholders under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 to buy their property when it changed hands? Are those rights being used?
    Mr. Ridley: My hon. Friend is of course right to say that the 1987 Act gives leaseholders the right to collective rather than individual purchase in certain circumstances. I have no information on the extent to which it is being used so soon after the passage of the Act.

    Water Pollution
    Mr. John Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to review existing arrangements for the monitoring of water pollution; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Moynihan: Arrangements for the monitoring of water pollution will be improved through the Water Privatisation Bill, which will allow for the establishment of a National Rivers Authority
    Mr. Evans: In the light of recent studies suggesting a link between Alzheimer's disease and aluminium in drinking water, is the Minister not concerned that nine of the North West water authority regions are still supplying drinking water with limits in excess of those prescribed by the EC, when three years ago his predecessor informed the House that action was being taken to reduce the aluminium content? Why has nothing changed?
    Mr. Moynihan: The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that we are taking seriously the specific study that
    1118
    has recently been published, and that we shall evaluate it in full when the report is available, probably later this year. I hope that I can allay the hon. Gentleman's concern about aluminium by pointing out that over 90 per cent. of the daily intake of aluminium comes from food, even when the water contains the maximum concentration allowed by the EC water directive.
    Mr. Jack: In drawing up his future legislative thoughts, will my hon. Friend take into accout the delays in the implementation of the EC directive on bathing water quality, and the considerable scepticism felt by my constituents in the Ribble area about the North West water authority's proposals to reduce pollution levels in the Ribble estuary?
    Mr. Moynihan: The majority of bathing waters in the United Kingdom already meet the requirements of the European Community directive on bathing waters, and some £70 million a year is being spent on improving the rest. spent on improving the rest. I assure my hon. Friend that we are assessing the implications of bringing all the remaining waters up to standard by 1995, and we have written to all the water authorities requesting detailed plans for each and every bathing water area.
    Mr. Hardy: Is the Minister assuring the House that after privatisation and the establishment of the National Rivers Authority adequate priority will be given, not merely to the monitoring of river and other water pollution, but to action by means of investment to ensure that those of our industrial area rivers that are open sewers will be improved, and that the rapidly deteriorating rivers of rural Britain, poisoned as they are by farms, will be brought back to health?
    Mr. Moynihan: Yes, Sir.
    Sir Anthony Grant: Is it not a fact that the standard of water in this country is among the highest in the world? Will my hon. Friend and his colleagues make it clear that some of the hysteria put out by various groups merely to worry hypochondriacs is sheer nonsense and should be countered?
    Mr. Moynihan: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Ninety per cent. of the rivers and estuaries in England and Wales are of good to fair quality, compared with 75 per cent. of the rivers and 85 per cent. of the estuaries in the European Community as a whole. There are now more than 100 species of fish in the Thames, which is the cleanest metropolitan estuary in the world.
    Mr. O'Brien: Is the Minister aware that the minutes of the meeting held by the Water Authorities Association on 18 May record growing concern over the link between aluminium in water and Alzheimer's disease? Does he not share our view that something should be done now, in accordance with the wishes of the association, to reduce the amount of aluminium in water? Will he take action and make available to the House as soon as is practicable the report from the University of Southampton, which is dealing with this issue? We ask for immediate action, not delay until the privatisation of water.
    Mr. Moynihan: I have made it clear to the House that when the full report on the study is available it will be assessed by medical experts. In the meantime, we have consulted our medical advisers, who consider that too

    1119
    much weight should not be placed on the results of any single study. One should bear in mind that the European water directive, setting the maximum permissible concentration of aluminium at 200 microgrammes per litre, was based on the appearance of water, not on health grounds.

    National Rivers Authority
    Mr. Wolfson:To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what further progress has been made in setting up a National Rivers Authority.
    Mr. Ridley: I welcome the appointment of my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Crickhowell as chairman of the National Rivers Authority advisory committee. This committee will advise on the outline schemes of organisation that have now been submitted by all water authorities for the restructuring needed to form a separate NRA unit in their areas.
    Mr. Wolfson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the argument between the water authorities and the Government over the establishment of a national authority centres on river basin management? How does he plan to overcome that difficulty?
    Mr. Ridley: I had not realised that that discussion was continuing, although there was such a concern when I first announced the establishment of the NRA as part of the Government's plans. It is clear that the NRA will be able to control the flow and management of the River basin, and it will be given sufficient powers and money to do that work.
    Mr. Janner: Will the right hon. Gentleman refer to the committee the constant complaints that are made about the state of the River Soar, which passes through my constituency and which gets clogged up with weeds? Complaints emanate from fishermen and rowers. I am the vice-president of the Leicester rowing club,. Will the Secretary of State ensure that action is now taken?
    Mr. Ridley: As vice-president of the Leicester rowing club, the hon. and learned Gentleman obviously has a sore point here. When the National Rivers Authority is in being, following the passing of the relevant Act, I shall make sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman's remarks are drawn immediately to the attention of the chairman, who, I am sure, will wish to make it a top priority to clean up his river.
    Mr. John M. Taylor: Although good progress has been made with cleaning up our rivers, will my right hon. Friend commend to the NRA the important need to improve the Rivers Cole and Blythe in the Severn Trent region?
    Mr. Ridley: Three rivers that need improvement have now been mentioned to me. I agree with hon. Members who have expressed the view that we should be doing more to improve the quality of our rivers. The new NRA, which will be responsible for the water environment and will have the necessary powers and resources to carry out those duties, will lead to an improvement.
    Mr. Boyes: Why is the Minister for Environment, Countryside and Water in the other place, writing on behalf of the Department of the Environment to the water industry trade unions, refusing to meet those unions at a
    1120
    time when the Government are making expensive appointments and arrangements for the NRA? How can the Secretary of State justify that offhand treatment of trade unions? Would it not be eminently more sensible for future good working relationships to keep the trade unions informed and consulted at all stages?
    Mr. Ridley: I shall make sure that the unions are consulted, when it is appropriate, on matters that are appropriate to consult them about. I imagine that the instance to which the hon. Gentleman refers may not be in that category.

    Green Belt (Planning Appeals)
    Mr. Cryer: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the criteria applied in appeals for planning consent for building in green belt areas.
    Mr. Ridley: Planning policy on development in green belts is set out in planning policy guidance note No. 2, copies of which are in the Library. Inside a green belt planning permission should not be given, except in very special circumstances, for the construction of new buildings or for the change of use of existing building other than for agriculture and forestry, outdoor sport, cemeteries, institutions standing in extensive grounds, and other uses appropriate to a rural area.
    Mr. Cryer: Will the Secretary of State assure the House that he will apply those criteria to the area around his own house? Will he also apply them to land owned by such bodies as area health authorities, which frequently own the land around hospitals for the mentally handicapped? Will he use those criteria to make sure that hospitals, such as Westwood hospital in my constituency, are retained for the benefit of the people who live there in rolling acres, so that the land is not sold off for profitable development, but is retained for people who need as much help as they can get?
    Mr. Ridley: I have anticipated the hon. Gentleman, because a circular issued deals precisely with the point of redundant National Health Service hospitals in the green belt and more or less follows the same advice as the main circular. Of course, I cannot comment on any specific planning application as the hon. Gentleman suggested I should.
    Mr. Steen: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the draft circular confirms that the green belt should not be eaten into? Will he also confirm that it is a draft circular and that green fields should not be built on if there is vacant derelict land in public ownership that could be built on first? Once the housing allocation in the local plan has been used up for the five-year period, will he confirm that planning inspectors will be told to refuse applications if the number of houses proposed is greater than the number scheduled in the local plan?
    Mr. Ridley: The circular about which I spoke in response to the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) deals with the green belt. It is not a draft circular and has not been changed for many decades. My hon. Friend asks about the draft circular on local plans. As I said earlier, I confirm that where a local plan is up to date and formal my inspectors and I would be very likely to

    1121
    adhere to what is in that plan on appeal, even if the plan had no further room for development because all space had been used up.
    Mr. Rooker: Does the Secretary of State notice how the interchange of green belt and green fields comes from his hon. Friends? Not every green field is green belt, and that point must be continually reinforced. If we had never built on a green field, no one would ever have had a home.
    Mr. Ridley: I strongly agree with the hon. Gentleman. It is imperative for people to understand the difference between any green field and land that is in the statutory green belt. It is the latter that causes people great concern, and I have solidly adhered to the view that it should never be built on except for the reasons that I gave in answer to the hon. Member for Bradford, South.

    Disabled People (Sport)
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to conclude his review of sport for the disabled; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Moynihan: My review of sport for people with disabilities was launched in February and should be completed early in 1989. We shall be looking at how best to enhance the opportunities for those with disabilities to participate in sport from local to international level. With the paralympics taking place in Seoul in the autumn, it is time that newspapers began to report the achievements of our disabled athletes on the sports pages, not the news pages.
    Mrs. Bottomley: I welcome my hon. Friend's answer. Is he aware that there is great respect for his commitment to promoting sports for the disabled? We have many disabled sportsmen and sportswomen of great distinction and their interests are best served by focusing on their sporting ability rather than on their physical disability.
    Mr. Moynihan: I entirely endorse my hon. Friend's point.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: In the light of the Minister's justified recognition of the value to disabled sportsmen of international competition, may we take it that in any proposals to hold international competition for the disabled in the United Kingdom the Minister will do his best to ensure that adequate funds are available?
    Mr. Moynihan: The hon. and learned Member knows well that the Sports Council decides on its priorities, irrespective of Government comment. He will also know that the intention of this review is to highlight the importance of such international events. I hope that that will encourage the Sports Council to look more favourably upon providing adequate financial support for these very important international meetings about which the hon. and learned Gentleman speaks.
    Mr. Colvin: Is the Minister aware that one sport in which this country excels is rifle shooting? Will he have words with our right hon. Friend the Home Secretary about the retention of the self-loading rifle with integral magazine—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The question is about disabled people.
    Mr. Colvin: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The self-loading rifle with integral magazine for five rounds is the rifle most frequently used by disabled people.
    Mr. Moynihan: My hon. Friend has asked me to refer the matter to the Home Secretary and I shall, of course, do so.
    Mr. Denis Howell: The Minister made a statement yesterday to the Central Council of Physical Recreation that he intends to privatise the management services of local authority sports centres and swimming baths, but he quite rightly expects provision to be made for the disabled and unemployed. How does he expect local authorities to do that when most of them are already rate capped or cash limited and he intends to impose upon them responsibility for meeting all the loan charges, maintenance costs and central services for sports facilities which they no longer control and which are being run by private enterprise for profit?
    Mr. Moynihan: I have made this point four or five times in the right hon. Gentleman's presence. The Government did not announce yesterday that they intend to privatise management services. I made it very clear that the Government are considering whether to put out to competitive tendering the management contracts for local authority sports and recreation facilities.
    Mr. Bowis: Will my hon. Friend discuss with local education authorities how the welcome practice of making facilities in schools—especially swimming pools—available to the public can be extended to provide access for the disabled so that they, too may benefit from that increasing dual use?
    Mr. Moynihan: I shall, and that issue has already been given full consideration by the review group.

    Homelessness
    Mr. Cohen: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the latest figures for homelessness in England and Wales.
    Mr. Roy Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he proposes to take to reduce the level of homelessness.
    Mr. Ridley: In the first quarter of 1988 local authorities in England secured accommodation for 31,070 households accepted as homeless under part III of the Housing Act 1985.
    The primary responsibility for accommodating the homeless rests with local authorities. Our first concern is to encourage them to make the best use of their existing stock by getting the large number of empty council properties back into use to reduce the social and financial burden of bed-and-breakfast accommodation. To that end we have allocated over £74 million additional resources since last December, targeted on authorities with the greatest homelessness pressures. The measures in the current Housing Bill should also widen the choice and supply of accommodation for those with lower incomes, by providing a more flexible social rented sector.
    I am not responsible for Wales.
    Mr. Cohen: Is not the allocation that the Minister has announced a pathetic pittance when set against the extent

    1123
    of homelessness, which the Housing Bill will make worse? Does not that allocation come from the £141 million underspend of local authorities last year? What is the Minister doing with the rest of that underspend? Is he giving it to the rich to help them with their mansions, or to the Prime Minister to leave her property in Dulwich empty?
    Mr. Ridley: I am surprised to hear that the hon. Gentleman thinks that £74 million is a pathetic pittance. I think that he has got his adjectives wrong. He may like to know that the London borough of Waltham Forest at the moment has 83 houses available for letting and 308 houses empty and being repaired, while the number of homeless households is only 235. The number of available houses is almost double the number of homeless households. That is the problem; it is not to do with more money.
    Mr. Roy Hughes: I remind the Secretary of State that 1987 was the United Nations international year of shelter for the homeless. Does he realise that the Government's contribution was in inverse proportion to that effort to the extent that homelessness in this country has simply
    1124
    rocketed, not least in my constituency of Newport, East? Even at this late stage, will the Secretary of State give top priority to this great social evil, by releasing the moneys that are held after the sale of council houses?
    Mr. Ridley: Yes, the hon. Gentleman is right. Last year was the international year of shelter for the homeless. However, figures relating to his own town might interest him. I understand that in his town of Newport 130 houses are available for letting but are empty, and that the number of households accepted as homeless is 68—so there is no problem.
    Mr. Latham: Is my right hon. Friend aware that absolutely nothing is done for the homeless or for the Housing Bill, which he mentioned a moment ago, if the deplorable practice of gazumping continues? Will he please call in the builders' leaders forthwith and tell them that it must stop?
    Mr. Ridley: All hon. Members dislike gazumping, wherever it takes place. However, no schemes have found widespread support as methods of bringing gazumping to an end.

KP Foods
3.30 pm
Mrs. Alice Mahon: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the refusal by KP Foods to sell its Halifax factory as a going concern to the only buyer, leading to the loss of 1,000 jobs."
The matter is urgent and specific because yesterday KP Foods, the owner of the Halifax factory, which is to close with the loss of 950 jobs, refused to sell the factory to the only buyer who has made an offer that can save the jobs. The buyer is a man of great experience in biscuit making and has more than enough capital to purchase the factory. His proposals for production on the site are for different markets from the products of United Biscuits (Holdings) plc. KP Foods has refused to sell on the basis that it, and only it, understands the biscuit industry. Although the factory is profitable, KP Foods claims that it is not profitable enough for its purposes. It further claims that nothing other than closure is practical. The truth is that KP Foods does not want to face any competition.
I ask the Government why, in their enterprise culture, only some entrepreneurs are allowed to take risks. If a genuine business man, who has the backing of the unions and the work force, is prepared to take risks, why will KP Foods not sell and allow the factory to be saved? Is the truth that Sir Hector Laing is afraid of competition, and that he does not really give a damn about the job losses and the hardship that his commercial decision will cause to thousands of my constituents? The factory is in an area of high unemployment and some deprivation.
Last year Sir Hector Laing was instrumental in using his position as a leading supporter of the Government and in donating £100,000 to the Tory party. I suggest that he should make not only that money, but a great proportion of the £36 million profit that he made last year available to the work force, from whom he has removed the last shred of hope. I repeat my earlier call for his resignation as chairman of Business in the Community. Halifax expects and deserves a more honourable person to head that project. I urge that this issue be debated.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that she believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the refusal by KP Foods to sell its Halifax factory as a going concern to the only buyer, leading to the loss of 1,000 jobs."
I have listened with concern to what the hon. Lady has said, but I regret that I do not consider the matter that she has raised as appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20 and I cannot, therefore, submit her application to the House. However, I hope that she will find other ways of raising the matter in the Chamber.

Questions to Ministers
3.33 pm
Mr. Clive Soley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My point arises from the admissibility of questions. Today there are on the Order Paper questions to the Secretary of State for the Environment about empty
1126
properties in the private sector. In the past there have been questions about the empty properties of housing associations and local authorities. To my certain knowledge, two questions about the number of Government-owned empty properties—the Government have a far greater percentage of empty properties than has any other sector, including local authorities, which have the lowest percentage—were transferred to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. There must be a way of getting the Secretary of State for the Environment to answer questions about those empty properties, particularly when the Government are responsible for a far higher percentage of them than anybody else.
Mr. Speaker: I have no knowledge of that. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am not responsible for the transfer of questions, but I am sure that what he has said has been noted by the Government Front Bench.

VAT (European Court Decision)
3.34 pm
Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that yesterday the Minister made a statement on the European court decision on VAT, during which he said that several hon. Members, including myself, had voted in favour of the sixth VAT directive when it was brought before the House in 1976. Under Standing Order No. 127 the Select Committee on European Legislation has a duty to report to the House on matters which, in its opinion, need to be debated. It did so on that occasion and, as is usual in the House, a "take note" motion was tabled. That was not, and has never been, regarded as a motion in favour of any issue before the House. It was a motion.
During that debate several hon. Members, including the then Select Committee Chairman, Sir John Eden, called for further debate because the House was considering a draft directive and many changes were to be made at the appropriate Council of Ministers' meeting. Subsequently, there were calls for further debates because of the massive changes, but the matter was never subsequently debated in the House. Therefore, no Minister can possibly claim that hon. Members voted at any time in favour of that draft directive.
Mr. Speaker: We cannot continue this debate, which arises from questions yesterday. I have listened to what the hon. Gentleman said, and he has made his point.
Mr. Nigel Spearing rose—
Mr. Speaker: No. The matter does not arise today. We dealt with it yesterday.
Mr. Spearing: Further to that point of order—
Mr. Speaker: Is it a point of order for me?
Mr. Spearing: Yes, Sir. I give you notice that, arising from the Minister's statement yesterday on the decision of the House on the sixth VAT directive, I am looking into the records relating to the decision—when it took place and during which debate. Later I may be able to raise on a point of order the definitive decision of the House.
Mr. Speaker: I note what the hon. Member said.
Mr. Tony Marlow: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. We dealt with this matter yesterday and the hon. Member must not seek to continue what went on then. These matters are not for me.

Citizens' Compensation Rights
3.37 pm
Mr. Jack Ashley: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to enable all citizens harmed by the actions and products of others to be entitled to fair and prompt compensation at reasonable cost.
The Bill will revolutionise compensation for personal injury and will help to prevent discrimination against injured individuals. It will provide fair and reasonable guidelines, ensure speedier settlements and guarantee equitable and realistic payments. As an added bonus, it will reduce legal wrangling and cut lawyers' bills.
The natural parent of the Bill is the Opren saga. Any change in the law cannot now help people damaged by Opren, but the least the House can do is to avert similar legal disasters occurring—even if it cannot prevent medical disasters.
In August 1982 Opren was withdrawn from the British market. It had been on sale in Britain for just over two years, and there had been a record 3,963 adverse reaction reports, including 83 deaths. The manufacturers, Eli Lilly, stubbornly rejected calls for a reasonable compensation scheme for those who were severely injured by their defective product. It took a five-year legal battle and a rescue operation by Mr. Geoffrey Bradman before a settlement was announced.
It was a miserly settlement, which was widely resented and accepted only under duress of fear of the consequences of refusal. The settlement gave less to 1,350 British Opren sufferers together than the company paid to one American victim. Elderly British men and women who had become refugees from sunlight and prisoners in their own homes after taking Opren were offered an average of just £2,000, compared with a jury award of $6 million to one American.
The imposed settlement made no sense compared with the American outcome. In our country, as an award for crippling injury, it compared grotesquely with libel awards of hundreds of thousands for injured reputations. The settlement shamed the wealthy, multinational company, but it also discredited the British legal system, which lent itself readily to exploitation.
Some people believe that these derisory awards resulted from a legal miscalculation. It is worth noting that a second legal opinion recommended far higher awards. Others believe that the reason for the small settlement was the British habit of relying on precedent. When a case is decided on the basis of an earlier unjust one, it perpetuates gross injustice. Whatever the cause, Parliament should take remedial action. If it does, never again will a foreign company be able to exploit British law so avidly, denying our people even a fraction of the huge payments it gave so readily to its own people.
A major failing of our compensation system is the legal under-estimation of pain, suffering and a restricted life. The Opren offers were derisory, partly because they were for elderly retired people who did not require large payments for loss of earnings. With most Opren damage, no large payments were necessary for additional costs, such as nursing care. But that did not mean that there was no suffering. A serious omission was that there was no fair

1129
payment, as there should have been, for the loss of freedom to walk and sit in the sun or for the loss of comfort and freedom from pain.
My Bill would establish a compensation advisory board which would propose a new basis for personal injury compensation. The Bill is an important part of the Citizens Action Campaign, presided over by Lord Scarman. It seeks to overcome all the unjustified obstacles facing an unfortunate victim suffering from personal injury. The members of the compensation board would be appointed by the Lord Chancellor and would include people with a wide range of specified experience. It would have two years to prepare recommendations for compensation levels appropriate to different kinds of injury and suffering. From time to time it would review its recommendations, and revise them where appropriate. It would make annual reports to the Lord Chancellor. The board would be an advisory one, but it would become an authoritative and influential body and its views would be respected and acted upon. It would replace precedent and the views of a single judge with the views of a balanced and representative body looking carefully at compensation problems. I believe that it would be welcomed by judges and the legal profession generally.
The Bill backs the small guy against the big. It seeks to take account of suffering and to help people when they are most vulnerable. It will bring about a much needed reassessment of our legal values. It is very badly needed.
In conclusion, the triumph of the thalidomide children brought high hopes for justice for the future. That was more than a decade ago. The Pearson commission was appointed, and eventually reported in a blaze of publicity, but successive Governments have been indifferent to its recommendations. The arguments and even the issues highlighted in that report have been neglected. One of the tragic results of that has been the Opren scandal. It is time now for the House to ensure progress towards fairness and justice, and the Bill is a major step in that direction. I commend it to the House.

CITIZENS' COMPENSATION RIGHTS
Mr. Jack Ashley, supported by Dr. Michael Clark, Mr. Frank Cook, Mr. Frank Haynes, Mr. Simon Hughes, Mr. Alfred Morris and Mr. Roger Sims, presented a Bill to enable all citizens harmed by the actions and products of others to be entitled to fair and prompt compensation at reasonable cost: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 8 July, and to be printed. [Bill 181.]

ESTIMATES
Resolved,
That this House agrees with the Report [16th June] of the Liaison Committee.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]

Opposition Day
[I4TH ALLOTTED DAY]
Opposition Day

  Housing and Planning Policies
  3.47 pm
  Mr. Clive Soley: I beg to move,
  That this House deplores the failure of the Government to develop regional economic and planning policies, which would give adequate support to local authorities trying to contain unrestrained development in the South East and to deal with the effects of under-investment in the social and economic infrastructure throughout the country, and which would address the growing crisis of house price inflation and the shortage of low cost housing for rent or sale.
  Mr. Speaker: I must announce to the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister. I must also tell hon. Members that no fewer than 15 hon. Members have indicated that they wish to take part in the debate. It is only a half-day debate, so I appeal for brevity from both the Front and Back Benches.
  Mr. Soley: From time to time Governments get into difficulties in the timetabling of their affairs and with aspects of their policy. It is a long time since a Government have been in such a mess on the timetabling of their Bills and on their policies, particularly as they affect the south-east of Britain. The motion addresses the Government's failure in that respect.
  The Government have tabled an amendment to the motion which is complacent and naive, but at least they have suddenly discovered the word, "homelessness", a word that did not appear in the Government's White Paper when it was issued last year. Now they have suddenly realised that it is a problem, and it has been growing at a dramatic rate since the Government took office.
  When I was first elected in 1979, in my local authority 4,000 people were on the council waiting list, mainly waiting to move from the private sector, or waiting to change housing within the public sector. I thought that that figure was poor then. There are now 10,000 people on that waiting list, about 700 in bed and breakfast or emergency accommodation. That has been true under successive Conservative and Labour Administrations.
  The same is true of local Conservative, Labour and Liberal authorities throughout the country—so much so that when the Minister went to Southend some months ago and told its Conservative-controlled council that it ought to do more to get people out of bed-and-breakfast accommodation, the council told her that it was already doing everything possible. It was using all the initiatives that the Government had brought forward, but still it could not cope with the growing problem of homelessness in its area.
  The finger points directly and dramatically at the Government for increasing homelessness, for house price inflation and for the collapse of the supply of low-cost rented accommodation. All that is compounded by the Government's blindness towards economic policies, which are distorting the economy, particularly as between the north and the south, but also within regions. We see it happening in parts of London. In addition, planning policies have been devastated.

  1131
  We have seen today a headline in the Evening Standard which says that the Minister intends to introduce a new planning Bill, and we heard from the Secretary of State during Question Time that he is to review planning. That would be encouraging if we forgot for a moment that the previous Secretary of State for the Environment—the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine)—and the present Secretary of State set about devastating the structure of local government and the morale of local authority officers, not least planning officers.
  We all remember the phrases which the Government and the Secretary of State used after being returned to office in 1979—there was to be a bonfire of planning controls. They had that bonfire. They now have the ashes in the south-east. That is why so many Conservative Members are angry about what is happening in their areas.
  The Government have ignored the close but complicated link between economic development, infrastructure, planning and housing. Any attempt to separate them and to have individual policies which ignore their effect on other sectors is doomed to failure. Perhaps the biggest failure is the Government's failure on the economy. They chose to pull the plug on the industrial base in the north of Britain when we were awash with North sea oil. Instead of using that new-found wealth to create the new industries that we needed in the north, they simply let the old ones die. They pumped North sea oil wealth into the south, where it created a great deal of wealth, and left the north to pick up the pieces.
  In those circumstances, there will necessarily be acute overheating in the economy in the south-east and a problem in the north. Despite complacent Government statements from time to time about wealth filtering up to the north, it is still having only a marginal effect. We remember the former Secretary of State for Employment —the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit)— telling people to get "on yer bike." That was a surefire way of saying, "If you cannot find jobs in the north, go south."
  We now have what is called the Tebbit express. It is the train that runs from Liverpool to London, bringing people to work in the capital. They have to return home in the evening. Building workers may, with the permission of the developer, stay in Portakabins on the building site. That is increasingly common, and it is the only way in which employees can find temporary accommodation and the employer can find employees. When people look for accommodation, they cannot find any at prices that they can afford. There is an acute problem with low-cost rented accommodation in both the private and the public sector.
  Mr. Edward Leith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Soley: I shall, but I am bearing in mind Mr. Speaker's comments on the need for brevity.
  Mr. Leigh: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point about the difficulties of unemployed people from the north in coming south and finding jobs because of the cost of housing in the south. Does he accept that one of the best ways to rectify the situation would be to make more rented accommodation available in the south, and that one of the easiest ways of doing that is to free the private rented sector and release future tenancies from rent control?
  Mr. Soley: The hon. Gentleman is completely wrong in his last point, with which I intended to deal later.
  1132
  However, I shall pre-empt my remarks by pointing out that, in a Department of the Environment survey, only 2·5 per cent. of landlords with empty properties said that they kept those properties empty because of the Rent Acts. The vast majority of people who own private property keep it empty either because it is not fit for letting or, more commonly, because it is much more financially beneficial to sell it.
  If the hon. Gentleman studies the history of this matter, he will see that when the Rent Acts were last relaxed, in 1957, there was a dramatic loss of private rented accommodation. When the Government reduced controls in 1980, there was another dramatic decrease in the supply of private rented accommodation. At present, in London, well over half the properties available for rent in the private sector are already outside the Rent Acts. yet the supply of privately owned rented accommodation is drying up more rapidly than ever before. The hon. Gentleman must ask himself how much longer his party will continue to believe the myth that if one takes away rent controls and security of tenure millions of landlords will come on the scene and offer properties for rent. They will not do that.
  One simply needs to work out the economics of the matter. If a house is valued at £100,000, the owner can sell it, put the money in a building society and earn £200 a week in interest without any of the hassle of being a landlord. What sort of rent would that person charge under market rents? One does not need to be too bright to work that one out. The hon. Gentleman must think more carefully before he becomes involved in that rather simplistic argument.
  I wish to deal now with the question of infrastructure. Although the Government have allowed the economy in the south-east to overheat, they have also constrained investment in the economic infrastructure, particularly by the public sector, not only in the south-east, but throughout the country. The right hon. Member for Henley, who is going around the country complaining about the new developments, must accept some of the blame, because he approved many of those developments; for example, the 8,000 homes in Berkshire and his own area.
  While that building is taking place, rail, road and other facilities are not being put in place to enable the economy of the south-east to respond to the development. The absurd traffic jams on the M25 therefore develop and the British Rail network, which should carry more goods and passengers, is unable to do so because the Government deliberately chose not to invest in the modernisation of British Rail to the degree that they should have done. Similarly, they chose not to invest in London Underground and London Transport, believing that people could get into their little metal boxes on four wheels and drive around the south-east without any environmental consequences whatsoever. Of course, that is simplistic and dangerous nonsense.
  In addition, we have the bonfire of controls in development. Successive Secretaries of State have allowed office development along the London-Bristol corridor and have not thought through the consequences both for housing in those areas and for the strain on the economic infrastructure.
  The right hon. Member for Henley says that the Government should be doing more to push employment up north by diverting some Government Departments up

  1133
  north, but he conveniently forgets that he cancelled one of the last acts of the last Labour Government to move the Property Services Agency to Middlesbrough. It is still down here. Such action damages the economy of the north and, in the long run, undermines the economy of the south because it overheats in the way that I have described.
  Perhaps the most damaging act of all is the subtle one of the constant attacks by the Government on local government officers. It is almost as though someone who works as a planner—an honourable and proper profession supported by the Royal Town Planning Institute—is in some way a parasite on the economy. Public officers are regarded as a burden on the economy, instead of being part of the economy, as part of what is necessary to run a modern, effective, efficient and technological economy. If we do not recognise that the public sector has an important role to play and we undermine it, we cannot be anything other than surprised if we find public officers demoralised and on the offensive when the Government let the juggernaut of the free market run over them and everyone else.
  At Question Time today we heard the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment say that local authorities should use all the derelict land that they have, but no less than 62 per cent. of derelict land is in the private sector. We do not hear the Government attacking the private sector and undermining its morale in the way that they attack local authorities. We hear only the attacks on the public sector, as though it can be dispensed with because it is not necessary.
  In recent months, something interesting has happened. Back-Bench Conservatives have become worried about these nice rural new towns that will be set up around their constituencies. That worry was beautifully exemplified by the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) when he wrote a letter, released to the press, which said in effect, "You cannot allow all these new houses here. If you do that Mid-Staffordshire will become a Labour council in perpetuity and my majority might be at risk".
  Why is the right hon. Member for Henley worried? It is because if 8,000 new homes are built in his constituency and that figure is multiplied by two because of household membership, the Boundary Commission will suddenly take an interest. Although some of those new developments may benefit the Conservative party, Conservative Members had better bear in mind that some of them, plus some of the things that the Government are doing in the south-east, are threatening the Conservative party. That is why some Conservative Members, led by the hon. and learned Member for Burton—
  Mr. Andrew MacKay: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Soley: I shall let the hon. Gentleman in in a moment, but he must bear in mind the time. These Conservative Members, led by the hon. and learned Member for Burton, know that there are considerable dangers for the Conservative party in these developments.
  Mr. MacKay: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that my constituency is probably under the threat of receiving more new houses than any other. The new estates in my consituency and that of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) have houses that go
  1134
  at a considerable price, and the owners are solidly Conservative. Therefore, such developments will increase my 22,000 majority to 30,000, so our protests have nothing to do with political gain. If I and my hon. and learned Friend were looking merely for political gain, we would say to my right hon. Friend, "Build as many houses as possible, because that will increase our majorities". The hon. Gentleman is way out.
  Mr. Soley: The hon. Gentleman is forgetting one reason why Conservative Back Benchers are under pressure. He is right to say that houses in these developments will be sold to high-income families, but local people who want places where their sons and daughters can live, and who want to stay in their areas, are being denied that. The long-term implications of that for the Conservative party are far more serious than the hon. Gentleman has suggested. However, I am prepared to wait for that. I have no need to rush the matter. I am prepared to go along with this one and see how it emerges at the end of the day. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall look forward to it, and I suspect that in the long run he will regret it. We shall wait and see who is right.
  The worry about the Boundary Commission intervening is clear in the Tory party. There is also a need, and at last the Secretary of State has realised it if reports in the press are right, to give a greater say to local comment in planning applications. I welcome that, but why was it taken away in the first place? The system has to be more flexible and responsive, and there has to be a more positive approach to planning. At the moment we tend to have a negative approach, in that the local people say what they do not want, rather than looking at the matter more positively and saying what they do want.
  There will always be times when local interests need to be overridden. However, what has gone wrong is that the Government have ended up overriding decisions whenever they feel that it is appropriate to do so in the interests of the Secretary of State and the Conservative party, and ignoring the regional interests. By abolishing the metropolitan county councils and the GLC, and other tiers of local government, they have made the problem worse.
  I can give a classic example of the Secretary of State using such powers. In my constituency of Hammersmith, a major development was planned for Hammersmith broadway. An inquiry was set up, at the end of which everyone accepted, either publicly or privately, that the scheme could not go ahead in its proposed form. In other words, the local community, the council and I were opposed to the scheme. London Regional Transport and the developers accepted that the scheme was not good enough and needed to be changed, and the inspector of the inquiry, which had been set up by the Secretary of State, agreed that it was a bad scheme that needed to be rethought.
  The Secretary of State overrode the inspector and said that the scheme would go ahead. We were left with the absurd situation that the developer, the owner, the local authority and the community were all agreed that it was a bad scheme, they were backed up by the inspector, but were overridden by the Secretary of State. I find myself doing a job that I had not expected I would do when I was elected, although I knew that a Member of Parliament's job is varied. I have the job of trying to work out with all the groups involved some way of getting round the blockage imposed by the Secretary of State. I am getting

  1135
  support from everyone in my efforts, but why do I have to do it? If the inquiry is set up so that the inspector can make recommendations, why does the Secretary of State so readily and easily override such decisions? If the Secretary of State goes on using his powers like a blunderbuss, he will continue to hit half a dozen targets at which he is not aiming.
  The other matter in the press today—if the report is right I should welcome such a move—is that developers should have to pay some—in many cases I would suggest all—of the costs of appeals. It is absurd to impose on local people, through the rates or whatever system, the costs of an appeal when the developer is appealing against the decision of a democratically elected body that a scheme is not good. It is absurd to ask the public sector to pick up the bill for the private sector. If the press report is right and the Government are moving on this issue, they will get our support.
  The final part of this complicated pattern is the Housing Bill. We have been over this issue a number of times recently and we shall be debating it again next week. The housing component of this pattern is all important because, as the hon. Member for Berkshire, East (Mr. MacKay) said, the problem in the south-east is that less and less low-cost accommodation is available for rent or purchase. The developments on the edges of villages and other such sites are of houses that often cost about £150,000. I have given the example of a number of places such as Basingstoke and Dorset, where two and three-bedroomed houses can cost as much as £200,000. If houses are selling for that sum, what does the ordinary employee—for example, in Dorset the average manual wage is £90 a week—do about housing? Such people cannot buy.
  The Government have now come along with the Housing Bill and said, "Do not worry folks, we will take off all rent controls and let rents find their market level." That touches on the point made by the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh). When housing costs so much to buy, the cost of renting will be £100 to £200 a week and the Government are faced with the appalling prospect of either increasing housing benefit so dramatically that it begins to approach the amount of subsidy given to the house purchaser through mortgage income tax relief—about £5 billion—or doing nothing about it. The Government have already cut housing benefit eight times since 1979, although they say that they will increase it.
  The other trap that they are in is that no matter how much they increase housing benefit, unless they do something about the tapers in it, they will not target it effectively on those who need it. We have the absurdity of the economy overheating in the south, but not expanding in the north. Planning controls have been devastated and local authorities are not allowed to initiate and develop progressive policies that are designed to help both the local economy and the local community. At the same time, we have a Government who have been smashing up the supply of housing. They claim to be a Government of sensible economics, but they have cut the housing supply so dramatically that the supply of public housing has been reduced from about 90,000 in 1979 to under 30,000 now. Housing associations have more or less stood still, and the private sector has increased its supply by only about 20,000.
  1136
  One of the first lessons of economics is that if supply is cut drastically, prices will increase. With the present house price inflation, rents will increase for all the reasons that I have outlined. If all controls are removed, there is a crisis. As the number of rented properties available for rent declines, house prices increase at an even faster rate. That will be accompanied by an even faster increase in market rents. If that happens, the Government must dramatically increase public sector finance to act as a subsidy. or they must let the homeless figures rise and allow more and more people to be trapped in bad housing, which means that they are unable to transfer to the sort of properties that they would like. That is the fatal flaw in the Government's housing policy.
  Mr. Ian Gow: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that it is the Labour party's policy to continue with tax relief on mortgage interest?
  Mr. Soley: The hon. Gentleman will know what I have said before about that. I have said to the Government ever since I took on the job of shadow Minister of Housing and Planning that we shall examine with them—we are on our own at the moment because the Government are not willing to move on the issue—a reform of housing finance that makes the present system fairer both within and between the rented and purchase sectors. We acknowledge that any changes or reforms must be of a sort that do not throw either rent payer or mortgage payer into acute economic distress.
  That is why I am saying that mortgage interest relief will not be abolished. However, we shall have to reform it. One quarter of the £5 billion subsidy of mortgage relief goes to those who earn over £20,000 per annum. I am not saying that they do not need a subsidy, but if the Government are prepared to issue a White Paper which states that they will not subsidise the rented sector because subsidy pushes people into dependence, why are they prepared to subsidise those earning £20,000 a year or more without the fear that they will be pushed into dependence?
  Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Soley: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, but it will be the last time that I shall allow an intervention in my speech. I am aware of the time constraint.
  Mr. Brandon-Bravo: Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the totality of mortgage interest relief is about equal to the housing benefit that is paid? Even now, there is almost equity.
  Mr. Soley: No. That is wrong.
  Mr. Brandon-Bravo: It is true.
  Mr. Soley: No, it is wrong. There are gross distortions. It is true that a relatively small number of those who rent receive a large subsidy, but many others who rent receive virtually nothing. Many council tenants, especially those in Conservative-controlled areas, are paying rents that are used, in part, to subsidise the rates. They are paying rents that are then transferred to the rate fund to ensure that the rates are maintained at a low level. That is happening in Merton under a Conservative-controlled council. It is wicked. It is the same as saying that someone who is buying his own house should give money to the taxpayer.

  1137
  We would not say that, but that, in effect, is what is being done to council tenants in Conservative-controlled local authorities throughout the country. It is grossly unfair.
  How can we expect those who rent to pay between a quarter and a third—sometimes even a half—of their net salary or wage in rent? That, however, is what we are asking of many people. The outcry when the Government cut housing benefit in April was precisely about that. In my constituency, a 65-year-old diabetic lady found that she was losing£10·41 per week in housing benefit, which reduced her income to about£30 a week after she had paid her rent. I do not understand how anyone can be supposed to live on that. The Government seek to justify their position by saying, "We cannot do anything about this. We shall leave it as it is, or reduce housing benefit again." The problem must be tackled if it is not to result in a crisis.
  When I responded to the intervention of the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow), I said that any reform of housing finance must make the system fairer for the two sectors. In some areas the majority of those in bed-and-breakfast accommodation are there because they could not pay their mortgages. They have been placed in that accommodation by local authorities. If there is a 1 per cent. rise in interest rates, many of those who have entered into a new mortgage agreement will not be able to continue to pay their mortgage instalments. They will find themselves going to the local authority and saying, "We are homeless. Please take us in."
  Mr. Brandon-Bravo: That is not right.
  Mr. Soley: If the hon. Gentleman wants evidence, let him go to Telford, where the majority of those who are in bed-and-breakfast accommodation find themselves in that position because they were unable to pay their mortgages. We all know that the number of those who have foreclosed on their mortgages has increased about 10 times. We know also that the problem will worsen. That will be the pattern until the Government reform housing finance so that the system gives more assistance to first-time buyers and to those who have managed to get their feet on the first rung of the ladder and bought accommodation that is only just large enough for themselves, and find that they want children and wish to trade up. In the south of Britain, and in other areas where there has been house price inflation, it is not possible to trade up to a two or three-bedroom house unless an individual enjoys a salary rise of£10,000 or£15,000. That is because the price of an extra bedroom or two bedrooms is so great.
  The Government have made an appalling mess of housing finance, but there are a number of short-term measures that could be introduced that would help to deal with homelessness. For example, capital receipts that are available from council house sales could be used to house the homeless and to repair and renovate. At present, only a percentage of receipts is available for those purposes. If the Government adopted that approach they would instantly release large sums that are currently sitting in the banks doing nothing. At the same time, more people than ever before are sleeping rough and living in cardboard boxes, and more and more families are living in bed-and-breakfast accommodation.
  What are we doing for families in bed-and-breakfast accommodation? Some of them live in it for two years.
  1138
  Their children are supposed to be doing well at school. How can a child do well at school when he or she is in bed-and-breakfast accommodation? How is that achieved? What are local education authorities supposed to do? Some Conservative Members smile. I can only say that they should try living in that accommodation for a while. Let them try living in a cardboard box for a while and then tell me that there is not a housing crisis. We did not have this problem prior to 1979. We did not even have it under the Harold Macmillan Government. We have had it only under the present Government, and that is what makes them such a failure.
  There must be a reform of housing finance in the way that I have outlined. An increasing number of people are aware of that. We are aware of the report of the Duke of Edinburgh and that of the Church. I and others have been advancing this argument for a long time, which leads me to ask why the Government cannot acknowledge that their Housing Bill is at best irrelevant, and at worst grossly damaging to the private rented sector as well as the public sector. They must get their act together and come forward with policies that are designed to address the imbalance in the economy, the infrastructure problem, the housing issue and the planning issue. On that basis, I recommend the House to vote for the motion.
  4.18 pm
  The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  "congratulates the Government on its housing and planning policies which have helped more people than ever before to own their own homes and, while protecting the extending the approved Green Belts, have created the conditions for a return of prosperity across the whole country; welcomes the proposals in the Housing Bill to widen the choice of housing available for rent; notes with satisfaction the planned increases in the Housing Corporation's programme and the additional resources being allocated to local authorities to tackle immediate problems of homelessness, bringing to£74 million the additional resources made available over the last six months; and urges local authorities to use these and other resources to end the use of bed-and-breakfast accommodation for families as quickly as possible."
  The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) started with a strange description of the Government's economic policy. It was new to me and I did not recognise it. He then made some spirited attacks upon my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), who I wish were in his place to defend himself. I shall justify many of my right hon. Friend's actions during his period of office, when the relevant points are reached in this debate.
  One point I should like to clear up immediately concerns the hon. Gentleman's reference to a report in today's Evening Standard, that swingeing penalties will be imposed on those who appeal in the green belt. I do not know the source of that information, but from my reading of the article, my guess is that the report refers to the fact that already costs can be awarded against those who appeal vexatiously or frivolously, especially in the green belt. We have frequently given warnings that we will award costs when we believe that such action is justified in relation to the circular. We have nothing further in mind at the present time.
  By linking housing and planning policies in today's motion, the Opposition enable me to make an important point, and it is one with which I hope that the hon.

  1139
  Member for Hammersmith agrees. Our ability to ensure that everyone has access to a decent home, particularly in distressed parts of the country, depends to a large extent on our willingness to release at least some land for house building through the planning process. That is a factor affecting house prices too. I agree that there is a link between the restrictive planning policies we have been pursuing and homelessness, higher house prices, and the land shortage that causes those increased prices and shortages—affecting in particular local people in rural areas as well as those in the cities.
  Many have questioned that link, pointing out—as did the hon. Member for Hammersmith—that new private sector houses are seldom within the reach of the low-income families. However, there is a cascade effect. The more houses we build as people move up the housing ladder, the more houses become available and affordable to households at the bottom of that ladder, whether they be owner-occupiers or tenants. That is the way more housing becomes available.
  Mr. Tony Banks: Housing seems to be one of those areas where the normal laws of supply and demand do not apply. For example, in London there is an excess of units of accommodation over the number of people who need to be accommodated. There are in London 94,000 empty privately owned properties, but the price of property there is going up and up. Will the Secretary of State for the Environment explain why he believes that building more homes will push down house prices?
  Mr. Ridley: Many of those properties are confined by the Rent Acts. If a house is in a state of disrepair, I see no point in holding on to it; one can always sell it for someone else to repair, or one can improve it. However, people do not wish to sell or let houses, because they prefer to enjoy their capital appreciation—but they dare not risk the Rent Acts.
  Mr. Leigh rose—
  Mr. Ridley: I have a little more to say, and I do not wish to detain the House too long. I will allow my hon. Friend to intervene, but after that I must get on with my speech.
  Mr. Leigh: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, after 70 years of political manipulation of the housing market, there is not so much a shortage of housing stock as a shortage of potentially available rented accommodation? Does he agree with the philosophical point that, contrary to the claim of the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley), if we were to reform the Rent Acts and to deal with the tax laws which give such an advantage to those who buy rather than rent, more privately rented accommodation could be made available?
  Mr. Ridley: Yes, I agree with both points. Nominally, there are about 700,000 more houses than there are households in the country as a whole. I agree also that a large number of empty and surplus houses could be released through proper arrangements for encouraging landlords to let, and we are dealing with that aspect in the Housing Bill.
  This is a free country, where people are free to settle and live where they can, if they can find a house that they can afford. Many are concerned at the phenomenon of people selling up in London and moving out, so putting pressure
  1140
  on house prices and pricing out local people. The hon. Member for Hammersmith made that point. In a free country, that cannot and should not be prevented; there is no way in which it can be stopped. It would surety make matters worse to bring down the shutters on further development. It would not be the richer, incoming people who would lose as a result, because they could afford to buy more expensive houses.
  If we wish to preserve our heritage of mixed communities in towns and villages—having mixed tenures, mixed incomes, and different ways of life—we must allow houses to be provided to meet the expected demand from less well-off, new households. Housing association houses to rent, increasingly in the changing circumstances of today, have much going for them in serving that purpose.
  Much land can be found from within the urban areas. It is vital that redundant land in our towns and cities is fully used. We have encouraged house builders to look at opportunities in those areas and, where necessary. we provide funding through city grant and derelict land grant. The urban development corporations, including the London Docklands development corporation, play an important part in bringing back disused or derelict land into use. Those policies have been very successful, and more than half the land developed for housing in London and the south-east is recycled or vacant land in built-up areas.
  The rate at which agricultural land is taken for development is now running at less than one third of the level seen in the 1960s and 1970s. Despite all that, some land will be needed on new sites outside existing urban areas. In some cases, as I said during Question Time, that might most appropriately be land around existing settlements. In others, it may be appropriate in a few cases to think of new settlements. Whatever housing is built, and however it is built, it cannot come without planning permission. It is for local councils to decide where development should take place. The extent to which planning is a local function is often overlooked. Ninety-eight per cent. of planning consents are given by local authorities, and only 2 per cent. on appeal.
  Mr. James Couchman -rose—
  Mr. Ridley: My hon. Friend will forgive me if I continue, because I wish to make a little more progress.
  The area where housing and planning policies arouse the most controversy is in the south-east; that is the price we pay for economic success in that area. As the House knows, in the south-east we work with local authorities through SERPLAN and the London Planning Advisory Committee to forecast future housing requirements in general and to agree figures for each London borough and shire county. I am glad to report that in conjunction with SERPLAN we are expecting a lower rate of new house building in the south-east over previous years in the projections for 1991 to 2001.
  Several factors are at work. First, we are providing wider opportunities for renting in the Housing Bill, and we expect to see better use made of the existing stock, as private landlords in particular will once again have an incentive to let their property. That will bring many vacant houses and flats into use and reduce the need for new build.
  Secondly, partly as a result of the huge disparity in house prices and costs between the south-east and other

  1141
  regions, but also thanks to the action we are taking in the inner cities, other regions of the country are becoming more attractive as places to which both people and businesses may move. Unemployment is falling rapidly in all regions, and fastest of all in the west midlands, the north-west and the north. House-building levels are rising in most regions outside London. The only area where they are not doing so is the west midlands. Land prices are rising fast.
  We have a£3 billion per year programme of improvement to the older industrial areas and cities to attract private investment, and to improve infrastructure and skills in inner cities. We have seven urban development corporations up and running, and four more are in the process of being established.
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan rose—
  Mr. Ridley: No, I will not give way.
  Those factors are beginning to take the pressure off the south. Firms are beginning to follow economic logic and to move away from the skills shortages and high prices of the south-east. All that is helping to reverse what has been a net flow of population out of the old industrial areas to the prosperous south. I am glad to tell the House that there is now a small but growing net migration away from the south-east and we expect that to continue and accelerate.
  The provision previously agreed with SERPLAN was for 460,000 extra homes in the period 1991–2001, but the household projections released earlier this year suggest that provision might need to rise by a further 150,000 in that period. However, I am glad to repeat that new evidence produced by SERPLAN last week now suggests that a further 30,000 to 50,000 dwellings will become available by 1991. Therefore, the extra provision needed after 1991 will be only 100,000 to 120,000, which means that we shall need between 560,000 and 580,000 new homes altogether in that period rather than 610,000 which we had earlier calculated.
  It is now up to SERPLAN and the local authorities concerned to propose where those houses should be built through regional guidance, the county structure plans and the district plans. That development must be well planned and locally planned. We expect, first, that in drawing up those plans local authorities should ensure that there is no unsuitable development in the green belt. I have made it perfectly plain over and over again that the green belt must be preserved.
  Mr. Couchman: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way, because I know that he wants to make progress. There is dismay in Kent at his refusal to give permission on the Dartford and Crayford marshes—1,000 acres of derelict land that should never have been scheduled as green belt—because it will put extreme pressure on urban constituencies such as my own, where his Department, through the Property Services Agency, is seeking to build houses on the only green land in the Medway towns.
  Mr. Ridley: My hon. Friend intervened at the precise moment when I was saying that we have made it plain that green belt must be preserved. It would have been a complete contradiction of that policy if we had agreed to the development to which my hon. Friend refers.
  1142
  However, if the precise area of the green belt and its location is not thought by the local people to be correct, they can perfectly well propose an alteration of the green belt boundaries and have that approved through the normal processes. That is the way to achieve what my hon. Friend seeks, rather than to ask me to break the very guidelines about the green belt that I have made clear.
  I sum up by saying that, in 1981, only 12·6 per cent. of the south-east outside London was built up. If the extra demand that I have described is met by 2001, it is unlikely that that figure will rise beyond 13·7 per cent. That means that 86·3 per cent of the home counties would still not be built up, which is hardly concreting over the whole of the south-east.
  The role of district councils here is crucial. I mentioned local plans. Last week we issued a new draft circular on district plans. Only about 10 per cent. of local authorities have fully up-to-date approved local plans covering the whole of their area. They are the vital missing ingredient in the planning system. The lack of them is one reason why planning authorities sometimes find themselves losing an appeal and why, for example, people are unclear where green belt borders are and where local development is likely to occur.
  The hon. Member for Hammersmith welcomed the emphasis on local people planning where development should take place, but he asked why that right had been taken away. It was never taken away. The fact of the matter is that 90 per cent. of district councils in the south-east do not have up-to-date local plans and I am urging them to do so. That is the way for them to take control of where developments should take place.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: Does the Secretary of State accept that the other concern of local people and their elected representatives, with which he has not yet dealt, is that the housing that is built needs to be affordable? That is the crucial issue about development in London, the south-east or elsewhere. It is no good building homes if nobody can afford to rent or buy them.
  Mr. Ridley: The only way that I could bring down the price of houses in the south-east would be to allow planning restrictions to be stripped away so that the price of land fell dramatically. However, if he will only bear with me, I can tell the hon. Gentleman of some further plans. I should not have given way to him. Everybody tries to intervene just as I am about to answer their question.
  Mr. Morgan: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Ridley: No.
  It is clear to me in the discussions that I have had with local authorities in the south-east that we all realise that a balance has to be struck. High house prices in the south are contributing to the pressures on businesses and people to move away. But there is still tremendous demand for housing in the south-east, even at those high prices, which also causes those high prices.
  Demand is rising chiefly due to social factors. There are more single-person households. People are not getting married or are living alone longer before marriage and can often afford to buy at the prices prevailing. More people are getting divorced. Old people are living longer in their own homes. It is those phenomena, not primarily the increase in population, coupled with the difficulty of

  1143
  finding new sites for housing, which are causing tremendous problems for the people at the bottom of the ladder and increasing the pressures which eventually cause homelessness.
  I should just point out that the people described as "homeless" in our statistics, which Opposition Members are always quoting at us, as they did at Question Time today, are those with a priority right to be housed by councils under the homelessness provisions in the Housing Act 1985. Therefore, it is a misleading term, as those "homeless" households listed in the statistics are all found accommodation, many going straight into permanent homes.
  I said at the beginning of my speech that the ability to ensure that everyone has access to a decent home depends partly on our willingness to release land for new house building through the planning process. But that is only part of the solution. There will always be people who cannot afford the economic cost of housing, and we accept that the Government must ensure that there are mechanisms to provide subsidised housing for those who need it—social housing. That we are doing in a number of ways.
  Mr. John Battle: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way.
  Mr. Ridley: No, I will not.
  First, the Housing Bill will bring a large number of existing empty privately owned properties on to the market. There are about half a million empty private properties, and there will he greater incentives for people to let rooms in their homes and for landlords to build or convert for rent.
  The hon. Member for Hammersmith referred to a figure, which I do not confirm, of only 2·5 per cent. being frustrated by the Rent Acts. Even that figure would result in 13,750 extra properties coming on to the rented market. I believe that the figure would be much higher, and so does SERPLAN. That would make a great contribution to ending the housing shortage in the areas concerned.
  Secondly, we are providing for local authorities to be able to offer transferable discounts to people in council accommodation in areas of housing shortage who want to move out and buy, thus making available their accommodation for letting to new tenants.
  Thirdly, we are considering ways in which the 112,000 empty council houses can be brought into use. It is a scandal that the number of empties in London exceeds the numbers in bed and breakfast. There is clearly a consensus in the House for early action to get empties back into use. We have had to consider statutory measures to achieve this. We will be putting forward proposals for legislation in the next Session to make best use of local authority stock and reduce their dependence on temporary accommodation.
  In the meantime, I intend to use existing powers to ask all authorities to give me details of all their empty property. We need up-to-date information. Authorities which manage their stock efficiently will already have such data readily available. I will also be asking authorities in future HIP rounds to include with their submissions statements of their policy to minimise the number of empty dwellings. We will be consulting the local authority associations about these proposals in the near future.
  1144
  Fourthly, we have made available a further£74 million in allocations in the stress areas over the last six months, much of it to tackle the immediate problem of homelessness.
  Mr. Soley: When the Secretary of State brings those new powers to bear on local authorities, will he also ensure that the law is drafted in a way that makes it apply to Government-owned empty properties, because 6·9 per cent. of the Government's housing stock is empty, compared with 2·5 per cent. of local authorities' housing stock, which is the lowest of all? Secondly, why was that not a problem before 1979?
  Mr. Ridley: The answer to the second question is that economic recovery has completely changed the demand for housing. Under the policies of frustration and despair employed by the Labour party, the trouble was that half the people could not afford to leave home and buy their own houses.
  Fifthly, the Bill will result in more new housing being provided for rent. Deregulation, coupled with the welcome Budget tax changes affecting landlords, will once again make rented housing a worthwhile proposition for the reputable private investor. It will also open the door to genuine private investment in new development by housing associations. That will enable the Housing Corporation's programme of support for housing associations to stretch further, and the grant element of that support, together with the corporation's supervisory effort—backed up with the new tenants' guarantee—will ensure that housing association accommodation remains within the reach of those on low incomes.
  The corporation's grant programme is set to grow from£737 million in the current year to£850 million by 1990–91, and to that can be added any money attracted from the private sector. All those measures will bring additional dwellings into use, although I cannot estimate the numbers precisely.
  I have resisted the temptation to catalogue the real chaos in housing management in some town halls run by the Labour party: uncollected rents, properties lying empty while families are housed in bed-and-breakfast accommodation, bad management, neglect and decay. I would be the first to admit that local authorities cannot be blamed for all of that.The Economist—not a paper from which I normally quote—last week described the mess into which misguided policies of rent control and mass provision of council houses had plunged our rented housing policy:
  "The obvious solvent for this mess is a flourishing competitive rental market at all levels of housing"
  That is what we are trying to create, and what the Labour party seems to be trying to frustrate. I ask the House to reject the motion with disdain.
  4.42 pm
  Mr. George Howarth: I should like briefly to cover three important aspects of housing policy connected with the motion.
  The first aspect is the whole issue of the housing finance system, irrespective of the type of tenure involved. The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) asked my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) what would be the Labour party's likely attitude to mortgage tax relief. I cannot answer that question, but I will say one thing that may be of help to the hon. Gentleman and

  1145
  others. I find it rather strange that at a time when mortgage interest tax relief is going up and up—the current level is£5 billion—the Government seem to have set no upper limit at which in the future it will be capped and stopped. At the same time housing benefit has been clawed back substantially. The move was so unpopular that the Government had to introduce a transitional arrangement, but even that has not bridged the gap and solved the difficulties.
  Mr. Gow: The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that the level at which mortgage interest tax relief is paid is demand-led. It will, however, be of some consolation to him to know that, following the reductions in the top income tax rate from 60 to 40 per cent. and in the basic rate from 27 to 25 per cent., the cost of tax relief on mortgage interest has gone down.
  Mr. Howarth: That is an inevitable consequence of such changes. I still contend that the basic principles by which mortgage interest tax relief operates means that technically it can continue to rise irrespective of the changes that the tax system may impose in other areas. Mortgage interest tax relief contributes little or nothing to the development of sound housing policies. Most serious studies have concluded that its net effect has simply been to put up house prices. My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith is quite right. At some stage either the party in power or a collection of parties must discuss the consequences of a policy which, while it may be superficially popular with the electorate, contributes nothing to housing policy and certainly does nothing to create more acceptable housing.
  The Secretary of State, in his closing remarks, talked as though the Housing Bill heralded a new dawn of private rented housing that would act as a yardstick against which all other types of tenure could be judged. He and the Minister of State have yet to demonstrate, despite the Bill's three and a half months in Committee, how that is to happen. The diagnosis of the difficulties suffered by the private rented sector in the past 30 years or so has little to do with the Rent Acts and other landlord-and-tenant legislation; it has everyting to do with the economics of property ownership and what can be obtained by simply selling the property or by hanging on and getting the capital appreciation. My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith hammers that point home every time he gets the chance.
  It does not matter whether the legislation creates economic rents, or a whole new series of types of tenancies. The truth is that any kind of tenant living in a property whose value is constantly growing—in central London that is happening at an alarming rate—will be an interference with the accumulation of capital which any sensible person would avoid. I do not believe—perhaps the Secretary of State does, but I do not think that many of his colleagues do, certainly not the civil servants—that all those new private tenancies will be created. It simply will not happen.
  Mr. Tony Banks: If my hon. Friend visits the east end of London and looks at the London Docklands development corporation area he will see that, although a number of properties are available for rent, the rents range from£300 or£350 a week to about£750. Who would
  1146
  spend that amount on rent when he could get mortgage interest tax relief? People in the east end could not possibly do so.
  Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend is perfectly right. It is obvious that with those rent levels the homeless certainly will not be encouraged to rent; indeed, it will be impossible for them to do so, just as it will be impossible for all those in serious housing need categories to pay such rents. The net effect is that some people will be housed, but not those in the most need. The present housing finance system does not make sense. It does not serve housing policy at all. It simply suits certain populist ideas with which the Government wish to be associated.
  The Minister of State and others have said many complimentary things about housing associations. One of my concerns is housing co-operatives. I believe that the Government sincerely want housing co-operatives and associations to continue to provide for people in housing need, using their high levels of housing management expertise.
  There is a difficulty about introducing private finance, and although the Minister knows of it we must hammer it home at every opportunity. If one introduces a combination of private finance and housing association grant into the equation, for an investor—in the form of a building society or other financial institution such as a bank—to get the guarantees that he needs on a property, difficulties will arise in many areas in which there are low values and high costs, of which Knowsley is an example. The net effect in my area would be that the cost of building a house would have to be reduced by about£10,000. I accept that the Minister of State supports the continued existence of housing associations and has made supportive statements about co-operatives, but the introduction of private finance into these areas may result in a fall in the standards of housing provided by housing associations and co-operatives. I hope that that will not happen and that steps will be taken in the Department of the Environment's current review to ensure that it will not.
  Finally, I mention some of my worries about local authority housing. I, like my hon. Friends—[Horn. MEMBERS: "Where are they?"]. Conservative Members are making great play of where my hon. Friends are, but perhaps we should stick to the subject—[Interruption.] It is interesting that a signal went round the Conservative Benches to create that interruption, and Conservative Members thought they would take the chance to make sedentary interventions. I shall continue with the subject in hand.
  Some of the difficulties with council housing have been caused by the Government since 1979. To be honest, some of them relate to the way in which council housing has been managed and maintained at local level. So it is not always a question of what the Government have done. However, the Government have consistently withdrawn the capital investment that is needed for housing stock since 1979, and that is a major factor in the growing problem of disrepair. The Minister should be aware that my borough needs more than£20 millon a year for its housing investment programme to keep its stock at something approaching a reasonable level. At present it receives£4·5 million from central Government. It manages by means of a series of devices—leaseback and other schemes that local authorities have to use—to get that up to£11 million. There will be a gap of about£10 million a

  1147
  year in the money needed merely to keep the stock in a decent state of repair. Therefore, there will be a continuing problem of disrepair because there is not enough money in the system to deal with it.
  Whatever Conservative Members may believe ideologically about council housing, it is becoming worse and more starved of resources. In support of my point, I wish to quote from an article by an objective commentator in last week's New Statesman—[Interruption.] The article is by Anne Power, who has been a director of the Government-sponsored priority estates project, which intensively tackles the problems of Britain's worst council estates. Conservative Members may laugh at the publication for which she writes, but they should at least take her seriously because the Government have been footing the bill for her work for the past nine years.
  Mr. Bob Cryer: Conservative Members are laughing at the New Statesman, but my hon. Friend will recall that the Secretary of State quoted The Economist as though it were a lofty, objective, politically neutral publication, whereas it is a Right-wing Tory rag. It is hardly surprising that the right hon. Gentleman quoted it in his own support.
  Mr. Howarth: I should imagine that any journal that agreed with the Secretary of State would be almost unpublishable by definition.
  Speaking about council housing and Government legislation, Anne Power says:
  "But the context of the current changes is entirely negative. Demoralised staff working in the housing departments of local authorities face an uncertain future. There is intense competition for access to housing in areas of shortage; and council housing is becoming increasingly ghettoised."
  That is the effect of Government policies on local authority housing, whatever the inherent problems. The Secretary of State spoke as though the problems of council housing were the result of Labour-controlled authorities' policies. The Government have been in power long enough to have done something about the problem if they believe that, yet they have done nothing.
  Conservative Members know that the Government's housing policies have failed over the past nine years. The Government are on a fast track to even greater failure in future.
  4.57 pm
  Mr. Ian Gow: I want to refer to two elements in my right hon. Friend's amendment and to two elements in the Opposition motion.
  I commend the words in the amendment that commit the Government to ending
  "the use of bed-and-breakfast accommodation for families as quickly as possible."
  My right hon. Friend was right to remind the House that 28,000 houses and flats owned by local authorities have been empty for more than 12 months. Part of the tragedy of empty council houses and flats is that the authorities with the largest number of empty houses and flats that have been empty for the longest periods are often precisely those with the greatest number of homeless people.
  I warmly welcome the initiative of my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning in allocating extra resources to the local authorities with problems of homelessness and of empty accommodation. It is by no means always the case that the reason for those 28,000 houses and flats being empty for more than 12 months is
  1148
  that the local authorities concerned have not had enough money to put them in order. The overwhelming majority of people who have the misfortune to live in unsatisfactory bed-and-breakfast accommodation would prefer to live in a house or flat, even though it is not ideal.
  Secondly, I refer to the part of the amendment that testifies to the truth that since 1979 the Government's housing policies have
  "helped more people than ever before to own their own homes"
  That dramatic escalation of home ownership in the past nine years—an escalation more rapid than at any time in our history—has not been welcomed with total enthusiasm by the Opposition—
  Mr. Tony Banks: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Gow: I give way, of course, to my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Banks: I do not know what that says about the hon. Gentleman or about me, but I shall accept it.
  Why, if the Government have such a wonderful record, has homelessness doubled since 1979?
  Mr. Gow: Part of the reason for the increase in homelessness is that we have never had as many as 28.000 council-owned houses and flats empty for more than 12 months. Part of the reason for the extra nominally homeless people and genuinely homeless people is the tragedy of empty houses. I shall presently deal with empty houses in the private sector.
  Mr. Simon Hughes rose—
  Mr. Cryer rose—
  Mr. Gow: I give way to the solitary representative of the Liberal party.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I am honoured to be that. The hon. Gentleman's analysis is wrong. If he looks at the figures given to me yesterday by the Under-Secretary of State about the percentage of new lets that go to the homeless, he will see that over the last eight years Tory, Labour and Liberal-controlled local authorities have substantially increased the number of properties let to the homeless. In Bromley the increase was 100 per cent. and in Birmingham and Manchester it was over 400 per cent.—as in my borough. The problem is not that properties are empty and not let by local authorities, but that the number of homeless people is greater because there are no homes for them.
  Mr. Gow: One cannot escape the truth that if the empty houses and flats owned by local authorities and those owned by the private sector were occupied there would be a complete and immediate solution to the problem of homelessness.
  I note that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) did not bring himself to criticise the Government's record of nearly 3 million more properties in owner-occupation in 1988 than in 1979. The hon. Gentleman nods in agreement. I think that by his silent approval and possibly he speaks for his party—he welcomes that impressive increase in home ownership. There is an important political consequence of the dramatic increase in home ownership. The more that the ownership of homes, of capital, increases, the greater will he the reluctance of the people to support the hon. Member for Newham, North-West and his hon. Friends.
  Mr. Cryer rose—
  Mr. Gow: I give way to the hon. Gentleman who no longer represents Keighley, but who is a Member of the European Parliament.
  Mr. Cryer: The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that I call it the Common Market Assembly, because that more accurately reflects what it is. It has no powers of legislation. The hon. Gentleman is eulogising home ownership. What attempt will he make to convert his Government to giving people in private rented accommodation the right to buy in the way that they have foisted on local authorities legislation to force them to give that opportunity to tenants?
  Mr. Gow: There is a great distinction, which is not appreciated either by the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts), who is the sole occupant of the Opposition Front Bench, or by his hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer). The hon. Member for Bradford, South has tempted me into giving him an analogy. It is open to the hon. Gentleman to take his hon. Friends the Members for Bootle and for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and give them a sumptuous dinner at Le Gavroche and pay for it out of his own pocket. That is legitimate, but it would be illegitimate for the hon. Member for Bradford, South to take his two hon. Friends to Le Gavroche and pay for the dinner out of public funds. That is the distinction. The Government were entitled to grant the right to buy to public sector tenants because every house and flat owned by local authorities was financed by public money. Therefore, it is open to the Government to lay down the terms for their tenants in the same way as it is open to the private landlord to lay down terms for his tenants.
  Mr. Allan Roberts: The hon. Gentleman is saying that it is legitimate for the Government to force local authorities to give big discounts and to spend public money on giving people the right to buy. That has nothing to do with increasing owner-occupation or with the rights or freedoms of council tenants. It is an attack on the public rented sector. If the Government and Conservative Members really believe in increasing owner-occupation and in freedom of choice for tenants, they would grant the same privileges to the tenants of the private landlord. They are interested only in making profit out of housing.
  Mr. Gow: When the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) returns to the Opposition Front Bench and finds out what has happened in his absence, he will not be pleased that he left the Chamber. The hon. Member for Bootle gave the impression to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young), who has a greater knowledge and experience of these matters than any hon. Member now in the Chamber, that he was opposed, not only to the right to buy, but to the discounts presently offered by the Government. That impression was given not only to my hon. Friend but to many other hon. Members who were listening carefully to the hon. Member for Bootle.
  Mr. Allan Roberts rose—
  Mr. Gow: I give way to the hon. Gentleman even though his hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith is not beside him to correct him as he speaks.
  Mr. Roberts: The whole House knows that nine years ago, when the Conservative Government started the policy of forcing councils to sell houses at large discounts, the Labour party opposed it. We said that the best of the houses would be sold and that the councils would be left with the rest. That has happened. The best of the houses have been sold. One can no longer oppose the sale of what has already been sold. Conservative Members find that amusing, but if the best of the houses have been sold there is no point in opposing the sale. We have never advocated the taking back of any council houses that have been sold. That was a lie put about by Conservative Members on doorsteps during the general election. We can no longer oppose the selling of council houses, because they have been sold
  Mr. Gow: I have exciting news for the hon. Gentleman. The process of giving tenants the right to buy their houses or flats is continuing. There are still hundreds of thousands of actual and prospective tenants who will wish to take advantage of the choice given to them by the Government. We thought that the hon. Gentleman had been converted to supporting that choice, but henceforward there will be great doubt in the House and outside about whether the Opposition are still in favour of choice.
  Mr. Brandon-Bravo: Does my hon. Friend agree that the comments by the Opposition show that they are completely adrift? They say that only the best sell. But because the cost-floor provisions have prevented the sale at massive discounts of brand new houses—the better end, if one likes, of the housing stock—the bulk of the sales have been of pre-war houses and of houses built in the 1950s and early 1960s. That is where maximum discounts have been of the greatest benefit to council tenants.
  Mr. Gow: My hon. Friend is perfectly correct. Houses and flats that range from the not-so-good to the very good have been sold as a result of choice. Alas, the percentage of flats has been much lower than the percentage of houses.
  Mr. Allan Roberts: What percentage?
  Mr. Gow: I have given way many times, and I am mindful of what Mr. Speaker said at the start of the debate.
  I should now like to turn to the motion in the names of the hon. Member for Hammersmith and his hon. Friends. The motion speaks about
  "the shortage of low cost housing for rent or sale."
  The Housing Bill will bring into use some of the empty accommodation presently in the private sector. Following the enactment of the Bill, the owners of those houses will be encouraged to let them. I say that because since 1915 rent legislation designed to assist the prospective tenant has actually injured the real or prospective tenant.
  By our Rent Act policy we have injured the very people whom we were trying to help. Twin evils have flowed from that legislation—security of tenure and rent control. As the Opposition will discover, under the Housing Bill, unused or under-used accommodation will be brought into use and we shall attract significant new investment for the conversion of existing property to let and the construction of new property to let—something that we have not been able to do since the war. That is most welcome and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on the Bill.

  1151
  I now come to my final and most controversial point, which deals with the part of the Opposition motion that refers to the
  "growing crisis of house price inflation."
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, the only way in which we shall be able to arrest, and later diminish, the rise in house prices is to build more houses, and to build them in those parts of the country where they are most needed. I agree that sites available in urban areas must be developed, but we must also recognise another long-term feature of the supply of land. In the coming years, land that is used at present for agricultural purposes will no longer be required for those purposes. If agricultural land that is not particularly good is to be put to better use, if the owner of that land wishes to sell, if a builder wishes to buy it, if the builder, having built on the land that the farmer or owner wished to sell can find a purchaser for the house or flat, there is a presumption in favour of granting planning permission. I am not saying that that presumption is not rebuttable.
  I say to my hon. Friends who, like me, represent constituencies in the south-east that in the coming years we shall be unable simply to say to the Minister for Housing and Planning, or the district councils, that there must be no more building on green sites in the south of England. It is the duty of those who are responsible for planning to ensure that the available land is put to the best use. If today there is no longer the same need for the agricultural use of land, the best use for some of it is most emphatically for housing. Only in that way will we be able to solve a problem that is familiar to my hon. Friends the Members for Berkshire, East (Mr. MacKay) and for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), both of whom realise that people from the north and the midlands are seeking, and may have found, employment in the south-east, but cannot bring their families here. They will not be able to bring their families here unless we can increase the supply of land in the south-east.
  The Opposition motion shows a scant recognition of the truth that, after nine years of Conservative Government, the overwhelming majority of our people are better housed than ever before. I commend to the House the policies of my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning and the terms of the amendment to the motion.
  5.13 pm
  Mr. Simon Hughes: The Opposition motion as originally tabled referred to the chaos in the Government's housing and planning policies, but the Table Office said that that infringed the rules in some way, so it had to be changed.
  We have an opportunity to reflect on the stage that the Government's housing and planning policies have reached a year into their third term of office, and when for the first time for many years the Department of the Environment has one Minister of State who is responsible for both housing and planning. I reflect too, in passing, that at times those policies seem to have been best symbolised by the recent state of the Department of the Environment. Its telephone system has just been changed. Nobody could get through from the outside to the inside, and it certainly looks as if nobody could get through from the inside to the inside. If the left hand has not seemed to know what the right hand was doing—or if one of the two right hands has not known what the other was doing—perhaps that is the
  1152
  explanation, although when the same Minister is responsible for two areas of departmental policy it is usual to expect him to talk to himself enough to get policy agreed.
  Last month we had a debate on a private Member's motion tabled by the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman), which gave the Government an opportunity to comment on their planning policies. They gave estimates of the amount of land needed, the number of houses needed and so on. I made two fairly uncontroversial points. I am not in the habit of quoting or even referring to my own recent contributions, but one of the points I then made was that the Government should bring empty property into use. That is vital, and if the Government did that we could proceed incrementally to deal with the shortage of housing.
  The second was that we should assess how much provision was already made for new housing in structure plans and so on, and that if we did that accurately, we would find that there was quite a lot of provision. During that debate, the Government gave specific estimates for housing need in the south-east, after assessing the figures for each county. Yet last Friday the Financial Times carried the headline
  "South East Homes Need Scaled Down".
  We read that the Secretary of State for the Environment had
  "scaled down by up to a third the number of extra new houses expected to be needed to cope with demand in London and the South-East."
  I was pleased to read that the first two of the three reasons given by the Secretary of State were precisely the points that I made in my speech. The first was:
  "Between 30,000 and 50,000 units are likely to become available in the form of empty residences coming onto the market."
  The second was:
  "More land is available and more houses are under construction or are more likely to be built by 1990 than had been expected."
  It seems to me that those in the Department who deal with forecasts of the number of homes needed had not consulted adequately those in charge of monitoring county structure plans, who deal with the land supply and the number of homes that counties think will be needed. The figures did not add up. The fact that the figures have been scaled down is welcome, and I hope that we shall get even more accurate figures in future. However, there appears to have been substantial confusion about the real need and demand for housing, and it is about time that that confusion was sorted out.
  There is one other relevant statistic on planning. The London Planning Advisory Committee, a body established by the Government, reported on 23 May. It had surveyed land in London and found enough for between 225,000 and 300,000 new homes in Greater London by the year 2000—enough for London to cope with its own growth. I was therefore interested to read an article by the Secretary of State in today's edition of The Daily Telegraph. That gave the old figures, whereas this afternoon he gave us the new figures, which presumably means that he was working on last week's brief in the article and the figures were not corrected. The article said that it was expected that only 150,000 to 200,000 of the 600,000 new homes needed could be supplied in London. However, according to the LPAC figure it now appears that 250,000 will be available in London, and the total

  1153
  figure for the south-east has been scaled down so that it is now as low as 500,000. I am sure that hon. Members who represent the home counties would like to know whether the LPAC assessment is accurate and what the implications are for green field development in the south east.
  There is a postscript to what the LPAC said. The Secretary of State ducked this issue completely in his speech. It recommended that 100,000 of the new homes for London should be affordable. The Secretary of State went through his list of measures, but one cannot legislate to deregulate the housing sector and take away rent controls without reducing the chance of providing homes at a cost that people can afford.
  I welcome the fact that planning authorities are to be given more power. Of course there should be district plans, and decentralisation is vital. There should be decentralisation to the regions, too, but the Government have not helped that by abolishing the strategic planning powers in Greater London and the metropolitan areas. The sooner we get back to strategic regional planning, the better.
  We should also include in the evaluation of development the quality of life. It is vital that planning and development are seen to be qualitatively acceptable. People in villages, towns and cities all over Britain want to live in pleasant environments. It was ironic to wake up this morning to hear, as colleagues must also have done, the Prime Minister speaking from Toronto, saying that what was wonderful about Toronto was the quality of life there and how clean it was—as I understood it, that was even without her picking up the litter.
  If the market is the arbiter of planning policy, quality of life considerations are not allowed to determine policy. That is a fundamental flaw. Indeed, it is not even a free and perfect market because it will be distorted by those with the money—the developers—who will be unfairly competing against those with a need for housing and who want most an environmentally acceptable environment. As the argument about the market is flawed, the Government should no longer adhere to it. We must re-evaluate these criteria seriously and urgently.
  By contrast, I do not think that there has been any dispute about the Government's objectives for housing policy. They are clear: first, to permit the market for private rented housing to operate freely; secondly, to reduce the amount of housing owned by councils by diversification of rented social housing; and, thirdly, to bring in private money. The Minister for Housing and Planning made clear the Government's primary motivation in the Committee debate on the Housing Bill in February when he stated:
  "at this stage the primary purpose is to introduce greater plurality to the near monopoly holders, the municipal sector."
  —[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 25 February 1988; c. 1166.]
  Tenants' choice is a mechanism—it is not an objective. That is clearly reflected in the fact that the voting system has now been changed and that it is so biased in favour of transfers and not in favour of people having a democratic choice—
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: It is not voting.
  Mr. Hughes: No, it is not voting, but the Government would have us believe that it is a system like voting. Also it is principally the landlords' choice, not the tenants'. No doubt we shall debate that issue again next week.
  Given the Government's objectives, the chaos in their housing policies has been amazing. First, in the general election campaign the Government were all over the place with their housing policies, just as they were with their education policies. The Prime Minister had to back-track, clarify and modify.
  The Minister for Housing and Planning (Mr. William Waldegrave): On that occasion, "all over the place" was also first place.
  Mr. Hughes: The Government always argue that one. The Minister knows that since 1979 his party has gone to the country three times and that every time its share of the vote has decreased. One political distortion that people outside the House may never understand is that in our general elections fewer people can vote for the Conservative party, but more Conservative Members may arrive in this place. It is a pretty funny system when seen from outside, let alone from inside. I do not accept the Minister's proposition. The Conservative party may be in first place, but that is under an equally perverted voting system.
  The second cause of chaos and confusion was that, having forecast a year of massive legislation for the Department of the Environment, the Department was short of civil servants and had to recruit staff from the private sector. Then it rushed out the Housing Bill, got it wrong, and had to reprint it. Then the Government did not make their housing policy clear until they were in Committee. The Minister had to perform an exercise that looked a little like trying to discern the shape of Dover castle as one crosses the Channel on a cloudy day—as one gets nearer, one sees a bit more, until eventually one can see what shape the castle is—or the legislation. The Government's housing policy was clearly being made, in the now famous phrase, "on the hoof".
  Mr. Battle: It is now a fallen monument.
  Mr. Hughes: The hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) adds from a sedentary position that the Government's housing policy is now a fallen monument.
  The Government then said that there would be a social landlords' charter before Report stage. Not only has one not materialised, but what was pretended to be it was not one. Next, we were promised more support for tenants' co-operatives and a quick and speedy review. However, it has just been announced that that will not be completed until December, when presumably the Housing Bill will be law.
  Two Ministers gave answers to my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) and to myself about homelessness legislation saying that the Government had no plans to change the laws—
  Mr. Anthony Coombs rose—
  Mr. Hughes: No, I shall not give way, because I do not have the time—
  Mr. Coombs: It is on that specific point.
  Mr. Hughes: No, I shall not give way. The Government said that they did not have any plans to change the law on homelessness or the Housing Act 1985, but last week the Secretary of State said that they did.
  Lastly, the Secretary of State for Wales then came up with a further idea for giving away council houses. Interestingly, that idea was nearly approved by the Wilson Labour Government and I can produce evidence of that. The idea now appears to be going before the Cabinet.
  The Government's housing policy has changed fundamentally during the past year, and even now the Government still do not seem to have caught up with themselves.
  We have identified homelessness as an issue. I must advise the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) that he was not right—all local authorities have catered in their properties for many people who are homeless. The reality is that, for various reasons, there are now more homeless people. Housing them should be the Government's first priority.
  We must deal with the cost of housing, both for rent and for sale. House price inflation has now been taken out of the retail price index and is thus not reflected in the normal inflation figures. If it were, the inflation figures would be much higher. House price inflation is enhanced by policies for housing which must be reformed. I noticed with interest that the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden)—a Conservative Member—argued in The Daily Telegraph of Tuesday 7 June 1988, first that mortgage interest tax relief should be abolished, and secondly:
  "mortgage relief conflicts head-on with every tenet of modern Tory philosophy."
  He effectively argued that it is inconsistent with the self-help, non-dependency culture. On the same day, the editorial of The Daily Telegraph made a similar point, stating:
  "The time has surely come when the Government should think again, as Mr. Walden argues, about the sense of subsidising house purchase regardless of the circumstances of the purchaser."
  When it comes to the crunch, the Government avoid the issue or do not honour their promises. That has happened in relation to the green belt, and over planning. The Secretary of State voted for the Okehampton Bypass (Confirmation of Orders) Bill and for the Hampshire (Lyndhurst Bypass) Bill, breaching respectively a national park and the New Forest. When it comes to housing policy and price rises in the rented sector—
  Mr. Irvine Patnick rose—
  Mr. Hughes: No, I shall not give way.
  When it comes to housing policy and price rises in the rented sector and when an opportunity to deal with that is offered by legislating for affordable rents, the Secretary of State rejects it. When it comes to price rises in the private sector of owner-occupation, and when an opportunity to curb that through reducing mortgage interest tax relief is offered to the Secretary of State he rejects it, even when that opportunity is put forward from within his own party.
  The Government's policies on housing and planning have been in amazing chaos for the past 12 months. I only hope that the Government now sort themselves out, deal with the real problems and honour the obligations that they, as a Government, have to the British people.
  5.28 pm
  Mr. Andrew MacKay: The most pressing problem in my constituency, and elsewhere in the county of Berkshire, is massive development. It has spawned a slightly offensive new phrase—that we are all Nimbys—we are all Not-in-My-Back-Yard followers. We find that offensive, for reasons that I shall outline briefly to the House.
  Successive hon. Members of all parties have made it clear that the major problem is high house prices, especially in the south-east. We can take as an example Bracknell district council, which is the authority covering the area where most of the extra houses will be built and where many extra houses have already been built. That district council has been forward-looking in its house building policy. It has a certain amount of land that it has owned for several years, which it has sold to developers at historic land cost price on the clear understanding that that price will be reflected in the house prices to enable first-time buyers to purchase those houses. More to the point, it has insisted that the purchasers be nominated by the district council and that those nominated should be either existing tenants or people on the council house waiting lists.
  For those who cannot afford to purchase outright with the help of a mortgage, even at those relatively modest house purchase prices—for the Thames valley—the district council has agreed to retain various chunks of the houses—50 per cent., 40 per cent. or 30 per cent.—with rent to be paid on that percentage. As the owners of those houses prosper, they can purchase the extra sections from the district council. That shows the progressive and imaginative polices of our district council. We are still prepared to build houses—not council houses, which are not in the interests of the community, but low-cost houses for purchase.
  In the past 15 years, we have agreed to a large number of houses, but enough is enough. We have some responsibility to future generations to keep some green fields in Berkshire. I readily acknowledge what my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) said: agricultural production will reduce and some agricultural land must be brought under development, but that should be in rural areas, not areas such as central Berkshire. If we build on the remaining few green-field sites, we shall have a long urban sprawl from London, through Slough and Reading, to Bristol, with no decent environment whatever.
  It is all very well for developers to build houses, but there is no infrastructure to go with them. We have overcrowded roads and terrific pressure on social services, hospitals and schools which make life extremely difficult. It is in the national interest not to continue developing Berkshire at a fast rate.
  Unusually, I fall out with my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne when he says that we have many successful companies, particularly high-tech companies, in the south-east, so unemployed men and women in a region of high unemployment should get on their bikes and move to the south-east, and we should build extra houses for them. If we take that to its logical conclusion, we shall have an environmental wasteland in the south-east and an industrial desert in the north. That is not the sort of country where I want to live; nor do I believe it is the sort of country where the great majority of people wish to live.

  1157
  I believe in market forces and democracy. Locally elected people should decide where they want extra companies or houses to be built. It is more than likely that, in an area of negative unemployment, such as Bracknell and the royal borough of Windsor, the planning authority will not encourage extra development of houses, factories and offices. Conversely, a local councillor in a region of high unemployment will bend over backwards to grant planning permission for housing, factory and office developments.
  It must be in the national interest to encourage more firms to move to areas of high unemployment. That does not mean following the old path of bribes and regional grants, which barely worked. It means allowing market forces to work. We in Bracknell do not want any more factories or offices. We have negative unemployment, rising house prices and an overstrained infrastrucure.
  Recently a multinational company chairman told me, "The district council will not give us planning permission to build new headquarters. I must warn you, Mr. MacKay, that if you do not pressurise it into giving planning permission, there will be 260 job losses in Bracknell and we shall move elsewhere." I said that we would be delighted for the company to move elsewhere, because we had a large number of companies which found it difficult to recruit staff, so if my constituents were made unemployed they would get a nice redundancy package—it would be like winning the pools—and the following week they would find new jobs in Bracknell and there would be less pressure on our infrastructure. He turned white and said, "This has been a waste of a rather expensive lunch," and it had been.
  We must allow market forces to operate. If the Thames valley discourages the building of more offices and factories, and if house prices rise so that employers cannot find skilled workers and managers, companies will increasingly move to other regions which will improve employment opportunities elsewhere. I am glad to say that several companies in my constituency have expanded into other parts where there is high unemployment. That reduces unit labour costs and makes the enterprise more efficient.
  Mr. Anthony Coombs: Why will it reduce unit labour costs?
  Mr. MacKay: I will tell my hon. Friend. Companies are having to bribe people to come to the south-east with extortionately high salaries, which are out of all proportion to the work, and that makes them uneconomic in world markets. It is much wiser to pay the going market rate in another part where there are lower house prices and less pressure on mortgages. That makes evident sense.
  Mr. Richard Holt: Can my hon. Friend explain how he takes his philosophy into the future for young people in the Bracknell area? Does he say that, becuse there are no houses and no new jobs, they must migrate, or will he forcibly retire their parents to enable them to take their parents' jobs? I find his whole philosophy amazing.
  Mr. MacKay: There is a great shortage of people at all levels to work in Bracknell, and any youngster leaving school, college or university can readily find a job on a high salary. We have no shortage of employment—
  Mr. Holt: My hon. Friend could supply those jobs to my youngsters in the north.
  Mr. MacKay: My hon. Friend surprises me. I thought I had made it abundantly clear that I am encouraging companies to move to the north and employ his constituents. If he does not want his constituents to be employed, it is hardly my fault. Perhaps they should go to Bury instead. With the greatest respect to my hon. Friend, he has missed the point.
  Mr. Soley: Let me help the hon. Gentleman, who is getting into difficulties. He is basically right, and he is making the point that I made earlier, but he is trying to pretend that the intervention of local authorities, Members of Parliament or the Government makes for a free market. The whole essence of what we are saying is that the crisis in the south-east is caused by the Government letting loose an unrestrained free-market juggernaut. That is why the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) is worried. He is right to say that this has gone too far and that the Government must intervene and abandon their philosophy.
  Mr. MacKay: The hon. Gentleman grossly exaggerates when he says that there is a crisis in the south-east. If we allow local authorities to decide planning permission without intervention by the Secretary of State on appeal, a large number of companies will inevitably move to areas of high unemployment and that will be to the nation's benefit. I believe that in the months ahead that will happen increasingly.
  We must take into account a further national factor. The Government, rightly, are a strong supporter of inner-city rejuvenation, and that is applauded by hon. Members on both sides of the House. If developers have a choice between a green-field site in Berkshire and reclaiming land in the inner city, they will inevitably choose a green-field site in Berkshire.
  Mr. Patnick: At one stage in my career I was a builder—
  Mr. Tony Banks: A jerry-builder.
  Mr. Patnick: Far from it, dear boy.
  A contractor is drawn to an area by the price of land and communications. From London, it takes one hour 38 minutes to Doncaster, two and a half hours to Sheffield, and how many years to Langbaurgh I do not know. So communications is one of the things which determine where people go. We have beautiful green fields around Sheffield. It is a lovely place to live, but it is difficult to get to Sheffield from here. Sadly, London appears to be the centre of the commercial universe.
  Mr. MacKay: My hon. Friend has made a valid point about communications. I am not so sure that London is any longer the centre of the universe, as he suggests. The congestion on our roads is considerable, and the environment in the south-east is no longer so attractive.
  We are told at times by Ministers and by developers that it is essential for the headquarters of many companies to be in the golden triangle formed by London, the M3 and

  1159
  the M4 motorways and to be within easy distance of Heathrow. We are told that, if companies are not allowed to develop there, they will move not to other parts of the United Kingdom but abroad. I do not believe that is so.
  Mr. Holt rose—
  Mr. MacKay: No, I will not give way; I am answering the valid intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick ).
  Because of the economic policies of the Government, multinational and indigenous companies decide to invest in and to stay in this country because there is an enterprise culture, a healthy tax regime and good industrial relations. Therefore, if companies cannot develop and expand in the south-east, I do not believe that they will go to Europe instead. They will go to other parts of the United Kingdom, to the obvious benefit of those areas.
  Modern high-tech communications are another important factor. No longer is it necessary to have everyone on one site. Therefore, the Government should move more civil servants away from their high cost offices in Whitehall. There is no longer a need to have a large number of civil servants in London. With high technology, it would be possible for civil servants in different parts of the country to communicate with one another. Therefore, there could be more diversification of companies in the private sector too.
  Mr. Anthony Coombs: If it is so logical, according to my hon. Friend's argument, for people not to pay £10 per square foot for high technology space in his constituency and not to face the staff shortages which he has described, and if equally it is easy to develop a business with its headquarters in the south but with all the production units in the north where it is more profitable, why did not the business man with whom he was having lunch say, "I am very sorry, but I am going to leave your constituency and go to the more profitable climate in the north"?
  Mr. MacKay: Education has to be done. There are two factors. First, time moves on and only now are employers realising just what high unit labour costs they are experiencing and how difficult it is to attract staff. Secondly, they are realising what high rental costs they have to pay. My hon. Friends who represent northern constituencies will confirm that there is also a psychological factor in that too many people who are running major companies in the south-east rarely head north and have a false idea about the enterprise culture in the north and in the regions. There is a job to be done by local authorities, by Ministers and by hon. Members on both sides to persuade the people who can influence commercial moves to look round the regions.
  I was speaking about inner-city rejuvenation when my hon. Friend the Member for Hallam intervened. I believe that the Government's inner-city policy, which I wish well, will be only partially successful until we discourage building on green-field sites. Far more can be done in the inner cities. I remind the Minister that we are not Luddite in Berkshire, but we do not want any more development. We are building for first-time buyers because we acknowledge the house cost problem, but for environmental, local and national reasons we believe that excessive development in Berkshire has to stop quickly before further damage is done.
  5.44 pm
  Mr. John Battle: It is essential to root housing policies on a careful assessment of the real needs of the people for decent and appropriate housing at a price they can afford, to buy or to rent. That policy should also take careful consideration of the present condition of the housing stock in both the public and private sectors. All that the Government seem to be offering is a housing marketing and sales programme based on the worship of the idol of the free market. It is surprising that this afternoon devotees of that very idol on the Conservative Benches are at last beginning to challenge the policy.
  The policy was given its social face by the Minister. The Minister brought us the idea of the social landlord, but when the Secretary of State spoke it was clear that he was underlining the word "market" in the phrase "the social market" and insisting that market policies be forced upon his Minister. So we never saw the social landlords charter that was promised in Committee.
  Local authorities, in co-operation with the Department of the Environment, are drawing up their bids on the basis of the latest available research into the condition of the housing stock and the needs of the people for decent housing. I hope that the Minister will take the local research seriously and not suggest, as the Department, the Secretary of State and he himself have done recently, that the homeless figures are bogus and have not been drawn up properly. That is not the case.
  Let us take a simple example of conditions in Leeds, part of which I represent, which has a population of 750,000. The Secretary of State said that in the next Session the Government would bring forward proposals to deal with empty properties in the public sector. I hope that he will bring forward measures to deal with all empty properties. I refer him to the fact that in Leeds there are 20,400 unfit private sector properties and 56,500 private sector properties in need of repair. The cost of repairing those houses is assessed at over £5,000 per house. There are also many houses in multiple occupation, of which 9,000 require works costing approximately £12,000 each to bring them to an acceptable standard.
  One problem in the public sector is no longer referred to in Government policy. I am referring to the system-built or non-traditional dwellings that were built through a tied-aid programme after the war. The Government told local authorities that because of the shortage of the basic materials of bricks and timber they could have their housing investment programmes enhanced if they provided system-built housing. Many local authorities of different political persuasions have been left with a legacy of houses that need repair. When will the Government deal with that problem?
  In Leeds there are 28,000 non-traditional properties awaiting repair or replacement. Major investment is needed for the repairs. The expenditure on individual properties is beyond the means of individuals, whether owners or tenants. If repairs are needed to owner-occupied houses—for example substantial repairs to the roof., or major improvements—usually this expenditure takes place after the house has been sold. It is carried on the mortgage; it is not paid by the individual at one time.
  The need for a proper housing investment programme has been developing since 1979, but the response to that need has been far from adequate to tackle the backlog. Even now we urge the Government to consider restoring

  1161
  the improvement grants for public and private sector housing that they have cut from housing investment allocations. Why not consider allowing renovation programmes, public and private, to get moving? They have been held back by the Government. Why not provide a realistic housing investment programme settlement to enable national resources to be channelled through local authorities, which seem to be rediscovered by Conservative Members when we discuss planning issues, and allow them to put resources into public and private housing stock?
  Mr. Dennis Turner: My hon. Friend has raised a very important matter. I want to reinforce the case that my hon. Friend makes for Leeds, and to add to the catalogue of crisis the plight of the west midlands. The housing forum of the west midlands is not made up of Lefty Labour authorities. It is represented by the county councils of Hereford and Worcester, Shropshire, Staffordshire, Warwickshire and the metropolitan districts of Birmingham, Coventry, Dudley, Sandwell, Solihull, Walsall and Wolverhampton. It is unreal to sit in this Chamber listening to speeches about the positiveness of the Government's policy on housing when in a document recently published—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. Interventions must be brief, and that is enough.
  Mr. Battle: My hon. Friend was making the point that everyone seems to accept that there is need for investment in the housing stock to provide for the needs of the people, whether it is the Duke of Edinburgh's report, the "Faith in the City" report or the analyses of local authorities throughout the country.
  It is not just a question of numbers. I can refer the House to a particular family who live in a system-built home. They live in a Myton house, which has been classified by the Department of the Environment in its survey as defectively built. It is a council house. They cannot afford to buy it because of their circumstances, because the wage-earners in that family are unemployed.
  Mr. Morgan: On a point of law, I think my hon. Friend meant that the houses were defectively designed, not defectively built. There is no compensation for houses such as there are in my constituency, which were not defectively designed, but were defectively built.
  Mr. Battle: I shall not delay the House by discussing defective properties, but I meant that the houses were defectively built. Some were defectively designed and some were defectively built.
  Mr. Patnick: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Tony Banks: He built them.
  Mr. Battle: I shall give way in a moment.
  If that family could afford to buy the house, they would not be able to get a mortgage precisely because those homes have been classified as defective by the Department of the Environment. If they had bought a defective house they would not be able to sell it to someone else. Therefore, they would not be able to move and would be trapped, because the house was classified as defective. If the local authority or others cannot carry out substantial repairs to
  1162
  those defective properties—and the backlog is massive—people will be condemned to live in defective properties until the end of the century. People will have to live in houses that are bad for their health because of the lack of heating systems. They will have no hope of living in a decent and appropriate home.
  That applies to some 18,000 people in Leeds who are on the waiting list for a decent and appropriate home. Elderly people cannot get up and down stairs in blocks of flats and need ground floor accommodation. That right should be met and not written off as a statistic. There are 14,500 people on transfer lists waiting to be transferred to housing that suits their needs, as family needs change as people have families, as families grow up and as people become elderly. The figures that I have quoted for Leeds do not take account of the rising tide of homelessness in our society.
  Mr. Patnick: I thank the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) for his courteous remarks. As a senior Member, he sets a bad example. I ask the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) to tell us who supervised the building of those council houses that were badly built? Who paid for them? Who wrote the cheque? The fact remains that they were supervised by councils and by their employees who were satisfied when they were built. Suddenly, we decide that they were not up to standard. It is a bit late in the day.
  Mr. Battle: It may be worth tabling a motion to discuss defective housing with the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) and other hon. Members. I seem to recall that the Building Research Establishment gave certificates stating that those houses were in decent order when they were built. The defects were detected after some years of wear and tear. I suggest simply that the defects were not known, or the building was badly supervised. I am not going into a full account of defective housing.
  Most people feel that the prospect of having a decent home that is appropriate to their family and personal needs is disappearing before the end of the century in city areas such as my constituency. The Government amendment to our motion refers to
  "a return of prosperity across the whole country".
  That prosperity does not apply to everyone.
  Mr. Tony Banks: Look at the Embankment.
  Mr. Battle: As my hon. Friend says, hon. Members should try asking those who have to sleep out whether they feel that they are participating in that return of prosperity across the country.
  Mr. Holt: Does the hon. Gentleman agree, or disagree, with the Labour-dominated northern regional council report this year, which says that the north of England is improving under the economic policies of the Government?
  Mr. Battle: I am glad that the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) put it in those terms. The situation is improving, but we are slightly tired of hearing remarks about prosperity across the country. The Prime Minister says that everyone is participating in the increased wealth in Britain. Clearly, everyone is not participating in that wealth. It is unfair to make an inclusive statement that

  1163
  suggests that everyone is sharing in it when some people have been excluded from the wealth that Conservative Members claim exists.
  Finally, I must address the issue of homelessness. In the late 1960s and the early 1970s I spent some time working with organisations such as the Cyrenians which tried to deal with homelessness on our streets. Homeless people used to be elderly single men who were alcoholics or who had been broken by the wars. Now, homeless people are predominantly young people and people with families. I never imagined that that would happen in my lifetime.
  I believe that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) has already asked this question, but will the Minister tell the House whether the Government intend to change the law on statutory provision for the homeless in our society and to weaken it to reduce the number of homeless people by the statistical exercises that were used in the unemployment debate? Just as the millions of unemployed do not have jobs, and still exist in areas such as my constituency, so the homeless will still be sleeping out on the streets, to the shame of all hon. Members, who at least return to their beds after our debates. Will the Minister confirm that he does not intend to repeal the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act and to limit local authority provision of temporary shelter? It is not just a bed for the night that is required. Surely human beings have a basic right to decent and appropriate housing which they can afford to rent or buy.
  I ask the Minister to make it absolutely clear to the homeless and those who work with them that the Government are prepared to honour their responsibilities and will not renege on them.
  6 pm
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes: It has become clear during our debates on housing that the Opposition have not bothered to understand the Housing Bill. The performance which some of us sat through, hour after hour, last Tuesday going through into Wednesday, made it clear that the Labour party does not have a serious strategy in this important area of policy to put right the serious problems which we all know exist in our inner cities, especially London. What the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) said shows that, far from having anything like a serious strategy, the Labour party has not tried in policy terms to deal with this important area.
  We have heard the trivial remark that the word "homelessness" does not appear in the Housing Bill. That is insulting to the homeless because it suggests that the Bill does not deal with the problems that lead to homelessness. If Opposition Members had bothered to listen to what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said today, they would know that many of the Bill's provisions will help homeless people. No doubt we shall return to those arguments when we debate the Housing Bill next week.
  We must examine Labour's record on this subject. I refer to its record not when in government, or indeed what it has promised it will do, but right now. In London, the Labour party controls many councils, and some of the worst slum landlords in London are Labour-controlled councils. They suffer from bad management and a work force which does not work.
  The London borough of Lambeth is plagued by strikes. When people in the housing department moved to new
  1164
  refurbished offices the alarm system was still being worked on, so they came out on strike, on and off, for two months. Never mind negotiating and getting on with the job of serving people who need help in Lambeth, they just went on strike. When they are not on strike, they have an unparalleled sickness record. The housing department has gone through three directors in as many years.
  Worse, a system designed to help people in sheltered units and the elderly living alone in flats was delayed for years. Now, after five years, that Piper system has been installed in only a small number of sheltered units. Because of political interference—it is difficult sometimes to tell the difference between officers and councillors in Lambeth—the council refused to offer the system to surrounding blocks of flats where old people live by themselves because it was thought that that would somehow be helping the private sector and people who own their own homes. Labour's record is shameful.
  There is political interference. For example, Councillor Hazel Smith, when chairman of the housing committee, destroyed officials' confidence by giving instructions to officials at all levels in the housing department. She destroyed their confidence to get on with the job, which is why I say it is difficult to tell the difference between councillors and officers.
  When Councillor Fred Taggart was chairman of the housing committee, he said that Vietnamese refugees, whom we all want to help, were fleeing a perfectly reasonable regime and that they were therfore not political refugees. Because of his refusal to help and his instructions to housing officials, 80 and 90-year-old women from Vietnam are living in bed-and-breakfast accommodation to this day. He is also a senior officer in the London borough of Hackney.
  Mr. Tony Banks: Bearing in mind old Pol Pot in No. 10, perhaps the hon. Gentleman has got a point. The hon. Gentleman has given us a lot of anecdotes. Will he tell us the source of this illuminating material?
  Mr. Hughes: Anybody who knows how Labour councils hound and harass their staff if they are not members of the Labour party would think me mad if I revealed my source. It is interesting, however, that the hon. Gentleman should challenge my source rather than the veracity of what I am saying. He must be patient as there is lots more where that comes from. If the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) thinks that my information is not correct, he should find other facts and tell us that what I am saying is not true.
  Lambeth council cannot use its housing stock effectively. Joe Hunte court in Knights hill is a sheltered unit reserved exclusively for Afro-Caribbean use. Some hon. Members may say that that is the wrong way in which to use sheltered housing stock, but we should put that argument aside and assume that it is done for the best of motives. The council could not find enough Afro-Caribbean people who qualified for places, so it left at least six units empty. It preferred to leave units empty than to give them to people who desperately needed them. For all I know, some are still empty.
  We all know how much it costs to convert a flat for use by a disabled person, but Lambeth does not have a central record of where its disabled units are, so, when somebody moves out, the council cannot put another disabled person in. The result is often that units are squatted and

  1165
  vandalised. Expensive units, paid for by ratepayers or the Government, are therfore no longer available to disabled people, but the council says that it wants more money.
  About a year ago, councillors, including the mayor, and council officers went around the Tulse hill estate to see how tenants were getting on. They found that most of the people who lived there were not on the council's roll of tenants, and that there were tenants of whom they had never heard in flats that they expected to be empty. They discovered that rent books were changing hands for money. In short, on that estate, as with many others, Lambeth has lost control of its housing stock.
  Mr. George Howarth: The hon. Gentleman mentioned Lambeth's record on adaptations for the disabled. Was he arguing that more, or less, money should be spent on such adaptations?
  Mr. Hughes: That is a silly point. Of course, we want money to be spent on the disabled. What I am saying is that when we spend it, we should not spend it on people such as those who run Lambeth council who plainly do not know how to use it.
  Inner London is littered with empty blocks of flats in areas of highest stress. That blows out of the water, as does my example of disabled units, the claim that we need more Government money. The examples of empty flats go back further than that. For instance, in Turner road in east London, late 19th-century properties owned by Tower Hamlets council have been empty for 15 years, although I do not blame the Liberals, who control it, for that. When housing associations and charities have sought control of those properties, at least temporarily, to use them for homeless people, Tower Hamlets council has refused.
  In case some hon. Members think that that is only a short period, let me give an example involving a longer period. During the past 24 years, the people of King George street, London, SE10, have seen Governments come and go, they have seen policies come and go, but they have seen two properties, owned by the Inner London education authority, stand empty. To suggest, as Opposition Members do, that those properties would be brought back into use if only the Government would provide more money is nonsense and insulting to homeless people in London. If Opposition Members would get off their butts and make sure that those properties were brought back into use, they would be able to talk about this subject, but, until they do, they have no status at all to do so.
  There is an absence of Labour strategy. The Leader of the Opposition, in his speech—presumably made on the hoof—at the Institute of Housing last week, referred to the crux of everything that we have heard from the Labour party today and in the Housing Bill Committee. All that we have heard is that councils must invest massive amounts of money in council housing, which would be a return to the sort of management that is doing so well in the London borough of Lambeth. That is an insult to those people who need genuine help. The Leader of the Opposition has understood what is needed, but it is a pity that his hon. Friends who speak on housing have not. He said:
  1166
  "Those policies for housing must include the sensitivity to calculate whether forms of provision that might meet simple demands for accommodation also meet the more complex need for homes."
  That is absolutely right. The crux of the Housing Bill is that is provides variety. We are seeking to provide social landlords of various sorts, expand housing associations, bring back private renting and protect private tenants from being harassed. We are seeking to expand the provision of housing in London to help the homeless. It is Opposition Members, with no imagination, policies or strategy, who would keep people away from any solution to the problems of housing and homelessness.
  6.12 pm
  Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I shall not follow the comments of the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes). One speech by a Conservative Member which rang a bell and deserves study is that by the hon. Member for Berkshire, East (Mr. MacKay), who raised a number of important points of which I hope the Government will take note.
  The motion combines the housing problems of south-east England and of other parts of these islands. The problem came home to me graphically the other day when a taxi driver mentioned that, some time ago, he had sold for £80,000 the council house that he had bought for £10,000. He then moved in with his mother-in-law, whom he and his wife clearly expected to die fairly soon, helped her to buy the flat in which they were living, and expected to have about £150,000 at his disposal before long. He then hoped to move from London to either Cornwall or Wales, buying a property for £50,000, having £100,000 in the bank and living on the interest.
  That brings home the problem that is hitting my part of the world at present and is affecting other areas, including Cornwall, the Lake District, East Anglia and other parts of Wales. The real crisis in rural Wales is the cheque-book invasion—by people who are selling out, particularly in south-east England, and buying up housing stock, as a result of which the prices are shooting up. In the past three months, house prices have gone up by about 20 per cent. One of my constituents has been gazumped three times in six months in trying to buy a property in the constituency, and he can no longer compete. That is the problem facing young married people in my area, where incomes are very low.
  The problem is exacerbated by the amalgamation of estate agents. Large companies are now moving in so that, as soon as a house becomes available in some of the rural areas, it is immediately advertised in conurbations such as Manchester, Cardiff, Birmingham and London. The cheque-book invasion starts before local people have a chance to compete in the market place. That is having a massive effect on the community in my area and a greater effect in such places as the Lake District, East Anglia and Cornwall. It has an even greater effect in areas where there is a linguistic difference. Hon. Members can well imagine the effect that that can have on a community.
  We have heard about the way in which wealth is apparently sweeping across these islands. A press report last February stated that Wales had slumped in the national wages league. According to a report last month in a newspaper covering north Wales, family incomes are less than £80 a week. On average, wages in Wales are £183 per week, according to the new earnings survey last year,

  1167
  compared with £246 per week in south-east England, but many areas of Wales have substantially lower wage levels. In the Arfon area, in my constituency, 43 per cent. of families have less than £80 a week, as the press report states.
  There is high unemployment in that area. In the adjoining area of Dwyfor, the unemployment figure last winter was 24·7 per cent., yet that area has the longest waiting list for houses in Pwllheli and Dwyfor that I can remember, as people turn to the public sector to obtain rented accommodation because they cannot compete with people moving in to buy private housing stock. It is a classic example of uneven development and of the core-periphery relationship. We are very much on the periphery.
  The situation in my area is exacerbated by the problem of second homes, although that problem is not restricted to my area. In Dwyfor, 17·5 per cent. of the housing stock consists of second homes and, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas), the figure is 16·8 per cent. More than 50 per cent. of some villages consist of second homes. That means that the services disappear in winter and the population then wants to move from the villages to the towns because the basic services are not available, which worsens the situation.
  A package of policies could be implemented to reduce the impact of this problem. First, we must consider planning control when a house changes from being a first home to a second home, just as we do when a house becomes a shop or office. Secondly, there should be greater resources for local authorities to intervene to buy up houses to let them in areas where local people could not otherwise compete. That has already started. Some £200,000 has been allocated in the Dwyfor area by the Welsh Office for that purpose, but we need more resources to make an impact. Thirdly, the use of section 52 powers needs to be clarified. The Lake District tries to use those powers considerably to ensure that local authorities can help local people to have a first option on new housing stock in that area.
  In Wales, we have a severe problem with unfit houses. A recent house condition survey in Wales showed that 70,000 houses were unfit, out of a total housing stock of about 1 million. The cost of putting those right would be £1·25 billion, which is an enormous sum. That sum reflects a backlog over a number of years. Once again, the Dwfor area in my constituency has the worst figures. A quarter of all the housing units were deemed to be unfit. We expect the valley industrial areas to be the worst, yet a scattered rural area such as Dwyfor came out worst in that survey.
  Mr. Morgan: May I draw to the House's attention an item in yesterday's Western Mail which shows that a house in Aberaman in the Cynon valley is on sale for £2,550? It is a partially improved miner's cottage. That sum probably represents the weekly increase in house prices in parts of the home counties. The reason why one can buy such a property for that sum is that local people do not have the incomes to undertake the major repairs required. As a result, we in Wales do not wish to be patronised, as we were at the Conservative party Welsh conference last weekend, when the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said:
  1168
  "If you are going to spread prosperity more widely in the North, in Wales, in Scotland, you need the South-East to be prosperous…Its wealth helps pay for the policies to make the rest of the country more wealthy."
  Mr. Wigley: I accept that. There is a problem in that buying these houses involves the cost of renovation, not simply the cost of buying. Many in the valleys of industrial south Wales are worried that people will move in because they have the resources to buy up these houses cheaply and renovate them, so that local people are priced out because they do not have enough combined resources both to buy and to renovate. This is also a worry in the Swansea valleys, in Glamorgan and in other areas of Wales from which I have had representations.
  Some bodies are trying to overcome these problems —for example, the housing associations. Some of them are doing excellent work in buying up, renovating and letting property, but there is a great danger that, if housing associations have to go to the market to get capital and therefore have to pay the going rate for that capital, the inevitable rents will be out of the reach of many of the people who need such housing. A housing association in my constituency has done a survey of the income level of its tenants, and the average is £60 a week. Such an income will not fund the loans that have to be paid at commercial levels.
  Dr. Dafydd Elis Thomas: I am aware that there is not a Welsh Office Minister on the Government Front Bench, but I hope that the Minister for Housing and Planning, or a Welsh Minister, will look into this problem. There is a need for the Housing Corporation, as it has been restructured in Wales, to be a broker between commercial funds and housing associations to enable adequate additional funds to be both made available from the commercial sector and distributed evenly among the housing associations in Wales.
  Mr. Wigley: We need that mechanism, but we also need to make sure that the interest rates do not lead to a rent set at a level above the means of those who need the housing stock prepared by housing associations.
  There is also worry in my area about the implications of the wholesale disposal of council estates that is implicit in the Housing Bill. There is a worry that, some five or six years after some of the more attractive rural council estates have been bought up, commercial companies will sell out to the cheque-book invasion and there will be even less rented housing stock available for local people. The answer in such areas does not come from rented private houses, because those who have private rented stock want to retain it for the holiday home market in summer, when they can get a higher rent.
  All these problems come together, but planning can overcome them. First, we need primarily to build to meet the local need, and the hon. Member for Berkshire, East made the same point in different circumstances. Planning decisions need to be taken locally, as has been stressed by a number of hon. Members, and the Secretary of State must not overrule planning refusals unless there is an overwhelming case for doing so.
  Mr. Ian McCartney: In relation to planning matters in north Wales as in my constituency, is not another restraint on new development the incursion of British Coal's Opencast Executive, which blatantly affects planning applications on green belt land and land next to

  1169
  urban and semi-urban development by the use of large-scale opencast developments, which has a major effect on the environment and the community in the development of new housing and the retention of old housing?
  Mr. Wigley: That is a worry in Clwyd and other parts of south Wales. It is important that the interests of the community are taken into account.
  I warn the Government of the tensions that are building up because of the cheque-book invasion. People are calling for protection against that invasion in the same way as the people in the Isle of Wight and the Channel Islands called for the protection of their housing stocks. We realise that there are impracticalities. However, tensions and feelings are building up, and the Government must realise that they need to make sure that local communities, whether in rural Wales, Cornwall, East Anglia or the Lake District, have enough protection to ensure that their people have a roof over their heads.
  Mr. Tony Banks: Something else is happening. Because of the prices in the south-east, people can make a computation between the cost of moving right out of London—often into south Wales—and commuting back to London, and still be in profit. That has put another pressure on prices of housing in places such as south Wales.
  Mr. Wigley: There are great pressures on local people on lower income levels. One realises that income levels are higher in the south-east because of the higher costs, but when such people come in to our areas, it is difficult for our young people and young families to buy. The Government's policy to maximise owner-occupation will not be achieved in such circumstances. There will be tension unless there is action.
  Local authorities need resources to buy in, renovate and either rent or sell to people on the waiting list, as happens in Berkshire. There must be lower interest finance to enable local people to compete in buying houses against people from outside the area with higher incomes and we need, overwhelmingly, greater economic growth so that we can have natural competition and do not need to rely on artificial barriers. If our people are forced into a future in which they have neither work to sustain them nor homes which they can afford, there will be a highly explosive cocktail, which the Government will ignore at their peril.
  6.25 pm
  Mr. Alistair Burt: Any debate on housing policy shows the divide between the two sides of the House in both practicalities and philosophy. In terms of practicalities, it is necessary to look at what the Labour party did when it had the opportunity to do something, as the Labour Government's failures in housing gave this Government the opportunity to do what they have been doing. They were no saints. Their failure to keep to their bargain on house building and their severe cuts in home improvement grants were due to their failure to get their sums right and to live up to their promises.
  In housing philosophy, the failure was even more marked. Labour's post-war housing philosophy is marked not so much by its professed desire to supply appropriate housing to all households, but more by its determination
  1170
  to use council housing as the sole vehicle for this, whatever the cost and whatever the failures. Secondly, it was marked by a gut desire to restrict the private landlord and the private rented sector, which was to have profound consequences for homelessness today. The loss of 400,000 private dwellings from the rented sector between 1974 and 1979 has cost us dear in the changing nature of homelessness in the past 15 to 20 years.
  In this atmosphere of failure of both philosophy and practical policies, the Conservative Government came to office in 1979. The interesting changes of both philosophy and practice have helped to give the Conservative Government's housing policy the large measure of popular support that it now enjoys. First, it has increased involvement of tenants in the management and running of their estates. Not many hon. Members have mentioned the success of the Government's Estates Action programme. In my constituency that programme has been at work in one of the poorest estates, where there is now a growing difference in attitude and environment. Smaller scale management has been encouraged, and there is no doubt that the closer the relationship between those who are tenants and those who manage them is bound to lead to an improvement in relationships and the general environment for those who live on the housing estate.
  There has also been a boost in owner-occupation and home ownership. I do not want to make too much of that, because it is possible to over-egg that pudding. The Government's desire to reverse the antipathy that the Labour Government felt towards owner-occupation meant that they may have missed the necessity to concentrate also on the need for low-cost rented housing. However, there has been a marked improvement on that in the past couple of years. The proposals outlined in the Housing Bill to encourage further development in the rented sector, both public and private, will have profoundly beneficial consequences for those who, up to now, have been homeless. It has been necessary for the Government to adopt a two-pronged strategy of both owner-occupation and a greater mix in housing.
  The major complaint that my constituents would have of Opposition Members is their rigid adherence to the old solutions to housing problems. There are many areas in this country which have been under Labour local control for about 50 years irrespective of changes in central Government, many of which are still in the same state of decay from which they suffered 30 years ago. The failure of traditional council house management policies since the war has caused the problems that now face us.
  The Government have reacted by a change in thinking. They have tried new measures and varied ownership by supporting co-operatives. We welcome the fact that the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) is a great supporter of co-operatives. A few years ago, Liverpool city council—Liverpool being only just down the road from Knowsley—operated a direct policy against co-operatives because it decided that the only way through for rented accommodation was to be found with municipal housing. That is a dead policy.
  The dead policies are being pursued by Opposition Members. Improvements in housing in owner-occupation and the rented sector lie only with the Government, where there is variety, choice and freedom.
  6.30 pm
  Mr. Allan Roberts: I accept that, following the elections of 1964 and 1966, the housing policy of the Conservative party became generally a vote winner for it. In 1964 and 1966 the Labour party's policy was definitely a vote winner. Unfortunately, we lost the initiative. That was partly because of the Government's successful sale-of-council-houses policy. The selling of council property to sitting tenants at large discounts proved to be extremely popular.
  Mr. Tony Banks: Giving away money is always popular.
  Mr. Roberts: Exactly.
  Housing policy has once again become a vote winner for the Labour party. That will be become increasingly clear as the Housing Bill is understood and the Government's record dawns on people the length and breadth of the country; when people on council estates realise that their homes will be sold to the private sector over their heads. Labour is back in harness and winning votes on account of its housing policy. The Tories are losing votes by wanting to hand over housing to the private market, with all that that means.
  I listened with care to the Secretary of State for the Environment. With apologies to Gilbert and Sullivan, I have produced an ode to the right hon. Gentleman. It is as follows:
  I am the very model of a modern Housing Minister; my policies are Conservative, free market, very sinister.
  I seek acclaim for all the acts of mine which I deem suitable. But blame all local councils when my mistakes are irrefutable. I baffle all in Parliament with a lengthy documentary,
  Ensuring that every syllable gives rise to great controversy. And then if southern Tories are still the victims of perplexity I blame the right hon. Member for Henley, the only thing that makes sense to me."
  That was the sum total of the right hon. Gentleman's speech. He blamed local authorities for the housing crisis that has been created by the Government's policies. He chose to blame the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) for the disastrous planning policies that the Government have pursued in the south of England.
  The Government's record needs careful examination, and the British people understand that. There has been a doubling of homelessness and the creation of the transient homeless youngster because of the Government's changes in social security benefit. There are 2 million who are living in homes that are unfit for human habitation. There are 390,000 concealed households—homeless households who are dependent on relatives and friends. These are the "front-room" families. There has been a 30 per cent. increase in the number of families on local authority waiting lists since 1979. That is not surprising when there has been a 75 per cent. cut in Government money to local authorities to house these people. Local authorities are prevented by the Government from building to replace the dwindling supply of attractive modern council homes. The massive backlog of essential repairs to local authority housing follows in the wake of Government cuts. The Audit Commission estimates that the cost of these repairs is growing at the rate of £900 million a year.
  The plight of the public sector pales into insignificance when we consider the state of the private housing sector, where 77 per cent. of unfit dwellings are to be found. Shelter estimates that at the present rate of progress it will take 167 years to eliminate overcrowding for the 1 million
  1172
  who are currently living in multi-occupied housing. It is worth noting that if the pace of house building that prevailed until 1979 had been continued we would have at least 330,000 more homes for 330,000 more families.
  We are faced with what amounts to a Government created housing crisis. There is a housing shortage of massive proportions, with an especial shortage of housing to rent. If there is a shortage of a commodity as vital as housing, there must be rationing. If council housing committees, or housing associations, are not controlling the rationing, the market is. Control is inflicted by price. Because the availability of housing to rent and to buy at prices that ordinary people can afford has diminished, families in many parts of the country are stretching themselves to financial breaking point to get on to the ownership ladder. Household debt has consequently increased from slightly less than £51 billion in 1978 to over £204 billion in 1986. Of that sum, £173 billion is accounted for by mortgages. In its wake, repossessions by building societies have increased tenfold between 1979 and 1987. According to the Association of District Councils, 53 per cent. of households in the east of England could not afford to buy their own homes, compared with 15 per cent. only four years ago.Yet the Tories have the audacity to claim to support and assist owner-occupation.
  Mr. Tony Banks: My hon. Friend has referred to repossessions by building societies. When repossessions take place and families are thrown out of their homes, local authorities have to put them in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. I dealt with such a case at my surgery last Friday. The local authority is having to spend more money keeping the couple in bed-and-breakfast accommodation than the couple were having to pay in mortgage payment instalments.
  Mr. Roberts: That is happening the length and breadth of the country.
  The Tories claim that they are the party of freedom as well as the party that supports owner-occupation. Why do they not implement the Labour party's policy and give tenants of private landlords the right to buy? Why not give the private tenant the right to opt for another landlord, such as the council, a housing association or a co-operative? Why not do that if they want alternative forms of tenure? Why do the Tories not adopt the Labour party's policy of a real right to rent? We would define categories of housing need, and if families came within them they would be entitled by law to accommodation to rent in the local authority sector. If local authorities did not have sufficient housing, the resources that would be provided by a Labour Government would be used to acquire property from the private sector to rent to those in housing need.
  That is the reverse of what the Government intend. It seems that they now intend to destroy the homeless persons legislation. They seek to destroy the limited rights to rehousing that homeless families now have in law. Yet the Conservative party claims to be the party of freedom. There is no freedom in a housing crisis of scarcity and price.
  The Government's proposals as set out in the Housing Bill—it is still before Parliament, thanks to the Labour party—will make the position even worse. Where is the choice for the council tenant who cannot get a transfer or exchange, who wants to move and who cannot afford to

  1173
  buy? Where is the choice for the tenant who is railroaded into a housing action trust and into the hands of an unknown housing association, with no vote or right to consultation? The Institute of Housing assessed HATs and stated:
  "The danger of a housing centred approach based upon changing tenures is that regeneration may come about through changing the nature of the population living in the area, rather than through improving the economic circumstances and life chances of those already there."
  It is social engineering of the worst sort. That is why the majority of tenants in potential HAT areas are opposed to the proposals.
  Where is the choice for tenants under the Government's pick-a-landlord scheme; tenants who do not want to opt out but who see the decision-making system rigged and the voting system fixed to make nonsense of the idea of choice? We read today in The Guardian that the people who, in the pick-a-landlord scheme, opt to remain with the local authority will pay the same high rents as those who choose to go to a private landlord. It will be chaos. The Minister has said that the local authority can subsidise the rent of the person who has opted to stay with the council and who has to pay the same rent as those who chose to be with a private landlord. We have the local authority, with diminished resources, having to subsidise the private landlord. That is what the Minister's remarks mean.
  Where is the choice for the family who are in bed-and-breakfast accommodation? Where is the choice for those who cannot afford the Tory's new market rents? Where is the choice for the elderly who cannot get into sheltered housing or an old person's bungalow? Where is the choice for the elderly who have to sell their house after a lifetime of paying for it to provide an income to supplement their benefit, which has been so cruelly cut by the Government? The Government believe in housing choice—choice for the rich to be well housed, choice for the private landlord and not for the tenant, and choice for the poor and those on low incomes to be badly housed. That is the kind of choice offered by the Government's housing policies and Housing Bill.
  This debate is also about planning, and something needs to be said about the Government's record in that respect. The Tories see planning as a fetter on the free market, and since 1979 successive Secretaries of State have been doing their best to destroy Britain's proud planning system. The present Secretary of State may be the worst and the ultimate arch free market man, but the right hon. Member for Henley was not much better. He began and inspired the whole process in the first place. As the party that founded the planning system with the Town and Country Planning Act 1947, Labour has been watching with dismay as the planning system has progressively weakened, especially at a strategic level.
  The Government have produced a number of special measures which they claim are designed to revive urban areas, enterprise zones, urban development corporations and now simplified planning zones—to say nothing of garden festivals. Such measures may have revived a few areas of urban land, but that has been done at the price of local democracy. Local urban development corporations have imposed policies that are at complete variance with those of the local authorities. Urban development corporations, and particularly the LDDC, behave as if
  1174
  they are dealing with green-field sites rather than with places where people already live and work. Elsewhere, dereliction has been created. Research commissioned by the Government themselves shows that, in many cases, enterprise zones and urban development corporations have merely sucked in development from the surrounding area, so dereliction has only been moved, not reduced.
  At the same time, the Government have been dismantling strategic planning. The abolition of the metropolitan authorities and the GLC has left a gap that district and borough council joint committees cannot fill. The Government now propose to replace county structure plans with weaker "county statements". The power of counties to intervene when districts are faced with plans that go against structure plans has already been removed. Planners are being asked by the Government to facilitate development, not to judge it. That is the basis of the difficulties in which the Secretary of State finds himself with his own supporters in the south of England.
  The Government claim, under pressure from their own supporters, to be protecting green belts and the countryside from piecemeal development, yet their public investment programmes direct development towards the countryside. New motorways such as the M25 and M40, and the concentration of defence establishments along the London to Bristol access, are two huge examples. Individual decisions by the Secretary of State on housing, out-of-town superstores, second homes, mining or forestry for national parks breach the plans for areas under pressure and create more "hope value" and development pressure around them.
  The recent change in opencast coal mining policy announced by the Department of the Environment is a prime example of the environment being sacrificed to facilitate development and of the Department's decisions being investment-led. rather than environment-led, which is wrong.
  What is Labour's alternative? We believe that there should be a strategic overview. A strategic authority should be established to provide planning guidance and set the context for local planning. As part of a general commitment to a better environment, land use planning should incorporate an environmental dimension. Noise, air and water pollution and the protection of natural areas all need to be considered when planning applications and local plans are discussed. Our proposed environmental protection service, which a Labour Government would establish, would be locally run and be provided with the necessary back-up.
  At present, people have only limited powers within the planning system to control the shaping of their environment. Labour is committed to changing that. Our charter for the environment sets out proposals for public action zones, which we shall empower and encourage local authorities to declare. As with urban development corporations, public action zones will have Government support, strong compulsory purchase powers, and considerable public funding to tackle key areas of decline. Unlike urban development corporations, they will be based on the needs and wishes of local communities; they will not override them.
  The Labour party seeks a balance between city and country and to revive urban areas, making them pleasant and attractive places in which to live. If further urban expansion is needed, it should be planned, with properly serviced and properly centred development, rather than an

  1175
  unplanned sprawl. Both existing and new urban areas should be affordable to all. Unlike the Government, we seek to enhance and protect the countryside, but as an open recreational resource accessible to all. Planning should not he considered in isolation. It is the means of creating healthier, livelier and more pleasant communities for all. The Tories see planning as an impediment to the operation of the free market. If the Secretary of State has his way, planning as we know it will be destroyed, as the free market takes over. As the planning system is destroyed, so too will be the environment.
  6.44 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mrs. Marion Roe): Hon. Members have made a number of points, to which I shall respond, but first I remind the House of two comments made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State at the beginning of this debate. Opposition Members have charged that we do not have any regional housing and planning policies. It is true that we do not believe that all house building should be centrally planned and directed. As the last Labour Government proved, the centralist approach neither aids growth nor helps the poorer regions. Instead, it delays change, inhibits growth, and depresses living standards.
  By contrast, the Government's approach has been proved to work. In housing, we first set out to encourage owner-occupation. The number of home owners has increased by 3 million and private house building is at its highest level since 1973. We are now tackling the rented sector, encouraging investment and creating the conditions that will allow a more diverse and responsive rented sector to be created. Again, we aim to put consumer choice in place of state imposed choices. By doing so, we believe that we will both increase investment and give the people the housing that they want.
  We need to bear in mind the link between housing and planning policies. Turning first to the planning side, the Government have strenuously sought to update the apparatus of planning and to keep policies for the development and use of land in tune with current needs. The planning system that we inherited had to be adapted to cope with the realities of the 1980s, and successive Secretaries of State have faced the need to make the many —sometimes controversial—changes that were required. We have increased permitted development rights by changes to the General Development Order, recast the Use Classes Order, and introduced provisions for simplified planning zones.
  At the same time, we have not hesitated to increase control where that has been needed to protect and enhance the environment. For example, we have increased controls over farm and forestry buildings and roads in national parks, and in revising the General Development Order we shall be introducing controls over intensive livestock units, loft conversions, and stone-cladding in conservation areas.
  Many people have expressed concern about the green belts and the Government's stewardship of them. Those fears have proved unfounded, as all Members must now concede. Despite frequent challenges and planning applications and appeals, local planning authorities and the Secretary of State have consistently upheld the integrity of the green belts.
  Concern has been expressed today that too much unrestrained development is taking place in the south-east.
  1176
  The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) asked whether the estimates of future housing provision by SERPLAN and LPAC, covering the period from 1991 to 2001, are correct. We would all like a definite answer, but there are a number of variables. They include the estimated number of extra households, the number of existing dwellings, and the number of properties that will be built between now and 1991. SERPLAN provided new evidence last week and LPAC is still working on its advice to the Secretary of State. We shall he resolving that matter and issuing strategic guidance for London and the south-east in due course.
  We would like to encourage development in other areas where it will be welcome; hence our inner-city policies. The uniform business rate will make locations outside the south more attractive. High land and house prices will also tend to encourage development elsewhere, where prices are lower and skilled labour is more readily available. As my right hon. Friend commented, there are already signs that the growing prosperity, which first became evident in the south-east, is spreading to other parts of the country. Opposition Members should be wary of discounting those market mechanisms too quickly and committing themselves to the bureaucracy and inefficiency of centralised planning.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire, East (Mr. MacKay) mentioned the problem of coping with extra housing provision in Berkshire. The modifications to the structure plan proposed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State were to ensure that provision met the requirements arising from the local population.
  It is necessary to be realistic about what the planning system alone can achieve. It cannot stimulate development that does not meet demand. Restraint in one area will not automatically steer development to another. As 1992 approaches, we also need to be cautious about driving development out of the country altogether. We do not want to force people to live where they are unwilling to go. The household projections show that the growth in households in the south-east comes largely from indigenous growth. All of us should think very carefully before committing ourselves to a policy which might, in effect, force sons and daughters to seek homes and work away from the areas in which they were brought up.
  Mr. Tony Banks: The hon. Lady mentioned the unified business rate. Why are the CBI and the chambers of commerce in the south strongly critical of that?
  Mrs. Roe: They have obviously not read the proposals in detail and are unaware of the benefits that that will bring to other parts of the country.
  There is already restraint in the south-east. The debate is about whether it would be wise to make that even tighter, with all the consequences for house prices and the availability of housing for the less well off that that would entail. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) made a cogent statement of the arguments and of the need to provide more housing where people want to live.
  The pressure for development and the increasing resort to the appeals machinery have put increasing strain on the planning system. It is important to stress that 98 per cent. of planning permissions are given by local authorities.

  1177
  That is as it should be, and Conservative Members have no wish to resort to the "Whitehall knows best" approach that underlies the Opposition's motion.
  More frequent resort to appeals can also create uncertainty. But in many places that is compounded by the absence of any local plan. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State mentioned, last week we issued for consultation a draft planning policy guidance note on the preparation of local plans. The message to district planning authorities is to prepare plans as quickly as possible, particularly for areas where there is a conflict between the need for development and the interests of the local environment. Proper consultation on local plans will provide the best way of allowing local communities to resolve these conflicts themselves in a sensible and realistic way. We believe this message will be widely welcomed and we hope that districts will act quickly to extend their coverage of detailed plans.
  Mr. Roger Gale rose—
  Mrs. Roe: By this means local amenity can be safeguarded—
  Mr. Gale rose—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. The hon. Lady is on her feet.
  Mrs. Roe: By this means local amenity can be safeguarded and provision made for necessary development, including additional house building. More importantly, this approach will help to ensure that, wherever possible, the conflicts between development and amenity are solved at local level.
  Mr. Gale: If my hon. Friend is saying that the Department of the Environment will heed the wishes of the county and district councils, will she convey that to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who has overridden Dartford and Thanet councils in two Parliaments?
  Mrs. Roe: I hope that the local plans will be brought up to date. Many councils do not have up-to-date local plans. Unfortunately, that means that there is no basis for a planning decision, and action has to be taken through the inspector appeals system.
  On housing, our policies are clear. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey tried to argue that they were not, but we have always had two clear policy aims. Our first aim is to ensure that as many people as possible can own their own homes. That is why we are committed to mortgage interest tax relief and have pursued the right-to-buy policy and diversified the rented sector. The hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) suggested that mortgage interest tax relief served no housing policy aim. Helping 3 million more people to own their own homes is a worthy aim.
  Mr. Simon Hughes rose—
  Mrs. Roe: In order to create greater choice for those who do not want or cannot afford to buy their own homes, we want to reduce tenants' dependency on the local authority sector and the restrictions that have squeezed out private investment in housing for rent. The provisions
  1178
  in the Housing Bill to deregulate private-sector rents and give tenants the opportunity to change their landlord represent the first step in encouraging a greater variety of landlords.
  We have not avoided debate on those issues and we have been willing to bring forward amendments to the Bill. We are, after all, believers in democracy.
  The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) talked about the effect of market rents. He quoted figures over £100 per week. The hon. Member for Knowsley, North made a thoughtful contribution, in which he pointed out that the supply of rented accommodation depended upon the economics of property ownership. He, too, felt that private rented housing would be out of people's reach. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey also stressed the need for new rented housing to be affordable. I agree with the hon. Member for Knowsley, North that it all depends on the economics, but Opposition Members have forgotten the extent of the measures taken to encourage private investment.
  We will ensure that public subsidy is available where it is necessary to provide accommodation to let at below market levels. Housing association grant will be available from the Housing Corporation and local authorities will be able to provide subsidies to private and housing association landlords. We have just announced that, as with housing association grant, such subsidies can be up to 50 per cent. to 75 per cent. of total scheme costs, depending on the area.
  On top of the direct subsidies available to the private rented sector, the business expansion scheme is to be extended to private renting, and that will give favourable tax treatment to investment in private renting over the next five years. The tax concessions, combined with subsidies from local authorities, will provide a powerful stimulus to private investment in rented housing, enabling us to get more houses from the public resources available for housing investment. The generous tax relief available and the subsidies available from the Housing Corporation and local authorities demonstrate that we are committed to putting Government support where it is needed most.
  Mr. Battle rose—
  Mrs. Roe: My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne was near the mark when he talked about rented accommodation at reasonable rents. The measures will provide a powerful incentive to bring private rented properties back into use and to build more for rent.
  To answer the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle), the measures will also help to stimulate investment in the repair and improvement of private rented dwellings. The hon. Gentleman asked us to restore expenditure on improvement grants to home owners. Spending on improvement grants is still nearly double in real terms what it was when the Labour Government were in power, and since 1979 we have spent £3·5 billion on grants to home owners.
  Several hon. Members referred to the state of the local authority stock and the availability of resources for repair. Local authorities are spending nearly £3 billion a year on repair and maintenance, and a number of authorities, including Labour authorities, which complain of lack of resources, fail to use to the full their power to spend up to 100 per cent. of receipts for capital repairs.

  1179
  That represents a coherent strategy to end the local authority monopoly in rented housing, to increase investment, to widen consumer choice and improve standards of management. We may not believe in direct public sector provision, but more public sector resources are being made available.
  The Opposition appear still to hanker after the failed dirigiste attempts at planning of the 1960s, to want to impose the dead hand of control and regulation, and to exhume the bodies of the Department of Economic Affairs and the national plan. The Government's policies have created a boom in private house building and in owner-occupation; and we are now intent on reviving the rented sector. We want to create the conditions in which the private sector can thrive and where even those who need help with their housing costs have a choice. We aim to give people the housing that they want.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 229, Noes 326

  Division No. 374]

  [6.59 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Dalyell, Tam

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Allen, Graham

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

  Alton, David

  Dewar, Donald

  Anderson, Donald

  Dixon, Don

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Dobson, Frank

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Doran, Frank

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Douglas, Dick

  Ashton, Joe

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Barron, Kevin

  Eadie, Alexander

  Battle, John

  Eastham, Ken

  Beckett, Margaret

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Bell, Stuart

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Fatchett, Derek

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Fearn, Ronald

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Blair, Tony

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

  Blunkett, David

  Fisher, Mark

  Boateng, Paul

  Flannery, Martin

  Boyes, Roland

  Flynn, Paul

  Bradley, Keith

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Foster, Derek

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Foulkes, George

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Fraser, John

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Fyfe, Maria

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Galbraith, Sam

  Buchan, Norman

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Buckley, George J.

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Caborn, Richard

  George, Bruce

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Canavan, Dennis

  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

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Corbett, Robin

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Cousins, Jim

  Hinchliffe, David

  Cox, Tom

  Hogg, N.(Cnauld & Kilsyth)

  Crowther, Stan

  Holland, Stuart

  Cryer, Bob

  Home Robertson, John

  Cummings, John

  Hood, Jimmy

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  1180

  Howell, Rt Hon D.(S'heath)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Howells, Geraint

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Hoyle, Doug

  Parry, Robert

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Patchett, Terry

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Pendry, Tom

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Pike, Peter L.

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Prescott, John

  lllsley, Eric

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Ingram, Adam

  Radice, Giles

  Janner, Greville

  Randall, Stuart

  John, Brynmor

  Redmond, Martin

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)

  Reid, Dr John

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Richardson, Jo

  Kennedy, Charles

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Rogers, Allan

  Lambie, David

  Rooker, Jeff

  Lamond, James

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Rowlands, Ted

  Leighton, Ron

  Ruddock, Joan

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Salmond, Alex

  Lewis, Terry

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Litherland, Robert

  Sheerman, Barry

  Livingstone, Ken

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Livsey, Richard

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Short, Clare

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Skinner, Dennis

  McAllion, John

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  McAvoy, Thomas

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

  McCartney, Ian

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

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Snape, Peter

  McFall, John

  Soley, Clive

  McLeish, Henry

  Spearing, Nigel

  Maclennan, Robert

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  McTaggart, Bob

  Stott, Roger

  McWilliam, John

  Strang, Gavin

  Madden, Max

  Straw, Jack

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Marek, Dr John

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Martin, Michael J.(Springburn)

  Turner, Dennis

  Martlew, Eric

  Wall, Pat

  Maxton, John

  Wallace, James

  Meacher, Michael

  Walley, Joan

  Meale, Alan

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Michael, Alun

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Williams, Alan W.(Carm'then)

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Wilson, Brian

  Morley, Elliott

  Winnick, David

  Morris, Rt Hon A.(W'shawe)

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Morris, Rt Hon J.(Aberavon)

  Worthington, Tony

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Wray, Jimmy

  Mullin, Chris

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Murphy, Paul

  Nellist, Dave

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Mr. Frank Haynes and

  O'Brien, William

  Mr. Frank Cook.

  O'Neill, Martin

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Atkinson, David

  Alexander, Richard

  Baker, Rt Hon K.(Mole Valley)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Allason, Rupert

  Baldry, Tony

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Amess, David

  Batiste, Spencer

  Amos, Alan

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Arbuthnot, James

  Bellingham, Henry

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Ashby, David

  Benyon, W.

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Atkins, Robert

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  1181

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Body, Sir Richard

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Boswell, Tim

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Bottomley, Peter

  Gorst, John

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Gow, Ian

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Bowis, John

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Gregory, Conal

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Brazier, Julian

  Grist, lan

  Bright, Graham

  Ground, Patrick

  Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

  Grylls, Michael

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

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

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Hannam, John

  Budgen, Nicholas

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

  Burns, Simon

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Burt, Alistair

  Harris, David

  Butcher, John

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Butler, Chris

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Butterfill, John

  Hayes, Jerry

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Hayward, Robert

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Carrington, Matthew

  Heddle, John

  Carttiss, Michael

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Cash, William

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hill, James

  Chope, Christopher

  Hind, Kenneth

  Churchill, Mr

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochtord)

  Holt, Richard

  Clark, Sir W.(Croydon S)

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Clarke, Rt Hon K.(Rushcliffe)

  Howard, Michael

  Colvin, Michael

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

  Conway, Derek

  Howarth, G.(Cannock & B'wd)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Cope, Rt Hon John

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Couchman, James

  Hughes, Robert G.(Harrow W)

  Cran, James

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Critchley, Julian

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Hunter, Andrew

  Curry, David

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

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

  Irvine, Michael

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Irving, Charles

  Day, Stephen

  Jack, Michael

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Jackson, Robert

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Janman, Tim

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Jessel, Toby

  Dover, Den

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Dunn, Bob

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Durant, Tony

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Key, Robert

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Kilfedder, James

  Evennett, David

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Fallon, Michael

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Farr, Sir John

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Favell, Tony

  Knapman, Roger

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Knowles, Michael

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Knox, David

  Forman, Nigel

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirllng)

  Lang, Ian

  Forth, Eric

  Latham, Michael

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Franks, Cecil

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Freeman, Roger

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  French, Douglas

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Fry, Peter

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Gardiner, George

  Lightbown, David

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Lord, Michael

  1182

  Lyell, Sir Nicholas

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  McCrindle, Robert

  Scott, Nicholas

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Shephard, Mrs G.(Norfolk SW)

  McNair-Wilson, P.(New Forest)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Madel, David

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Shersby, Michael

  Mans, Keith

  Sims, Roger

  Maples, John

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Marlow, Tony

  Speller, Tony

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Squire, Robin

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Stanley, Rt Hon John

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Steen, Anthony

  Mills, lain

  Stern, Michael

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Stevens, Lewis

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Moate, Roger

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Sumberg, David

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Summerson, Hugo

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Mudd, David

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Neale, Gerrard

  Thompson, D.(Calder Valley)

  Needham, Richard

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Thorne, Neil

  Neubert, Michael

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Townsend, Cyril D.(B'heath)

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Tracey, Richard

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Tredinnick, David

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Trippier, David

  Page, Richard

  Trotter, Neville

  Paice, James

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Patnick, Irvine

  Viggers, Peter

  Patten, Chris (Bath)

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Pawsey, James

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Walden, George

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Walker, Rt Hon P.(W'cester)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Waller, Gary

  Portillo, Michael

  Walters, Sir Dennis

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Price, Sir David

  Warren, Kenneth

  Raffan, Keith

  Watts, John

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Wells, Bowen

  Rathbone, Tim

  Whitney, Ray

  Redwood, John

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Renton, Tim

  Wilshire, David

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Wolfson, Mark

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Wood, Timothy

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Woodcock, Mike

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Yeo, Tim

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Rost, Peter

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Ryder, Richard

  Mr. Robert Boscawen and

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Mr. David Maclean.

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments):—
  The House divided: Ayes 328, Noes 223.

  Division No. 375]

  [7.14 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Day, Stephen

  Alexander, Richard

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Allason, Rupert

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Dover, Den

  Amess, David

  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

  Fallon, Michael

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Farr, Sir John

  Atkins, Robert

  Favell, Tony

  Atkinson, David

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Baker, Rt Hon K.(Mole Valley)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Fmsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Baldry, Tony

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Forman, Nigel

  Batiste. Spencer

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Forth, Eric

  Bellingham, Henry

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Bendall, Vivian

  Franks, Cecil

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Freeman, Roger

  Benyon, W.

  French, Douglas

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Fry, Peter

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Gardiner, George

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir lan

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Body, Sir Richard

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Boswell, Tim

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Bottomley, Peter

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Gorst, John

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Gow, Ian

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Bowis, John

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Gregory, Conal

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

  Brazier, Julian

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Bright, Graham

  Grist, Ian

  Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

  Ground, Patrick

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Grylls, Michael

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

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Burns, Simon

  Hannam, John

  Burt, Alistair

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

  Butcher, John

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Butler, Chris

  Harris, David

  Butterfill, John

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hayes, Jerry

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hayward, Robert

  Carttiss, Michael

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Cash, William

  Heddle, John

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Chope, Christopher

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Churchill, Mr

  Hill, James

  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)

  Couchman, James

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Cran, James

  Hughes, Robert G.(Harrow W)

  Critchley, Julian

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Hunt, John (Ravensboume)

  Curry, David

  Hunter, Andrew

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

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Irvine, Michael

  1184

  Irving, Charles

  Pawsey, James

  Jack, Michael

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Jackson, Robert

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Janman, Tim

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Jessel, Toby

  Portillo, Michael

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Price, Sir David

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Raffan, Keith

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Key, Robert

  Rathbone, Tim

  Kilfedder, James

  Redwood, John

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Renton, Tim

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Knapman, Roger

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Knowles, Michael

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Knox, David

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Rost, Peter

  Lang, lan

  Rowe, Andrew

  Latham, Michael

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Ryder, Richard

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Scott, Nicholas

  Lightbown, David

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Lilley, Peter

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Lloyd, Sir lan (Havant)

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Lord, Michael

  Shephard, Mrs G.(Norfolk SW)

  Lyell, Sir Nicholas

  Shepherd, Colin (Heretord)

  McCrindle, Robert

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Shersby, Michael

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Sims, Roger

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Maclean, David

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Speller, Tony

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  McNair-Wilson, P.(New Forest)

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Madel, David

  Squire, Robin

  Malins, Humfrey

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Mans, Keith

  Stanley, Rt Hon John

  Maples, John

  Steen, Anthony

  Marlow, Tony

  Stern, Michael

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Stevens, Lewis

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Sumberg, David

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Summerson, Hugo

  Mills, lain

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Taylor, lan (Esher)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Mitchell, David (Hanfs NW)

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Moate, Roger

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Thompson, D.(Calder Valley)

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Thorne, Neil

  Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Moss, Malcofm

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Townsend, Cyril D.(B'heath)

  Mudd, David

  Tracey, Richard

  Neale, Gerrard

  Tredinnick, David

  Needham, Richard

  Trippier, David

  Nelson, Anthony

  Trotter, Neville

  Neubert, Michael

  Twinn, Dr lan

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Viggers, Peter

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Waddington, Rt Hon Davld

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Page, Richard

  Walden, George

  Paice, James

  Walker, Rt Hon P.(W'cester)

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Waller, Gary

  Patnick, Irvine

  Walters, Sir Dennis

  Patten, Chris (Bath)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Warren, Kenneth

  1185

  Watts, John

  Wolfson, Mark

  Wells, Bowen

  Wood, Timothy

  Wheeler, John

  Woodcock, Mike

  Whitney, Ray

  Yeo, Tim

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Wilshire, David

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones and

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Mr. Tony Durant.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Allen, Graham

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Alton, David

  Eadie, Alexander

  Anderson, Donald

  Eastham, Ken

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Ashby, David

  Fatchett, Derek

  Ashton, Joe

  Fearn, Ronald

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

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

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Fisher, Mark

  Barron, Kevin

  Flannery, Martin

  Battle, John

  Flynn, Paul

  Beckett, Margaret

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Beil, Stuart

  Foster, Derek

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Foulkes, George

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Fraser, John

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Fyfe, Maria

  Blair, Tony

  Galbraith, Sam

  Blunkett, David

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Boateng, Paul

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Boyes, Roland

  George, Bruce

  Bradley, Keith

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Gordon, Mildred

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Graham, Thomas

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Buchan, Norman

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Buckley, George J.

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Caborn, Richard

  Grocott, Bruce

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Hardy, Peter

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Canavan, Dennis

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Cartwright, John

  Hinchliffe, David

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Hogg, N.(C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Holland, Stuart

  Clay, Bob

  Home Robertson, John

  Clelland, David

  Hood, Jimmy

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Cohen, Harry

  Howell, Rt Hon D.(S'heath)

  Coleman, Donald

  Howells, Geraint

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Hoyle, Doug

  Corbett, Robin

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Cousins, Jim

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Cox, Tom

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Crowther, Stan

  lllsley, Eric

  Cryer, Bob

  Ingram, Adam

  Cummings, John

  Janner, Greville

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  John, Brynmor

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

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

  Kennedy, Charles

  Dewar, Donald

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Dixon, Don

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Dobson, Frank

  Lamond, James

  Doran, Frank

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Douglas, Dick

  Leighton, Ron

  1186

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Lewis, Terry

  Reid, Dr John

  Litherland, Robert

  Richardson, Jo

  Livingstone, Ken

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Livsey, Richard

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Rogers, Allan

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Rooker, Jeff

  McAllion, John

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Rowlands, Ted

  McCartney, lan

  Ruddock, Joan

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Salmond, Alex

  McFall, John

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McLeish, Henry

  Sheerman, Barry

  Maclennan, Robert

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  McWilliam, John

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Madden, Max

  Short, Clare

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Skinner, Dennis

  Marek, Dr John

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

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

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

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

  Martin, Michael J.(Springburn)

  Snape, Peter

  Martlew, Eric

  Soley, Clive

  Maxton, John

  Spearing, Nigel

  Meacher, Michael

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Meale, Alan

  Stott, Roger

  Michael, Alun

  Strang, Gavin

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Straw, Jack

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Turner, Dennis

  Morley, Elliott

  Wall, Pat

  Morris, Rt Hon A.(W'shawe)

  Wallace, James

  Morris, Rt Hon J.(Aberavon)

  Walley, Joan

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Mullin, Chris

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Murphy, Paul

  Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

  Nellist, Dave

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Brien, William

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Williams, Alan W.(Carm'then)

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Wilson, Brian

  Parry, Robert

  Winnick, David

  Patchett, Terry

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Pendry, Tom

  Wray, Jimmy

  Pike, Peter L.

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Radice, Giles

  Mr. Frank Haynes and

  Randall, Stuart

  Mr. Frank Cook.

  Redmond, Martin

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Madam Deputy Speaker forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House congratulates the Government on its housing and planning policies which have helped more people than ever before to own their own homes and, while protecting and extending the approved Green Belts, have created the conditions for a return of prosperity across the whole country; welcomes the proposals in the Housing Bill to widen the choice of housing available for rent; notes with satisfaction the planned increases in the Housing Corporation's programme and the additional resources being allocated to local authorities to tackle immediate problems of homelessness, bringing to £74 million the additional resources made available over the last six months; and urges local authorities to use these and other resources to end the use of bed-and-breakfast accommodation for families as quickly as possible.

  North Killingholme Cargo Terminal Bill (By Order)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  7.27 pm
  Mr. Michael Brown: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  7.28 pm
  Mr. Kevin Barron: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will recall that on 11 May we had a Second Reading debate on a private Bill not dissimilar to the one that is before the House. During that debate I asked the Under-Secretary of State if at any time there had been a meeting between anyone in his ministerial chambers and the outside promoters of the Bill. He said that he did not recall any such meeting. The following Monday, in answer to a parliamentary question, the Under-Secretary of State said in effect that the chairman of Associated British Ports had met the Secretary of State for Transport about the very matter that was up for debate. I raised this on a point of order with Mr. Speaker on Tuesday 17 May, the day after I had received a written answer from the Under-Secretary of State. He rightly said that he was obliged that the Minister, having said something about which he was not sure, had put the record straight by having a meeting.
  I raise this point of order simply because this is a similar Bill, although it is not promoted by the same outside body. There is a close connection between that Bill and this, and the Secretary of State for Transport has a direct involvement with this Bill. It occurs to me to question whether this is a private Bill if such a meeting has taken place on this Bill, as it did on the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill. I would like you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to give a ruling. Perhaps you could suspend the sitting for a few minutes so that you can consider whether this is a private Bill, in view of its close connections with the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill, and whether we should therefore be considering it in the time that you have generously allotted for the discussion of private Bills this evening.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. The Bill before the House must satisfy and has satisfied all the criteria for a private Bill, otherwise it would not be before the House. Discussions that may have taken place outside the House are not a matter for the Chair.
  The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. David Mitchell): Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As the contacts that my ministerial colleagues and I may or may not have had with the promoters could be a matter of interest to the House, I have caused inquiries to be made. I am informed that there have been no such contacts with relation to the Bill.
  Mr. Martin Redmond: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When I visited the Examiner and asked him about the Bill, he assured me that it was of a localised nature and not a hybrid Bill. It is my submission that it is a hybrid Bill, and as such should not be debated this evening in the guise of a private Bill—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman has gone far enough. He said that the authorities of the House had satisfied him that this is not a hybrid Bill. I cannot, therefore, proceed on the assumption that the hon. Gentleman is correct. Like him, I accept the advice that is offered to me by the authorities of the House and accept their assurance that this is not a hybrid Bill.
  Mr. Redmond: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I submit that the Bill has grave implications that go far beyond Killingholme. Bearing in mind the Government's Whip, we are asking you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, under the Standing Orders governing private business, to suspend the sitting pending an investigation by you and questions to the Minister and the Government. That is in accordance with Standing Order No. 85. I would ask you, Sir, to rule that this is a hybrid Bill, irrespective of what the Examiner said, because of the information that is coming to light.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I know of no grounds on which to give consideration to the hybridity question, and I can see no reason why we should not proceed.
  Mr. Michael Welsh: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. According to the Bill, the company involved was Central Oil Refining Co. Ltd. a subsidiary of Chemical and Oil Storage Management Ltd.. In essence, my point of order is that no trace could be found of that firm. We finally went to the Private Bill Office and were told that Chemical and Oil Storage Management Ltd. is now Simon Engineering plc. We are therefore discussing a Bill that was not submitted by the people who are now in charge of it. Can one company put in an application for a private Bill and then sell to another company and most probably charge it money for the application, thus making a profit out of the workings of the House?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that that point is a matter for the debate. Clearly, the Bill has been scrutinised by the Examiners and it had to satisfy the Examiners before it came before the House. It has satisfied the Examiners.
  Several Hon. Members: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have made it clear that it is not a point of order.
  Mr. Gerald Bermingham: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance. If it becomes clear that there is a challenge to the ruling of the Examiner, am I to understand that hon. Members who have had no opportunity of questioning the Examiner are not permitted to challenge his certification on the Floor of the House?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. When the hon. Gentleman talks about the rulings of the House, he is referring to the rulings of the Chair. I very much hope that the hon. Gentleman is not, uncharacteristically, challenging my ruling on the matter. Of course, it is for the House to exercise its judgment on these matters and I hope that that is what we shall do in the remaining two and a half hours or so. I hope that we shall reflect the decision of the House at the end of the debate.
  Mr. Graham Allen: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Surely such projects are normally within the ambit of local authorities, through their normal planning procedures. Those normal planning procedures give room for lengthy inquiries and scope for witnesses to be examined and evidence to be taken. As I understand it, we shall have only an hour or an hour and a half and not all Members interested will be able—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Bill before the House satisfied the Standing Orders and the criteria laid down by the Examiners. The hon. Gentleman may have doubts and reservations about our procedures, but I remind him that a Joint Committee of both Houses is considering all those matters at the moment. If he has any reservations about the way in which we proceed, he may care to submit evidence to that Committee. In the meantime, we shall continue to operate within the framework of the existing Standing Orders.
  Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You may recall that, in a previous debate on the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill, the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) made it clear in answer to direct questions that he had no financial or other interest in the Bill. He referred the House to the Register of Members' Interests. It may be of benefit to him to recall that on 8 June, when the Select Committee discussed ports and he questioned Sir Robert Haslam, he declared an interest. He later said that he did not have an interest then but that he hoped to have one later. I do not know whether the Register of Members' Interests requires people to register if they hope to have an interest. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was joking but, considering his extensive travels to South Africa—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Neither the House nor I should be considering the hon. Gentleman's future itinerary, nor can we make a decision on the basis of a hypothesis. If hon. Members who wish to take part in the debate have a direct pecuniary interest, no doubt they will make it clear at the appropriate time. Perhaps the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) will soon allow the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) to make his speech.
  Several Hon. Members: Further to the point of order—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is not a point of order.
  Mr. Harry Barnes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I visited the Private Bill Office today to inspect the papers in connection with the Bill, as I am sure all hon. Members have done. Among the papers are six petitions. They are from the Coalfield Communities Campaign, the National Union of Mineworkers, the Union of Democratic Mineworkers, Wakefield and Doncaster councils and North-East Derbyshire council, in the area that I am proud to represent. There were 11 submissions in relation to the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill. In addition, extra papers are available for inspection, and an Ordnance Survey map—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. What is the point of order for me?
  Mr. Barnes: —and plans and sections. In connection with the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is the North Killingholme Cargo Terminal Bill that is before the House. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will address his point of order to that.
  Mr. Barnes: In connection with the North Killingholme Cargo Terminal Bill and the two Acts to which it refers, the North Killingholme (Admiralty Pier) Act 1912, chapter clx, and the North Killingholme (Admiralty Pier) Act 1931, chapter lxiv, reference is made, as with the Associated Ports (No. 2) Bill, to a book of reference being available for our inspection. However, no book of reference is available —
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a matter for me. It is a matter for debate.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. One problem that you and people in your position continually face is the fact that without any doubt there has been a change in the practice relating to private Bills since you were elected in 1964. Hon. Members are expected to serve on private Bill Committees—and can incur penalties if they do not—if they have no involvement whatsoever in the matter before the Committee. Geographically restricted private Bills are, on occasion, bound not to affect many hon. Members. However, in this Bill, and in the one that we discussed earlier—but which we are not here to discuss today—such geographical restrictions do not exist because it is inconceivable that any hon. Member could not be affected by the importation of South African coal. No hon. Member could be found to serve on that Committee who could say that he or she would not in some way be affected by the decision.
  Therefore, the whole private Bill procedure is faulty in that context. There is bound to come a time when some of us—those in the Chair and those in authority—must take the decision whether we can allow this private Bill procedure to continue when the Committee has to order hon. Members to appear before it, with penalties, if they are not in any way involved. When one remembers that about 70 Tory Members have connections with companies in South Africa, one begins to realise that many hon. Members do have interests. If one also remembers that, to a man and a woman, Opposition Members are against the Bill, one realises that one is bound to run into difficulties in finding people who are not tainted in some way.
  I suggest that reference should now be made to the appropriate authorities and the Examiners to see whether this kind of private Bill procedure can continue on the basis of not being able to get appropriate Members of Parliament on the Committee.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Let me deal with one point at a time. What the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has said has no bearing whatsoever on the propriety of proceeding with our Second Reading debate this evening.
  Mr. Bruce Grocott: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance and protection. When a private Bill affects public policy, as this Bill clearly does, how are we to be protected in terms of the

  1191
  amount of time available to hon. Members to debate the issue? As you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I do not represent a coalfield community, but I am assured by those of my hon. Friends who do represent such communities that, although the Bill clearly and specifically relates on paper to the North Killingholme cargo terminal, it could affect the relationship between this country and the development of our policies towards South Africa.
  I am sure that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will tell me —quite correctly—that this matter has been considered by the appropriate Committees, which have looked at all the matters, and that your role now is simply to interpret what has been done before. However, I am concerned because the relationship between this country and South Africa has been consistently developing, changing and worsening. It has certainly worsened dramatically in the last few weeks, especially in relation to impending court decisions in South Africa, which affect not only our relationship with South Africa, but the whole of Britain's international standing—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. These are matters for debate, rather than ones on which the Chair can give a ruling.
  Mr. Grocott: Just to complete what I am putting to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if a public Bill is being considered by the House, in the normal course of events, and allowing for statements, private notice questions and the rest, that Bill will have a minimum of five or five and a half hours for debate between 3.30 pm and 9 pm or 9.30 pm. That is not long enough, in my view. For several major and important Bills, it is considered necessary to have two days for Second Reading. If a Bill has major national if not international implications, and if all my hon. Friends and Conservative Members—who I know are also concerned about our relationships with South Africa, but from a different point of view—are concerned that such a Bill has a full, final—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have the gist of the hon. Gentleman's point. I repeat again that much of what he is saying is a matter for debate and one which hon. Members will take into account when reaching their conclusion at the end of the debate. Hon. Members may well argue that matters arising from the Bill are of such wide importance that they deserve further time. I must advise the House that, when I set down private business for the period between 7 pm and 10 pm, it is always open to me to ask the Government whether they will table a motion to suspend the 10 o'clock rule to enable the debate to continue beyond 10 o'clock. I have to be mindful of the demands on hon. Members' time and health and seek not to impose unreasonable obligations and duties on them. For that reason, I would be most reluctant to seek to extend any debate on private Bills beyond 10 o'clock, except where absolutely necessary.
  I shall, of course, listen carefully to what is said in the debate and, when the House reaches its conclusion this evening, if it is necessary to do so, I shall reflect on what the hon. Gentleman has said. However, he has raised matters that should be taken into account in the debate and no doubt they will be weighed by hon. Members when they reach their conclusion at the end of the debate.
  Mr. Grocott rose—
  Mr. Redmond rose—
  Mr. Bermingham rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I call Mr. Grocott.
  Mr. Grocott: I am simply seeking your protection on this, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Hon. Members may well have looked at the Order Paper today without appreciating, from a glimpse of it, the major national and international significance of this Bill which masquerades as a private Bill, and many hon. Members who would have wished to contribute may not be able to do so. Indeed, it may well be—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman needs my protection. When hon. Members say that they are seeking my protection, I look at them and wonder who needs to be protected from whom. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends have been left in any doubt during the past week or two about the importance and significance of this Bill.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I call Mr. Redmond.
  Mr. Redmond: I asked earlier whether the Bill was a hybrid Bill. You gave guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you were satisfied that the Examiner had examined and that he was satisfied that the Bill satisfied the criteria of a private Bill. May I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, how an hon. Member can have discussions with the Examiner to satisfy himself that the Examiner's decision was correct? When I and a colleague went to discuss this private Bill with the Examiners, the Examiner was helpful but unfortunately could not take into consideration the views that we expressed, because the Examiner who had passed the Bill to your good self, Mr. Deputy Speaker, had left the Examiners' office. Because hon. Members could not ask the Examiner who had passed the Bill directly whether he was satisfied with the decision, will you suspend the sitting under Standing Order No. 85 in order to satisfy yourself that it is not a hybrid Bill?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I share the general feeling that we have every confidence in the professionalism of those who serve us. Irrespective of the circumstances that the hon.Gentleman has just described, I doubt whether the Bill would have proceeded to this stage if there were any question about its bona fides and vires. I am confident that it satisfies all the criteria, and I hope that we can get on. We have spent more than 20 minutes on points of order, some of which would be more relevant to the debate.
  Mr. Eric Illsley: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Could it not be the case that the Examiner, having left the Private Bill Office, is not aware that the promoters of the Bill—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot have a debate and inquiry into these hypothetical matters.H on. Members are not only calling into question the competence of those who serve us, but are getting dangerously near challenging my ruling. I must remind the House that rulings from the Chair are not a matter for debate.
  Mr. Jack Thompson rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that this will be the last point of order, and that we can proceed.
  Mr. Thompson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My point is different from the others, and I hope that it will help to clear up the matter. Normally, when we receive notice of a private Bill, we also receive from the petitioners a statement which explains the details of the Bill. Would it not be appropriate to receive a statement? I certainly have not seen one.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter within my responsibility. I understand that it is by way of information and a courtesy. I call Mr. Michael Brown.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. William O'Brien: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance on the business before us tonight. My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) referred to the book of reference. How can we go about obtaining that so that we can have the information for the debate while an hon. Member is speaking—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have dealt with that matter. I said to the House that that was a matter not for me, but for debate. I call Mr. Michael Brown.
  Mr. Michael Brown: The Bill will empower the promoters to carry out works—
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Many of the points of order have not been bona fide points. The Chair deprecates business being delayed by procrastinating, bogus points of order. I hope that the House will be allowed to proceed with its business. I shall allow the Labour Front Bench spokesman to raise a matter and then I hope to get on with the debate. I intend to take no further points of order after this.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Hon. Gentlemen have just heard my ruling, and I hope that they will not challenge it.
  Mr. Grocott: On a new point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As you were in the Chair during long stretches of the night when we discussed the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill, I am sure that you will understand the natural anxiety about the conduct of debate on a private Bill. We all know that during its consideration it came to the attention of many of my right hon. and hon. Friends —and, to be fair, it disquieted many Tory Members—that the judgment of many hon. Members was being affected by the expensive hospitality offered by the Bill's sponsors.
  This is an extremely serious point of order. On any outside reckoning, any neutral individual would take the objective view that wine, champagne and other drink, and hospitality for Members' wives—film shows were in operation and were being circularised by the Bill's sponsors—must affect the judgment, willingness to stay and stamina of hon. Members. Hon. Members and others need to be reassured whether, as we come to consider another private Bill—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. One private Bill at a time. Is the hon. Gentleman making allegations that hon. Members have been influenced improperly?
  Mr. Grocott: My problem, which I am sure is shared by everyone outside and the newspapers which will want to report this, is that I do not know. But this is extremely important, and you will understand—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not persist with an attempt to make me rule on some hypothetical hearsay. I cannot get involved in these matters, nor can I rule on them. I call Mr. Michael Brown.
  Mr. Michael Brown: —to carry out works required to reconstruct the jetty in the tidal part of the estuary.
  Several Hon. Members: On a point of order—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I made it clear that I would not take any further points of order at this stage. I call Mr. Michael Brown.
  Mr. Michael Brown: The jetty is already capable of handling vessels up to 30,000 tonnes deadweight and the jetty is now in need of strengthening and organisation. I can assure the House that the Bill is absolutely necessary because of the reconstruction of the jetty, which will interfere with the public rights of navigation.[Interruption.] Planning consent could not override those rights and would not enable the jetty to be reconstructed.[Interruption.] Associated with the jetty will be a cargo terminal, which will be located within an adjacent area already designated for industrial use and set aside for activities requiring access to the deep water channel in the Humber.[Interruption.] The local authorities, the county councils, Glanford borough council and the local authorities immediately around the—
  Mr. Redmond: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I ask you to ask the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) to read slowly so that we can catch what he is saying? He is deliberately speaking fast —he was guilty of that when he moved the Second Reading of the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill—so that we cannot hear what he is saying.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for me, but doubtless the hon. Gentleman will bear it in mind.
  Mr. BrownYes, of course, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Because of the location of the terminal, it is most unlikely that there will be any adverse effect on the environment in the area, and consultations with the local authorities have resolved any problems of that sort. The area around North Killingholme has been in decline for many years. It was blighted by the proposal, which was thankfully withdrawn, to dispose of nuclear waste in the area, so we are delighted at this proposal, which will provide a large number of jobs for my constituents. In so far as I have an interest in this Bill, it is confined to the fact that I stand to benefit, as do my constituents, from the enrichment of the area by a large increase in the number of jobs.
  The estuary is strategically located for the European Economic Community and is favourably placed for accessibility from industrial locations within the United Kingdom. A study undertaken for Humberside county council by Coopers and Lybrand as far as back as 1982 shows that Humberside's importance in terms of cargo moving through the area is tremendous; there has been a 5·5 per cent. increase in the amount of tonnage through the

  1195
  ports on Humberside as a whole. That is two and half times more than the rate for the United Kingdom, so it shows that there is tremendous potential for the port development, which the country requires anyway. As a result of their own market studies, the promoters are confident that they will capture a share of the existing import and export traffic.
  Mr. Redmond: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I asked, through you, that the hon. Member should speak more slowly so that we might fully understand and appreciate what he is saying. While he continues to gabble—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) has got the point.
  Mr. Brown: My rate of speaking is about 110 words a minute, which is very slow compared to the average rate in a public debate.
  More significantly, the new cargo terminal is intended to divert other traffic away from Rotterdam, where it is going at the moment. Traffic is going to Rotterdam, where large cargoes are split up to be sent to the United Kingdom. So we stand to gain through the revenue which will come to our ports initially.
  Mr. Barron: The hon. Gentleman has talked about cargo going to Rotterdam. Could it be coal from South Africa? My hon. Friends and I have not failed to notice, not only that the cargo is coal but that the Minister responsible for coal has come to listen to the debate on this so-called private Bill because he wants' to privatise electricity. Will the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) be more forthcoming about what the cargo is likely to be?
  Mr. Brown: The import and export traffic will be in bulk commodities, which include grain, coal, coke, aggregates, fertilisers and minerals. If Opposition Members think that by defeating the Bill they will in some way prevent commodities coming direct to this country which do not do so now, they are wrong. All that will happen if the Bill goes through is that cargoes which get to this country by means of small vessels, with the revenue going to the port of Rotterdam, will come to Humberside instead, with the revenue also coming to Humberside. That is the point of the Bill
  Mr. Redmond rose—
  Mr. Brown: I have been very generous. The hon. Gentleman has raised several points of order. I should like to press on.
  Opposition Members have expressed concern that the new port facilities capable of handling bulk cargoes could have an adverse effect on the coal industry. I should like to draw the attention of Opposition Members to two points. First, the CEGB has an 800-acre site immediately adjacent to the proposed cargo terminal. The site has planning permission for the development of a power station. When constructed, the power station will be served by its own jetty. Therefore, the promoters do not expect the CEGB to use the North Killingholme cargo terminal for coal movements.
  Secondly, notwithstanding the Channel tunnel, United Kingdom industry as a whole relies, and must continue to rely, on an efficient modern port facility to serve its import and export needs.
  Mr. Lofthouse rose—
  Mr. Brown: I hope the hon. Gentleman will catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  The Bill is particularly relevant as 1992 approaches. If protection were to be sought for one sector of Britain's industry, it should surely not be at the expense of other sectors whose costs would increase if our port facilities are not as up to date as those of our rivals on the continent. Creating adequate competition in the provision of port services is surely vital to the health of our economy. I ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before I call anyone to speak, may I remind hon. Members that it is fundamental to the nature of the House that we give others an opportunity to address the House, no matter how disagreeable we may find the views expressed. I hope that hon. Members will not upset that tradition too much.
  8.3 pm
  Mr. Peter Hardy: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I expect that your forecast that our speeches will be disagreeable will be fulfilled. I hope that my speech will be viewed as most disagreeable by the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown). It has been a difficult time for you in the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because the occasion amply illustrates, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) pointed out, that we have reached a point in parliamentary history when the private Bill is used for purposes that are not appropriate for private Bills. This Bill may be ostensibly about one small part of the Humber estuary, but it goes to the very heart of Britain's trading, political and social problems. Because of that, my hon. Friends and I are implacably opposed to it, as we are to its sister Bill, which will be considered tomorrow.
  We will spell out in considerable detail on Second Reading, and even more so if, unfortunately, the Bill reaches the Report stage, our total resolve to contest the Bill now and at any time word by word, line by line and stage by stage.
  Mr. William Cash: The hon. Member has iust said that he thinks the private Bill procedure is inappropriate for such a measure. Does he accept that it is impossible for the legislation to be introduced in any way other than as a private Bill? Furthermore, there is an absolute stack of precedents, going back at least 200 years, for matters of this kind being dealt with by the private Bill procedure. The hon. Gentleman must look at the precedents and accept what I have said.
  Mr. Hardy: The hon. Gentleman should understand that some of us may never pose as experts in constitutional politics and practice, but he might care to refresh his memory about the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Act 1988, to which reference has already been made. He will understand that many people suspect—the suspicion is not restricted to this party or to these Benches—that there are now many occasions when the private Bill procedure is used to circumvent alternative procedures.
  Mr. Lofthouse: Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be to the advantage of the House, and not least to that of the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr.

  1197
  Brown) himself, if he had given an assurance that he had no hope in future of being involved financially in any of the companies? It might have helped the House if he had told us whether, on a recent visit to South Africa, with all expenses paid, he discussed the landing of South African coal at these ports. Furthermore, did he discuss with the South African coal company representatives who were in London the landing of coal at these docks?
  Mr. Hardy: My hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not deal with the point now. Later I shall refer specifically to the South African link. It might have been appropriate if the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes had said a little more to explain the nature of the trade in South African coal. He did not do so. We shall shortly do it for him. I trust that he and his hon. Friends will remain in the Chamber so that we may ensure that ignorance will be no excuse in the House's consideration of the Bill at later stages.
  I want to deal specifically with our implacable resolve to oppose the Bill. We are totally opposed to the Bill because it is a foolish duplication of existing port capacity. We had arguments about Felixstowe. My hon. Friends who attended that debate know that a vast sum of money is to be spent on a port at Felixstowe when other ports are underused. After protracted consideration, the House, in my view foolishly, approved the Felixstowe development. So we have even more port capacity than we had a year ago. There is no evidence that the volume of exports is increasing. If it were, that would justify additional port capacity.
  That is the first argument. If and when the Minister for Public Transport chooses to contribute to the debate, I hope that he will tell us whether the Government consider that we have any great inadequacy in port capacity. If we have not, there is no justification for spending vast sums of money in the pursuit of duplication.
  Mr. Barron: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. Does he consider that the reason for setting up these ports on Humberside is one of geography, rather than one of capacity? They will be within 50 miles of some of the biggest coal users in electricity generation in the country. They are designed to penetrate that market, and no other market that the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) mentioned. There is over-production in the grain market.
  Mr. Hardy: My hon. Friend is right. There is over-production in Europe of cereal and other agricultural products.
  The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes said that the CEGB owned land adjacent to the port. He suggested, or sought to mislead the House by suggesting, that the CEGB owned a nearby site and had the capacity to provide its own jetty to operate a power station nearby. The hon. Gentleman knows full well that the facility is not designed to serve a power station in the immediate vicinity of the port. The facility is designed to replace British coal in power stations such as West Burton, which is not very far away, or in other power stations in central England. That is one reason why we are implacably opposed to the duplication of port facilities, but there is a variety of other reasons for our view.
  1198
  People are increasingly paying detailed attention to the case that is at the heart of our argument, because such a development is very much against the national strategic interest. We believe that developing an energy reliance on imported materials is foolish and that the promoters of the Bill are contributing to that folly. The strategic interest of the country is being ignored and the most shortsighted decisions are being taken.
  The hon. Gentleman may consider that his constituents unanimously support his very doubtful position, but we have an obligation to our constituents, whose jobs will go where jobs have already gone. The economic heart of our communities will be further damaged, when damage enough has been caused in the last few years. The hon. Gentleman might be prepared to disregard morality and the strategic interests of the country to serve his constituents, but I wonder how many people in Brigg and Cleethorpes are also supporters and upholders of the apartheid regime in South Africa.
  Mr. Pat Wall: My hon. Friend referred to the capacity of British docks. If I remember rightly, the total capacity of British docks is about 47 million tonnes per year. At the height of the use of the docks industry, no more than 42 million tonnes of capacity have ever been used. That shows that there is over-capacity in Britain's docks. The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) said that ships coming to Britain with bulk cargoes go first to Rotterdam, the cargoes are broken down and transhipped to Britain. That is because of Government policy. The Government do not direct the ships into port. They allow a laissez faire system in which owners bargain for individual cargoes. That leads to chaos. Not only the jobs of miners and power workers threatened, but dockers' jobs throughout Britain are threatened.
  Mr. Hardy: My hon. Friend illustrates the position that was argued when points of order of some doubtfulness were raised and the Bill was described as having the widest possible implications which do involve not merely a small part of the south Humberside coast or the nearby mining communities, but the nation's energy policy. I shall refer to that in a moment.
  The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes scarcely mentioned South Africa. All the documents that I have received from the promoters of the Bill contain not a word about South Africa, Colombia or anywhere else. They contain no reference to coal. The hon. Gentleman confirmed our suspicions by mentioning coal and coke in his introductory remarks. We believe that it is a sordid link, and it is a pity that any hon. Member should be involved or have sympathy with such a sordid link. The promoters of the Bill appear to have a tolerance of deceitful practice. One would hope that the House would deplore deceitful practice. Coal is being imported into this country which is labelled as, and known to be, South African coal, but a greater tonnage is coming from South Africa in disguise. It is being landed at Rotterdam, and it is then described as Dutch or Netherlands coal being brought to Britain. The fact is that the Netherlands produces not one cobble of coal.
  Some years ago I visited an establishment in the east of the Netherlands. As we drove to the establishment, which was an important base for the Western alliance, I said to the chap who was sitting with me on the bus, "This looks

  1199
  like a coal mining community and the building that we are approaching looks like a coal mine." It was perhaps the last coal mine in the Netherlands. It is used for European security purposes, and is certainly not used to produce coal. I know of no Dutch politician who would dream of claiming that the Netherlands produces any coal. Therefore, it is quite reasonable for hon. Members to question the import of Dutch coal, when we know that no coal comes from the Netherlands.
  Some of the coal is described as Luxembourg coal. Luxembourg produces no coal at all. Some is described as Belgian coal. One or two Conservative Members may know a little about the coal industry, and they will know that the Belgian coal industry has been contracting rather faster than ours during the past decade and is now of a negligible size. It is certainly not capable of exporting substantial quantities of coal.
  The coal that is blended in Rotterdam is, to a substantial extent, from South Africa. The people who are bringing it in know that people in this country, perhaps not in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, but in many others, are rather more critical of South Africa than are Treasury Ministers. Therefore, they are disguising the trade by their description of the coal. That is deceitful and sordid and is another reason for our hostility to the Bill.
  Mr. Redmond: The promoter of the Bill does not care where the coal comes from or whether blood is on that coal, so long as he and his friends make a profit from the blood, the sweat and the death. He would import coal from Bolivia and Colombia, which to a large extent is produced by women and children.
  Mr. Hardy: The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes lays himself wide open to that accusation. Although he was able to measure his speech in the number of words per minute, he offered not one word of justification for his political or moral position. It may be that the hon. Gentleman and some of his hon. Friends met Rand Mines, Anglo-American, Glencor and Johannesburg Consolidated which visited Britain on 22 April. I believe that I know why they came to Britain. They came because they believed that the climate was ripe, and that people in power in Britain were receptive to the idea of more coal being imported. Such imports have been stopped in Denmark, and, I think, in Germany. The Swedes and Norwegians will not touch this coal. Even the French have banned it. South Africa thinks, therefore, that it can send more to Britain.
  We once had a decent tradition here, but it has to a large extent been sacrificed by Conservative Members. The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes may have met the companies in April. Another reason they came is that they believe that they can get in on the ground floor of electricity privatisation and that by establishing, directly or indirectly, more port facilities they can influence not merely the export of coal from South Africa but its consumption here. That is another pretty shoddy pass that we have reached.
  Such an approach is sad and foolish for Britain, because it ignores the facts as we approach the 1990s. I do not like reading speeches, but I must make a brief quotation:
  "Increased United Kingdom imports would inevitably force up world prices. The amount of steam coal traded internationally is not much more than the size of the United Kingdom market."
  1200
  We are not a huge part of the total energy consuming world, but large-scale imports would have a major effect on prices. They would narrow the gap between the price of British coal and the price of world coal.
  Hon. Members who think that we can defy the laws of economics and develop a huge dependency on imported coal without suffering any economic consequences are labouring under a serious delusion, because as soon as we increase the demand for coal on world markets the price will inevitably increase substantially. That fact goes to the heart of our argument, and it presents serious dangers for Britain.
  The Bill is shortsighted and foolish in economic and energy terms. It is time that we began to understand the realities of energy. We have 0·8 per cent. of the world's proven oil resources, but we are producing almost 4·5 per cent. of the world's oil. We are therefore producing at a rate five times faster than is sensible. As each year passes, the Treasury will have to make more and more concessions to oil producers to invest and increase the rate of extraction from British fields, the bulk of the best parts of which may already have gone.
  We have about 0·6 per cent. of the world's gas, but we are producing more than 2·5 per cent. of the world's current output, and have done so for some years. That means that we—a supposedly intelligent nation—are rushing to embrace energy dependency again. As our oil and gas resources are depleted at an astonishing rate of blind prodigal folly, we shall develop dependency on imported coal, because it is cheap at the moment, and wipe out viability in the British coal mining industry.
  That lies at the root of the matter and it is why my right hon. and hon. Friends are here tonight, hoping that some Conservative Members will have some sense. A few moments ago, I said that I was quoting. I had hoped that a Conservative Member would ask who I was quoting, as I was quoting what the Secretary of State for Energy said at the Institution of Mining Engineers conference last month.
  Mr. Michael Welsh: When the Secretary of State said that imported coal would hurt British pits, but that if the price of coal went up we would have a chance to compete, he made an important statement, but is that not an example of economic madness? Does my hon. Friend agree that, once a pit has been closed, output cannot be increased just to suit demand? Once a shaft is closed, no more coal can be brought out. The critical path of a pit is 15 years. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Secretary of State was talking economic nonsense to the engineers, and they must have known it?
  Mr. Hardy: My hon. Friend is right. It is a pity that there are no Ministers from the Department of Energy to hear our balanced and justified critique. The Secretary of State's comments on prices were recognised as important at the conference, and not all of those who attended are Socialist or Labour supporters. Indeed, some of them may still be clinging to the coattails of the Conservative party. Nobody with expertise in mining of energy, however, would dream of endorsing the shortsightedness that the Bill represents.
  The Secretary of State acknowledged that Britain has huge and rich coal reserves. He said:
  "You all know that, and I know it."
  He acknowledged that the mining engineers know it and claimed to know it himself, but he has not had a word with

  1201
  the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes to say that his Bill and that which, unfortunately, the House is to consider tomorrow night contradict what the Secretary of State said at the Blackpool conference on 13 May. He said:
  "We have discovered a resource which if allowed to could compete with the world for as far ahead as we can see."
  How far ahead do the Government look? How far ahead does the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes look? He does not have to look far to see such turmoil, stress, strain and bloodshed in South Africa that would imperil the source on which he wants Britain to depend.
  The Secretary of State went further than recognition of the facts. During his speech to the Institution of Mining Engineers he confirmed the enormous investment that the Government have put into mining. We all recognise that vast investment has been made. There are not many Conservative Members present, but some of them might pause for just a while and consider whether it is wise for a Conservative Back Bencher to present a Bill to the House which destroys investment on that scale and about which the Secretary of State boasted.
  This is madness economics. It is the financial practice of lunatics. The hon. Gentleman is sabotaging public policy. If we were at war and the hon. Gentleman decided to destroy the armaments on which the country depended, he would probably be shot in the Tower as a traitor, even though we do not currently have capital punishment. If he carries on in this way, he will no doubt appear in an honours list before long. We have spent £9 billion on the coal industry, and the hon. Gentleman and some of his hon. Friends are cheered for introducing a Bill that will ensure that that investment proves worthless.
  I cannot say that I am always an enthusiastic adulator of British Coal, but it regularly keeps hon. Members informed. Indeed, I suspect that some Conservative Members may have been informed more quickly than Labour Members. I received a press release from British Coal which stated:
  "The national productivity record has been broken at Britain's collieries for the fifth time in the last 12 weeks. Miners last week achieved a new peak performance of 4·42 tonnes output per man shift."
  That is a significant achievement and has been made because of the very real change in the industry. There are now 260 heavy duty coal faces, whereas three or four years ago there were over 500. Three years ago there were five collieries in my constituency; now there is only one. We have made a bitter contribution to the colliery output records achieved by British Coal. The consequences to areas such as mine have been enormous, yet those changes, sacrifices and burdens are mocked by the Bill.
  In the Bill, the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes is saying that we shall have to do even better to compete with South African coal. The British mining communities will not be made the coolies of western Europe. They have made an enormous contribution to the history of this country, and we do not intend to see ever-increasing demands, hardship and deceit.
  Mr. Redmond: My hon. Friend makes an important point. The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) said that the installations would create some jobs. They may well create a few jobs, but when one considers the devastation that will take place in the remaining mining communities, one feels that the hon. Gentleman
  1202
  should broaden his horizons, see what is happening on the other side of the hill, meet the people and understand what is happening in those industries that are suffering as a consequence of the policies of the Government and of people such as the hon. Gentleman who seek to import further blood coal into this country.
  Mr. Hardy: My hon. Friend is right. His constituency is next to mine and, in the past three years, the number of collieries there has fallen from five to one. In the past three years the number of collieries in my constituency has also fallen from five to one. As other hon. Friends in the House this evening could testify from experiences in their constituencies, the effect on the social and economic structure in areas such as mine has been brutal and cruel and is now mocked by the Bill.
  The one remaining colliery in my constituency, Silverwood, is a profitable colliery, as many of my hon. Friends know. It has made enormous profits since it was sunk in 1912, both for the owners before nationalisation, and since it has been owned by the state. It provides coal for Drax and West Burton. The port that the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes wishes to develop will bring in South African coal to replace that of Silverwood. I am not prepared to sit by and let that happen.
  Mr. Lofthouse: Does my hon. Friend agree that the threat of electricity privatisation and of the proposal in respect of this port is estimated, in a recent report by the Coalfield Communities Campaign, which, to some extent, Sir Robert Haslam endorsed in the Select Committee recently, to mean the loss of another 50,000 jobs? The greatest tragedy is that the average age of miners is now 34, so we are talking about 50,000 jobs involving men of 34 and under, without any compensation in the form of weekly payments.
  Mr. Hardy: I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to develop that point, either tonight or in the relevant debate tomorrow, by referring to an aspect of the matter that causes me serious concern.
  The House will be aware that, in addition to representing a mining constituency that has seen its mining interests dramatically reduced, I am sponsored by the National Association of Colliery Overmen, Deputies and Shotfirers, which is holding its conference this week. I shall speak at that conference on Friday, and I hope that I can convey to the members the information that the House is not completely daft and that it has some compassion for, understanding of and obligation to all parts of the country, instead of only to the affluent parts of the country that Conservative Members may know better than I do.
  As the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. McLoughlin) might remember, that association has a fundamental obligation, not merely to supervise production, but to ensure that the laws and regulations of this land are observed to ensure that the mining industry is operated as safely as possible.
  I want to draw the House's attention to the question of safety. We are concerned about South Africa, not only because of the political injustice or the racial obscenity, but because South African workers are largely abused and do not enjoy the structures of legal protection that any civilised society would think it right to afford. It is appropriate for me, as a Member sponsored by NACODS, to make those points.

  1203
  One of the South African firms that came to this country in April to discuss opportunities for electricity privatisation, Glencor, is known as the butcher in South Africa because of the fatalities in the underground colliery operations for which it is responsible. There were 177 dead at the Kinross gold mine.
  Mining has been practised in my constituency for over 300 years, and it has taken a Conservative Government to bring about the prospect of having no mines at all. I did a great deal of research in local history when I was younger. We could easily travel round and see where 100 people, 50 people or 180 people were destroyed by explosions and by practices which may well have been slightly more tolerable because technology was not as advanced in the 19th century as it is today. There is now no need for scores of men to be killed underground.
  A colliery deputy in Britain must be at least 25 years old and have worked underground for five years and on the face for two. Those are very much the minimum requirements. It would be most unusual, as any of my hon. Friends with a great deal of underground experience can confirm, for an official to have those legal responsibilities with only those qualifications. In addition, the official must pass the appropriate examinations.
  In South Africa, the requirements are that the person must be 20 years old, and have worked 75 shifts at the face and 400 shifts underground. I am glad that the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West smiles. His smile cheers me up, because it is sad that we should face this situation without an ounce of sympathy from the Conservative Benches. South African coal is not cheaply won. The wages are low, but the price is high, because people like those who came to meet the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes employ people responsible for safety who have worked only 75 shifts underground. That is why 68 men died in a fire in Hlobane mine.
  Mr. Alexander Eadie: My hon. Friend is making a powerful case about safety and fatalities in the mining industries. Is he aware that, in speaking about the representatives of South Africa, he is speaking about the apostles of private enterprise? Is he further aware that if the Government win the next general election, they intend to privatise the coal industry? Is he also aware that in this century nearly 58,000 miners have been killed, my father among them, and most of those deaths occurred in the days of private enterprise?
  Mr. Hardy: My hon. Friend is right. Some people make mock of colliery nationalisation, but as a little lad I was with my father, outside Manvers colliery in 1947, to see the vesting of that pit into public ownership. My father, all his work mates and their families knew that one of the blessings of that act was that priority would be given to safety, a priority which was not given before, and which we suspect will not be given again if the Government are returned after the next general election. It is no good Conservative Members shaking their heads. The profit motive will dominate all other responsibilities and it will be short-sighted—
  Mr. Illsley: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Hardy: Yes, I will in a minute, because I know that my hon. Friend will have an important point to make.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I suspect that the debate might be turning into one about the privatisation or otherwise of the coal mining industry. We had better turn our eyes to North Killingholme.
  Mr. Hardy: I accept that point because we ought not to stray too far, but this port is being developed in response to the opportunities that privatisation will create. so privatisation is partly related to the Bill. I accept that we should not range too widely, although we do not need to range too widely, because the material in the Bill gives us sufficient scope to debate it for many a long day, week, month or year. It is no good the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes smiling, because if ever this Bill gets to Report, he will not be smiling after the hours that we are prepared to devote to it.
  I have been looking at the Bill, and I consider that it will be necessary, if it reaches Report, to table many amendments. I hope that the promoters will decide to cut their losses, because losses there will be. It is not an inexpensive matter to promote a private Bill, and if a large part of the House resents that Bill and deplores the motives behind it and feels it necessary in the interests of the country to issue a challenge, then the promoters must understand that the Bill will be an expensive undertaking.
  Some of us devoted a great deal of time, quite properly, to the cause of the red grouse and the little ringed plover when we debated the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Act. I will not mention all the species that were mentioned, although I would be in order to do so. In this Bill, our concerns go a good deal further than the avian. There are concerns about our areas, about our people and our country and about this fact above all. Conservative Members, like Nero in ancient Rome, ignore the reality of the economic evidence that is looking increasingly large. The trade deficit, approaching or exceeding £10 billion in 1988, cannot be brused aside by even the most irresponsible politician.
  At the moment, the Government know that the trade deficit of £12 billion can just about be borne because of invisible earnings and the £4 billion or more of oil revenues. There will be problems the moment they go, and we have much less than 1 per cent.—little more than 0·5 per cent.—of the world's oil resources. We have been producing at nearly 5 per cent. of world oil production, so the Government, despite their disdain of economic reality, are merely ensuring that we approach energy dependency as fast as possible. They do not consider the consequences. They have seen the economic devastation of many parts of England and the eradication of large sectors of our manufacturing industry. When the oil income diminishes, the trade deficit will press hard.
  It may be that, by that time, the pound's value in the world's exchanges will be diminished, and the price of coal, which will rise in any case, will in real terms be a burden that the country cannot afford. The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes and his friends are seeking to wipe out large sections of the British coal industry, and to develop a dependence on imported energy. If that happened in very few years, we would not have the economic capacity to go into the world markets and buy the energy on which we depend. That is at the heart of the matter. I do not know what brief or advice the Minister has been given for his inevitable contribution to the

  1205
  debate, but it will be interesting to see whether he is prepared to offer some modest comment about the economic implications of the Bill.
  Mr. Illsley: My hon. Friend has spoken about the conference that he will attend this week and about the regulations that govern deputies in mines. Is my hon. Friend aware that already the Government are dismantling the Mines and Quarries Act 1954 and have published 15 sets of new codes of regulations which will decrease the safety standards applicable to deputies in the British coal industry?
  Mr. Hardy: I am aware of the matter, and it will be figuring quite largely in the discussions that I shall have in Glasgow over the next two days. It is a matter that causes NACODS real anxiety. I only hope that no Minister, although he may believe it, will have the gall to say that we have to dismantle the safety structures so that British coal can compete against South African coal. I hope that Ministers will not argue that we have to put at risk life and limb in Britain to compete with Colombia. I know that Colombian coal is selling at $28·20 a tonne on world markets, but it is being sold at well below the production cost, which on average is $33·90. I was interested to see in the documents that I have studied that the companies that own Colombian coal, which are rather more intelligent than some Conservative Members, have said that they are prepared to subsidise Colombian coal until such time as world markets recover and profits are within their grasp. That will happen when the port to which the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes is dedicated is constructed.
  Mr. Bob Cryer: The proposals to substitute the provisions of the Mines and Quarries Act 1954 by codes of practice, not by regulations, are designed to enable British Coal to increase its profitable element. That Act contains absolute safety provisions, which are statutory provisions. On the other hand, a code of practice is not a statutory provision, and breach of it is not even an offence; it is taken to the courts only when the court case is considered. In other words, the dismantling of that Act represents a massive reduction in safety standards precisely to compete with cheap coal coming through ports such as the one suggested here.
  Mr. Hardy: My hon. Friend is an authority on employment law and health and safety matters, on which he has a distinguished record. The Government cannot deny opportunity to the House to consider the serious matter on which he has touched, which concerns me.
  Before I proceed with my speech, I wish to apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes). I remember that I promised to allow him to intervene. I shall be glad now to remedy my failure to do so.
  Mr. Frank Haynes: A short while ago my hon. Friend referred to the Minister and asked rhetorically whether he had been briefed. My hon. Friend and I know what is going on and the Minister is aware of the Government's policy. The Government favour the Bill because it fits their policy on the privatisation of electricity. The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) —that little lad on the Front Bench below the Gangway who knows nothing about mining—is having an education this evening. He now knows what the Bill involves.
  1206
  I received some visitors today, and when I was with them I saw the Secretary of State for Energy, who was also with some visitors. I asked him whether he would be in the House this evening, and he said he would. Why would the Secretary of State be in the precincts of the House this evening when a private Bill is being discussed? It is a fact that the Government have fixed the vote to secure the Bill's passage. This is a serious matter and I ask the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes to remove the grin from his face. As I have said, the hon. Gentleman has received an education this evening.
  There are 19 pits in Nottinghamshire. If the Bill is enacted, coal imported from South Africa, for example, through the proposed port would close nine of them. There are nine pits in Nottinghamshire which supply coal for the power stations on the Trent.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Interventions should be brief.
  Mr. Hardy: My hon. Friend's intervention may have been lengthy but it was relevant and important. My assessment suggests that he may have understated the position. I hope that no Conservative Members will deny my claim that it is by no means an overstatement.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield referred to Nottinghamshire. I talked earlier about the astonishing achievement of the county in establishing the highest productivity record for British coal nationally. The productivity record established in Nottinghamshire in the recent measured period shows output per man shift exceeding 5 tonnes for the first time in British history. The attitude of the lackeys on the Government Benches, with the connivance of the Government, unless the Minister can make an extremeley convincing speech, means that Nottinghamshire pits are under threat. What a reward for all those in Nottinghamshire who have been praised and congratulted by Conservative Members in the past.
  Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: The intervention of the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) was not relevant to the debate. Indeed, it was entirely false. I put it to the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) that the Government are not involved in the Bill. If they were, all Opposition Members would be aware of the fact. If that were the position, the payroll vote, as it is affectionately known, would be expected to support the unofficial policy of the Government. Some Parliamentary Private Secretaries have been told that there will be a free vote this evening and that they may speak against the Bill. Indeed, some will try to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so that they may do so, and vote against the Bill.
  Mr. Hardy: The hon. Gentleman has touching faith in the Government's objectivity. I thought he said that a certain section of the House is known "affectionately" as the payroll vote. I realised immediately afterwards that I had misheard him and that he said that it was effectively known as that.
  Mr. Brandon-Bravo: I said "affectionately" and I meant "affectionately." Those of us who are part of the payroll vote resent the term because we do not get paid.
  Mr. Hardy: In a better world and at a better time I was part of the payroll vote when the Labour Government were in office, and in a position similar to that which is held by the hon. Gentleman. There were many occasions when

  1207
  I and others in the same position, whether we were regarded affectionately or not, were not given advice on Bills of this sort. We were never given advice on private Bills. Our Whips recognised that it was not for them to contemplate any interference by the Government. I shall need a great deal more convincing than has been offered in the hon. Gentleman's reassurances.
  I know that the Minister will not speak at length in this debate. Ministers never do on these occasions. However, I want him to tell us three things when he gives us advice on the Government's position. I want him to tell us whether the Government are prepared to adopt the same attitude towards South African coal as other member states of the Western Alliance and the European Economic Community. I want the Government to advise the House whether it would be sensible to enact a Bill that would nullify public investment in the British coal industry. I want the Government to advise the House whether it would be intelligent for the Government or the country to allow a port to be established, in massive duplication of other facilities, which would ensure that strategic interests were not served. That is not much to ask.
  I have been involved in a number of private Bills in the past 12 or 18 months and I have been appalled by the attitude that has been displayed by various Ministers. We had a classic example. A Minister assured the House that the Government were neutral. Having heard that, I voted and went quickly to stand outside the Aye Lobby. I saw Government Whips and Ministers flocking out of it. That happened immediately after a Minister had told us that there was neutrality. According to that Minister, the Secretary of State for the Environment was neutral. He voted in favour of the Bill when the two public agencies which reported to him were petitioning against it.
  Mr. Barron: My hon. Friend may recall that the very same Minister, who is on the Government Front Bench tonight, when speaking about the Associated British Ports Bill a few weeks ago, said that the Government had no position on the Bill but he hoped that hon. Members would vote with him to give it a Second Reading. I suspect that the Minister will say very much the same tonight.
  Mr. Hardy: The Minister is developing a reputation for frankness and integrity, which may mean that he has reconsidered his position. Only last Monday, I asked a question of him—I recognise that this is not strictly relevant, so I shall be brief—concerning red seats on railway platforms. At Grantham station the seats are blue, and when I commented that that was inevitably because of the Prime Minister's connections, and suggested that the right hon. Lady's attachment to railways is meagre and wretched, the Minister said that that was not the case because his right hon. Friend had told him that she had enjoyed a railway journey. That was frank of him; he could at least have avoided the singular. He did not do so. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman's reputation rose in my estimation.
  It may be that he has decided that the course of integrity and responsibility is such, even with demanding masters, that when he stands at the Dispatch Box he will recognise the merit of our argument. If he does, his reputation will be improved beyond that of the tawdry level of so many of his right hon. and hon. Friends who occupy the Government Front Bench.
  The Government have divided Britain in an astonishing
  1208
  way. I mentioned the plight of my hon. Friend's area and mine, which is relevant to the Bill. In each of our constituencies, we have one colliery remaining that could be threatened by a dependence upon imports. Our constituents are angry—as are those of my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse), who has had a similar experience—and we are angry al the way in which we are treated by the Government and by Ministers. About four years ago, I wrote to the Prime Minister about what would happen in my constituency. A few weeks later she replied saying that I had overstated my case and that only 2,800 mining jobs would be lost.
  On several occasions since I have raised the matter again. Four weeks ago, I wrote to the Prime Minister, saying that the position was worse than when I had written to her a month previously. Last week, she replied, and it is disgraceful that a Prime Minister should put her name to a letter designed to be grossly misleading. For example, the right hon. Lady insisted that unemployment in my area is falling when it is not. She claimed that my area is receiving special priority under the urban programme when it is not. There are still a few Government supporters north of the Trent, and there may be present Conservative Members from areas that I could name, where unemployment is half the level it is in my own constituency and that of my hon. Friend, but which—despite the fact that their average population is one third of that in my metropolitan area—are receiving larger sums in urban area support. Some special priority!
  An even more unacceptable development, which would be aggravated if the Bill is passed, is that the Government have changed the rules for derelict land grant. The House knows that I am committed to the cause of conservation. One hon. Member mentioned that I embraced it long before many other hon. Members did, and sometimes I am cynical about their support. Nevertheless, I am committed to seeing the Dearne valley, where I live, made green again. We have lost the pits and we are now losing hope. The remaining jobs there are under threat, yet the Prime Minister informed me that the area was being greatly helped by the derelict land grant, when in fact the Government have changed the regulations and made it virtually impossible for any public moneys to be devoted to reclaiming colliery spoil heaps or the area within the curtilage of any colliery. In my own constituency there are in one colliery complex 675 acres that cannot be improved and which will remain desolate, despairing and disgraceful because of the Government's insensitivity—an insensitivity that is compounded by the Prime Minister's great deceit. I am waiting for the right hon. Lady's explanation of the various points that were made in the letter.
  That area, with the adjoining constituencies of my hon. Friends the Members for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) to the east and for Barnsley, East (Mr. Patchett) to the west, has seen the most colossal job losses.
  It may be that the Minister will tell the House that he can offer all sorts of assurances that this is a reputable private company which can give guarantees, but I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that after my experiences in my constituency over the past 12 months I am cynical about taking the word of private sector businesses, unless I know them very well indeed.
  Mr. Redmond: Does my hon. Friend agree that what is important is jobs for the youngsters? In its prime, prior to the strike, the coal board employed approximately 650

  1209
  apprentices each year. After the strike, in 1985, in 1986
  and in 1987 there were no more apprentices. How many apprenticeships will replace that loss?
  Mr. Hardy: My hon. Friend is right to ask the question, but I cannot answer it. However, I doubt whether the commitment to training and education in the private sector generally is anything like adequate. It is most unlikely that the training being given by the public sector to young people in the steel and coal industries and other sectors of the economy will be replaced once privatisation has been completed.
  Mr. Illsley: Before my hon. Friend leaves the point that he was making about private companies and the assurances that he would take from them, will he comment on the matters raised at the beginning of the debate when we seemed to have some difficulty in identifying the promoter of the Bill? He might recall that my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Welsh) had elicited that Chemical and Oil Storage Management Ltd. did not seem to exist and that it may have been taken over by a company called Simon Storage. Does that not emphasise my hon. Friend's point that we should be wary of who we are dealing with in this matter?
  Mr. Hardy: My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is one of the modern tragedies of Britain that the captains of industry should have allowed within their ranks men whose word cannot be believed. I am not suggesting that the company is dishonourable, nor that the people within it are dishonourable, but the fact remains that we have had such experiences over the past few years as to make us extremely suspicious of the word of big business men.
  It would be wrong to detain the House for long, but my experience of the Guinness company, which cost us 500 jobs, after promises were made, caused me both anger and contempt. When the company, having twice offered me written assurances, then told the local newspapers that it had not given me any assurances at all, we really had reached a pretty pass. It is a pass which means that, in the interests of our constituents, as the Bill proceeds, if it does proceed, we must subject the companies involved in the Bill— the Central Oil Refining Company Ltd., a subsidiary of Simon Engineering plc, and another subsidiary of Simon Engineering plc, Immingham Storage Company Ltd.—to careful scrutiny.
  That scrutiny will be a great deal more careful as a consequence of the experience that my hon. Friends will have had in their constituencies—an experience that I certainly had when Guinness became involved in misleading and cheating the ratepayers, the community and the representatives at national and local level in my constituency, creating a situation in which 500 jobs were lost directly and an additional number of jobs are still being lost as a consequence. That came at a time when Kilnhurst and Manvers collieries were closed and unemployment became even worse.
  For the Prime Minister to say that unemployment is still falling in my area is in plain and stark defiance of the facts, even though the Minister and I and every Conservative Member know that the Government's unemployment figures are fiddled anyway. Even on their fiddled figures, the situation in the coalfield areas is
  1210
  disgraceful. What made me even more angry was that the Prime Minister said to me, "We can demonstrate our commitment to your area: 17,500 young people there are on youth training schemes." That is true; but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) knows full well, last year only 9·8 per cent. of them obtained jobs.
  We shall need an awful lot of convincing from the Minister, and I do not think that he will allow himself sufficient time or energy to present a detailed and convincing case. However, if he does, I hope that he will address the relevant questions that I put to him.
  We recognise that the matter may be the responsibility of the Department of Transport, but it is nevertheless of fundamental importance to the Department of Energy. I cannot expect the Minister to refer in detail to energy, but, as it is fundamental to the Bill, we are surely entitled to ask Conservative Members to comment on my quotations from the speech that the Secretary of State made at Blackpool to the annual conference of the Institution of Mining Engineers. We are also entitled to suggest that a Minister from the Department of Energy should have been here. It is absurd that a matter of such enormous importance to the economy—the making of energy policy and the mining industry, a matter of enormous relevance to the hundreds of millions of pounds invested by successive Governments on behalf of the taxpayer—is to be put at risk without a single Energy Minister being present.
  I wonder where they are. Are they interested in their responsibilities? Do they not approve of the words of the Secretary of State for Energy being quoted with approval by Opposition Members, including myself? Do they not notice that we believe that the Secretary of State was absolutely right in referring to the prospects of British Coal—provided, of course, that it operates on a basis of common sense?
  We are entitled to ask the Government to take a long-term view, but they must understand that we shall need a good deal of persuasion. After the Secretary of State for the Environment had been given the official advice of the Nature Conservancy Council and the Countryside Commission, which strongly opposed the Bill, the Minister came to the Dispatch Box and pledged the Government's neutrality. The Secretary of State, the Chief Whip and all the other minions led the troops, happy and laughing, through the Lobby in support of the Bill when their duties and responsibilities should have persuaded them at least to abstain.
  Mr. Harry Barnes: We understand the Government's position. We understand that there is no neutrality—in fact, there is an unofficial Whip in support of the Bill. But, given the case that my hon. Friend has made about the effect on our communities, should not the Government be organising their troops to vote against this private Bill?
  Mr. Hardy: That is right.
  I do not want to detain the House for long this evening. I must make progress because I still have four or five small points to make.
  I referred a few moments ago to safety in South Africa, but omitted to inform the House that the death rate in South African coal mines is well in excess of six times the rate per thousand men employed in the British mining industry. Life and limb should be regarded as important

  1211
  by all hon. Members. We accept that Conservative Members may give them a slightly lower priority than we do, but they will give them some—
  Mr. Martin Flannery: My hon. Friend said earlier that the miners of western Europe could become the coolies of western Europe—a fundamental point. The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown), with his connections with South Africa, never conveys that point. The Tories can never be neutral about the miners. Anyone who remembers the miners' strike knows full well that the Conservatives' aim is to weaken the mining industry in this country. They hate the miners, and have no consideration for South African miners, either. Nelson Mandela has been in gaol all these years. The Sharpeville six will be executed shortly. Are the Tories bothered about British miners? They will have the South African miners, with blood on their coal, competing with our miners to lower the standards of our mining safety and to close our pits.
  Mr. Hardy: My hon. Friend is right. We suspect—the Minister had better note this—that one reason for the port is to provide another lever for the Government's attempts to dismantle the structure of safety in the British mining industry.
  Mr. Jimmy Hood: As a former miner, like my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes), who worked in the Nottinghamshire coalfield, I should like to take this opportunity to mention our real fears. Before we close the debate I want to clear up a misunderstanding about our worries. I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy), when he goes to the conference of the National Association of Colliery Overmen, Deputies and Shotfirers, to give its members our assurance that we shall fully support their defence against the attacks on safety standards in the mining industry that have been made by the Government in preparation for privatisation.
  Even the present legislation is inadequate. We should be strengthening, not weakening, it. I speak as a former union secretary in the Nottinghamshire coalfield, and I had the unpleasant duty of attending six inquests during my period of office. On each of those occasions the legislation proved inadequate to save the lives that were lost. Hon. Members will appreciate what it is like to have to go to a home in a mining community and tell a family that its daddy is not coming home. That explains our real worries about safety standards.
  I think, too, of safety standards in, and blood coal from, South Africa. I can well understand what happens there when—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman is patient, he may be called.
  Mr. Hardy: I believe that my association recognises that Opposition Members remain committed to giving safety a high priority. We are worried about the attitude of Ministers and Conservative Members.
  Mr. John Cummings: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for having given way, lest people think that the debate revolves solely around Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire and Yorkshire. I represent a constituency in the north-east that contains four of the remaining six collieries in the old Durham area. I am sure my hon.
  1212
  Friend recalls the Prime Minister's remarks during the miners' strike to the effect that we were the enemy within. We have broken productivity records. Productivity has never been higher; nor has morale. Perhaps the enemy within sits on the Conservative Benches. Conservative Members are selling the country short by introducing this Bill, which will place the coal reserves of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in the hands of international coal cartels. Does my hon. Friend agree?
  Mr. Hardy: That is right. Unfortunately, the gentleman who held the trust and support of the Government was certainly taking Britain along the road of Mr. MacGregor's basic interest, which was to see Britain developing as a major international coal factor rather than a major international coal producer. I was pleased that he did not get his hands on British Gas after having dealt with British Steel and British Coal.
  Some Conservative Members and Ministers may be so busy pursuing other interests that have attracted their attention that they have overlooked the reality of British electricity generation. Given that disregard, which has been made patently obvious in the debate, it is useful to remind the House of the coal generation market in the United Kingdom.
  Conservative Members seem to believe that the Government have forced the CEGB to buy British coal, and that there are some printed rules and regulations requiring the CEGB to do that. That is not the case. There is a joint understanding. The trouble is that, whilst a joint understanding can properly be applied to public sector industry, private sector businesses do not operate on understandings. They cannot trust each other and they have to have laws.
  Above all, I want the House to understand my next point. Over three quarters of British coal is used for power station generation and 55 per cent. of the CEGB's operating costs are devoted to coal. Conservative Members think that that is a lie and that that coal cart be replaced by cheap foreign coal. They do not understand that 12 million tonnes of coal are purchased by the CEGB at world prices. There is no possibility of a £750 million bonanza waiting round the corner. That is why the Bill is misguided in its potential social effects and in its financial aspirations. That is why I and my hon. Friends will maintain what I said was an absolutely implacable resolve to contest the Bill in every detail. We will contest every word, every line and every paragraph at every stage of the Bill's consideration.
  9.23 pm
  The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. David Mitchell): It may be helpful to the House if I intervene briefly to give the Government's view on the Bill. It is conventional on a private Bill for the Government to take a neutral stance, but in doing so to advise the House that the Bill should be allowed a Second Reading. This does not imply that the Government support the Bill. It is for the promoters to persuade Parliament that the powers they are seeking are necessary and justified.
  The hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) asked for the Government's view about whether the Bill involves the provision of excess capacity in the ports industry. We think that matching capacity with demand is best handled by those who put their money at risk on whether their judgment is right. Their judgment is at least as likely to be

  1213
  right as the judgment of politicians, and probably more so. The Government have no objection in principle to the proposals in the Bill. My Department has a minor point outstanding which it is discussing with the promoters, and it is expected that it will be satisfactorily resolved.
  Mr. Barron: What is the minor point?
  Mr. Mitchell: It is a minor technical point about lighthouses and Trinity House. As I have said, we anticipate that it will be satisfactorily resolved.
  A number of petitioners are against the Bill, and they will have the opportunity to present their objections to the Select Committee. The Committee will be in a much better position than we are in this debate to examine in detail the issues involved, and they will have the added advantage of expert advice.
  A number of hon. Members referred to the coal industry. It has never been the Government's policy to restrict the import of coal. The best protection for the United Kingdom coal industry is to produce secure supplies of coal that are competitive on the world market. The success of British Coal in competition with world coal suppliers depends on its ability to continue to get costs down and to maximise productivity. The purchase of coal, whether imported or indigenous, is a matter for the commercial judgment of individual consumers.
  The hon. Member for Wentworth asked me two further questions. He asked about South African coal. I have no reason to assume that the pattern of sources of imports will be altered by the Bill. That pattern shows that the largest overseas supplier to this country is Australia and that the second largest is the United States of America.
  Mr. Hardy: In order not to delay the House, I did not mention Australia. Australian coal capacity is under severe limit because, at the prevailing level of prices, not enough can be recouped to pay for investment, with the result that the collieries and coalfields in Australia are not operating at full production. That is a relevant point to make when we are considering the Bill.
  Mr. Mitchell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for agreeing that Australia still has surplus capacity that is not being mined. Australia is already the leading overseas supplier to this country. It is not, as the hon. Gentleman and some of his hon. Friends implied, South Africa. The second largest supplier is the United States of America. There is no reason to believe that the building of a new terminal will alter the pattern of imports and lead to South Africa, which is very low on the list of overseas suppliers, moving to the top of the list, as has been implied.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Mitchell: Let me deal with the point that the hon. Member for Wentworth raised. He questioned whether the development of the terminal would nullify British investment in the coal industry. I have already explained what the Government consider to be the most effective way for the British coal industry to ensure its future. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to draw attention to the need for investment in the British coal industry to enable it to continue to compete successfully in the United
  1214
  Kingdom and world markets. I am sure that he will welcome the fact that the Government are investing about £650 million a year in the British coal industry.
  We believe that we should not use limitations of port capacity as a form of non-tariff barrier to imports in order artificially to protect the United Kingdom industry. That industry is now becoming so efficient, competitive and effective that it does not need such artificial discrimination to ensure that it can sell in the United Kingdom market.
  Mr. Barron: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Mitchell: I have tried to answer the points that have been raised in the debate so far. I know that a large number of hon Members want to participate and it would be unfair to them if I were to continue at any length.
  I hope that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading so that it may proceed in the usual way to Committee for detailed consideration of the many issues that hon Members have made clear are likely to arise then.
  9.29 pm
  Mr. Tony Lloyd: It is an unusual exhortation to the House that a Second Reading should be given on the nod and that we should dispense with the entire Second Reading debate because the Government feel that the Bill should be given a chance to prove itself in Committee. In not so many years' time, when we have a Labour Government introducing their own legislation, and if the present Minister survives that general election, will he be prepared to accept Labour Ministers inviting Conservative Members to give a Bill a Second Reading on the nod so that detailed examination can be given to it in Committee? The Minister knows that that is nonsense on a private Bill or a Government Bill, because the whole reason for Second Reading is to seek answers to detailed questions.
  Tonight's debate has been a contempt of the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) made an excellent speech, if a little brief, and he is certainly absolved from that charge, because he took the debate seriously. The promoter of the Bill, the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown), spoke in total for five minutes at, he told us, the rate of 110 words per minute. In 550 words, he made the case for the Bill having a Second Reading, but totally failed to answer many of the important questions that had already been raised, or to anticipate those that might be raised.
  Mr. Michael Brown rose—
  Mr. Lloyd: I will give way in a moment.
  The Minister is responsible not only for the Government's ports policy, but for representing the Government on the many issues that have been raised tonight. He gave us almost no reason for believing that the Government have any view whatsoever of the important issues which have been raised. I warn hon. Gentlemen that during my speech I shall invite them from time to time to respond to specific points that I raise because it is in the interests of the House that they be addressed tonight by the promoter and the Government, and that we should not have to wait until the Bill is in Committee.
  Mr. Brown: Although you were not in the Chair at the time, Mr. Speaker, I commenced my speech at 7.30 pm and ended it at either five minutes past or 10 minutes past 8 o'clock. The only reason why I was unable to do justice to

  1215
  that amount of time and to develop my argument was that many of the points of order were raised in the middle of my speech.
  Mr. Lloyd: In fairness to the hon. Gentleman, I should say that he does not do justice to his speech even when he is not assailed by points of order.
  Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman's attitude to the House if I quote from a letter which he sent his hon Friends, a copy of which has fallen into my hands. If I may beg your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, it is important that you take account of what is in the letter which the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes sent to all Conservative Members—
  Mr. Michael Brown: No, not to all.
  Mr. Lloyd: Well, possibly not to all. [HON. MEMBERS:"HOW many?"] Well, the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes certainly sent it to one of his hon. Friends, who has let it fall into my hands—that is unless he made the mistake of sending it to one of my hon. Friends.
  The letter states that this Bill is similar to the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill. It says that both Bills are "very controversial"—he is right about that—and that Labour Members are "totally opposed" to the Bills. My hon. Friends have already made that point clear, and I reinforce it.
  The letter continued:
  "A filibuster prevented me from obtaining a closure on the first bill and there is a risk that this could re-occur on Wednesday."
  I know that you, Mr. Speaker, would not accept that any filibuster took place, because you were in the Chair that night. The hon. Gentleman then stated:
  "Nevertheless, I cannot take any chances and I wonder if I can impose on your goodwill by asking you to be present to support a closure which I shall request at 10 pm."
  That is an unusual device. Indeed, it is unusual that I announce to you, Mr. Speaker, from the Opposition Front Bench, that the hon. Gentleman will seek to move a closure at 10 pm. I hope that you will take into account when you take your decision the total paucity of the debate and the speeches that have been made by both the promoter and the Minister. I urge that because the Bill is tremendously important in many different ways.
  Mr. David Mitchell: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will recognise that a long speech does not necessarily contain more facts, figures or information for the House than the short, concise replies that I gave to the questions asked earlier by the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy).
  Mr. Lloyd: That might be sound as a principle, but I assure the Minister that when brevity consists of emptiness, it is irrelevant in a speech from a Minister or a promoter of a Bill. I shall make points which, because the Minister will not speak again, he will presumably allow to go unaddressed.
  Important transport issues have not been addressed, and I intend to turn my attention to them. There are also important issues about the coal industry itself, some of which were raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and by our hon. Friends in their interventions. There are also important international dimensions, such as the role of South Africa and the apartheid regime.
  Mr. Richard Caborn: Conservative Members are apologists for the apartheid regime.
  Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend makes a valid point.
  Some of the real issues concern how far we allow the apartheid regime to penetrate the British economy. My hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth pointed out that the South African economic regime is looking greedily at the CEGB. By purchasing those who use the coal, the South African coal industry can guarantee a ready market for its coal supplies in this country.
  Mr. Barron: I tried to intervene in the Minister's speech when he made the specific point that both this Bill and its sister Bill had no direct implications for South African coal. Does my hon. Friend accept that the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) not only went to South Africa this year on a visit paid for by the South African coal industry to look at plants there, but at the same time publicly called on the South African Government to lift restrictions to improve exports from South Africa to Europe?
  Mr. Lloyd: I am always happy to allow my hon. Friend to intervene. The hon. Gentleman visited South Africa to demand that all bans on coal from South Africa be lifted. On 6 April 1988, in the Daily Mail—an apologist for the apartheid regime and the Right-wing Conservative party —its industrial correspondent, David Norris, wrote:
  "It is understood they"—
  that is, the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes and some colleagues, including the hon. Member for Havant (Sir I. Lloyd), who is the Chairman of the Energy Select Committee—
  "told the business leaders that the best way to go about"
  getting the ban on coal lifted
  "was to take out a stake in the planned privatised set-up."
  The hon. Gentleman may wish to deny or confirm that report, but it seems that those hon. Gentlemen were inviting the South African mining industry to take a stake in the CEGB, knowing that they would support the Government's privatisation of it next year.[Interruption.] Yes, Botha's friends will be voting to allow Botha's friends to buy a stake in this country's assets. The hon. Gentleman should make some statement about that. Although he tells the House that he has no personal interest, it is obvious that he has a strong one.
  Mr. Lofthouse: Does my hon. Friend think that it would be for the benefit of the House if the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) staled categorically whether he discussed with the South African coal owners the possibility of buying British electricity and possibly the coal industry?
  Mr. Lloyd: I am happy to repeat my offer to the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes: if he wants to confirm or deny the report in the Daily Mail, I shall certainly give way. Was he one of those who told South African business leaders that the best way to get rid of the ban on coal imports into Britain was to take a stake in the planned privatised industry? That is a serious allegation. Not only does the hon. Gentleman want to serve the apartheid regime, but he wants to subvert United Nations resolutions and the whole climate of world opinion in order to prop up that disgraceful regime, which lives on an industry based on slave labour. He wants South Africans to reap the benefit of that slave labour through British industry.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Lloyd: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene, I shall give way to him before my hon. Friends. Since he does not, I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Wall).
  Mr. Wall: Does my hon. Friend not think it significant that the issue of South African coal has been avoided? Is he aware that Britain is a signatory to the EC code of conduct in relation to South Africa? That says that, as a minimum, there should be total opposition to the use of migrant labour, which is widely used in the South African mining industry, and that British firms which have interests in South Africa should pay wages at least 50 per cent. above the minimum level. Under this Government, they have been reduced to 28 per cent. above the minimum in South Africa. Surely the Government have a duty to be bound by the European code of conduct. Therefore, we should ask whether proper wages are being paid and whether the Government are meeting the conditions laid down by the EC. If not, it is a disgrace that the Bill is being sneaked through.
  Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to that. I am not surprised by the Government's hypocrisy. I draw his attention to the recorded vote in the United Nations in November last year on resolution 42/23B when Britain, the Federal Republic of Germany, also an importer of South African coal, and the United States, with its dubious record on South Africa, were the only three countries which voted against the resolution asking members to prohibit the import of South African coal.
  The Government are schizophrenic about South Africa. The Minister of State, Foreign Office is clearly embarrassed by her own Prime Minister. Obviously the Minister of State wants to do something serious about the apartheid regime, but the Prime Minister gives way to the apologists in her party and to the Right-wing hawks who would have us deal with South Africa as if it were governed by civilised, fit and decent people. Inevitably the Prime Minister will win the argument. That means that any code of conduct which the Government have entered into is as nothing when they are determined to prop up that awful regime.
  Mr. Jack Thompson: Should we not consider another point on South Africa? If the Dutch Government follow the line of the Dutch people and decide to ban the import of South African coal to Rotterdam and Amsterdam, is it not likely that the South African coal will come to Britain to be exported to western Europe?
  Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend raises an important point. I invite the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes, who did not address the issue in his speech, to tell the House what he knows of Van Ommeren, the Dutch transportation company. Earlier this year the Financial Times, in relation to the North Killingholme cargo terminal, said:
  "Dutch transport group Van Ommeren and UK industrialists Simon Engineering plan to open a deepwater mixed bulk cargo port on the Humber in summer 1989".
  I have heard no denial by the proposers of the private Bill that they are in business with Van Ommeren. I have heard no denial of the suggestion that Van Ommeren and Simon Engineering are working together on this. It would help the House if the hon. Gentleman would tell us what the role of Van Ommeren is. Is the Financial Times right when it says that Van Ommeren is involved? The hon. Gentleman says that he does not know.
  1218
  My hon. Friends may want to know what Van Ommeren is. It is one of the largest Dutch transportation companies, responsible for taking a considerable amount of coal from South African mines, at the behest of Shell and BP, to the Dutch market in Rotterdam where it is mixed with coal from other sources such as China. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth has already said, the coal is sold in Britain and in other areas as Dutch coal. As any hon. Member with the slightest inkling of the geography of the Netherlands or the history of the coal industry in Europe will know, the Dutch coal industry was expended a considerable time ago. The concept of Dutch coal is nonsense, unless it is coal which the present-day Dutch inherited from the Dutch who went to South Africa many years ago as Voortrekkers and which they are reimporting from that former Dutch colony.
  I invite the hon. Gentleman to tell us what the role of Van Ommeren is. Van Ommeren already has a dubious record as a trader in apartheid and all its works, prepared to do the dirty business in Rotterdam by laundering the coal that comes from the Shells and BPs. If it is involved in North Killingholme, can the hon. Gentleman seriously tell the House that the company will not see this as a perfect opportunity to cut out the middle market and bring South African coal straight into the heart of Britain, into the midlands and the northern coalfields to destroy jobs in those areas, while at the same time creating profits for the South African coal industry?
  Perhaps the Minister of State can tell us a simple fact. There is a very old quote about a nation built on coal. We are still a nation built on coal, and the House is testimony to that. Many of my hon. Friends come from that tradition, which is deeply respected in the Labour movement, but unfortunately it is despised in the Conservative party. The Government were prepared to pretend to miners in the UDM during the NUM strike that the Government were backing the UDM, but the UDM miners and the NUM miners will now find that their jobs will be sold to the apartheid regime.
  Can the Minister of State explain to me, to the House and to the world how a nation with all those coal reserves could contemplate importing through the North Killingholme terminal and through its sister terminal at Immingham 10 million tonnes of coal a year? The Minister shakes his head. Perhaps he can give the House some information that he was not prepared to give a few moments ago. Perhaps the Minister will tell the House what those ports are all about. If he knows more than I do, I invite him to ask me to give way; I shall be delighted to do so.
  The information we have is that the capacity of the two ports will approach 10 million tonnes a year. That will be equivalent to a balance of payments deficit of £250 million to £350 million each year. We are worsening our already parlous balance of payments policy when the coal could be produced in Britain, creating and maintaining employment in the British coalfields. Instead of wanting to maintain that employment and to improve our balance of payments, the Secretary of State for Energy wants competition. He says that the Government do not believe in trade barriers or artificial devices to restrict competition.
  The Secretary of State for Energy told the Institution of Mining Engineers:
  "We believe that competition makes industries stronger, not weaker. That is why we will not put up trade barriers to coal imports. Not only would this run against our

  1219
  international treaty obligations. It would also, in the long term, result in a weaker mining industry at home. British Coal will be a fitter, more confident and secure employer if it wins its business on its merits."
  Tonight, the Minister of State echoed that point. Will he tell the House how he seriously expects miners in the Nottingham and Yorkshire coalfields to compete with slave labour in South Africa? How does he seriously expect the British coal industry to compete with an industry which has blood on its hands because it does not even have the basic safety levels that were taken for granted in British pits before nationalisation? A safety regime would not be tolerated in South Africa.
  Mr. David Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman asks how the United Kingdom industry can compete. May I remind him that the United Kingdom industry competes very effectively? May I help the hon. Gentleman and the House on the level of throughput which the installation will be capable of' achieving? The hon. Gentleman mentioned 10 million tonnes. That is typical of the exaggeration which we have come to expect from him. I understand that the company hopes to attract various bulk cargoes, including coal, aiming for throughput of 2 million metric tonnes a year. The installation is thought to have a maximum capacity of 4 million metric tonnes a year. It is planning to have a varied cargo and not to be a single commodity terminal.
  Mr. Lloyd: I am always grateful to the Minister for intervening, as he makes my job far simpler. Perhaps I may refer to the Financial Times coal report, which the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes has not wished to challenge. It said that the ABP port at Immingham, which we debated not long ago, will have an annual throughput of 6 million tonnes in three years. As the Minister said, it is proposed that North Killingholme should have a starting capacity of 1 to 2 million tonnes and a final capacity of 4 million tonnes. If the Minister bears with me while I explain that four plus six equals 10, he will understand that my estimate of 10 million tonnes for the two ports is not awfully wide of the mark. I shall leave him to dwell on that.
  The Minister may be absolved of not understanding the arithmetic of coal. He may even be absolved of not understanding the nature of the vicious regime in South Africa. But he cannot be absolved of not understanding the transportation system serving Immingham and North Killingholme. He did not comment on the difficulties that will be created for roads and railways in the area.
  I am led to understand that it is uncertain whether the coal will be carried by road or rail. There is severe doubt whether the roads can carry even 1 million tonnes of coal. The constituency Member, the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes, said that there would be little environmental damage as a result of the Bill. If l million tonnes of coal is put on the roads, that means 800 extra heavy lorries on roads in his constituency each day. The hon. Gentleman might not think that an environmental nuisance, but his constituents might think differently. If I were one of his constituents, I would be severely worried about my Member of Parliament's ability to represent me. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will consider the problems that may arise as a result of there being 800 extra heavy lorries, loaded to 32·5 tonnes, on the roads each day.
  Mr. Michael Brown: We have railways, and we use them.
  Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman tells me that he has railways—but are they capable of taking up to 10 million tonnes of coal? All the evidence that I have suggests that they are not. If the Minister had said that a detailed analysis of the railways' coal-carrying capacity was made, we might have been reassured about the system. The 800 lorries a day I mentioned would carry only 1 million tonnes. If the railways cannot cope, and the whole 10 million tonnes has to go by road, there will be an extra 8,000 lorries a day in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. Is he aware of the death and accident rate on roads in that area? If he is, I should like him to give the House the figures.
  Mr. Brown: I think that I can help the hon. Gentleman. In about 1982, some 5 million tonnes of British coal was exported through the port of Immingham, and it was taken there by lorries and trains. Whether coal is carried by rail or by road, just as much coal dust is likely to be dropped if the coal is going out of Immingham as when it is coming in through Immingham. Opposition Members would like nothing more than to have their coal exported through Immingham.
  Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friends would be delighted to have coal from their areas exported. There are, however, a few little difficulties, such as the fact that British coal is put on the market at about £40 a tonne. Coal in Rotterdam from the apartheid regime in South Africa costs $40 per tonne, which is much cheaper. The opportunities for my hon. Friends and their constituents to export coal are nullified because the means of production in South Africa is slave labour.
  The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes may be aware that there have been some significant changes in the rail system. Perhaps he would like to tell the House what has happened to the rail system in that area since the days when Immingham was a major exporting port. The rail connections are now worse than they were at that time, and the capacity to carry by rail has diminished. The capacity to carry coal by road to power stations is not feasible in all circumstances.
  I shall be travelling through the hon. Gentleman's constituency on Friday. He appears to be under the impression that the A180, on which the coal is carried, is of motorway class. He is talking nonsense. It is an A road, not a motorway. He might like to know that there were 16 serious accidents on that road last year.
  Mr. Brown: That shows how little the hon. Gentleman knows about my constituency. I am delighted that he is going up to Brigg and Cleethorpes on Friday, and I wish him a happy visit. I am sorry to hear that he will only he passing through the area, probably on the A 180, which is of motorway standard, has dual carriageway in both directions and is the exact equivalent of a motorway, except that one can turn off at roundabouts.
  Mr. Joseph Ashton: Is my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) aware that 500, and sometimes up to 1,000, lorries pass through rural villages in my constituency each day? Those villages have no street lighting and no pavements and were never built for heavy lorries going to pits with which the existing rail system cannot cope. There will be a new power station at West Burton, where the railway runs through a tunnel on a one-line track. Under the existing system, it can barely

  1221
  cope with the movement of coal. If the development of this port goes ahead, it will be absolute murder for the people living in those villages.
  Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend is right, but perhaps he should also say that it would be murder for the constituents of the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes. The hon. Gentleman thinks that the dual carriageway is of motorway standard, but those people injured on that road and their families might not consider that to be so.
  Mr. Michael Brown rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put, but MR. SPEAKER withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
  Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes obviously thinks that there has been enough debate about the traffic system in his constituency, but he has scarcely participated in the debate. Some of the coal that will come through the port will go to Eggborough power station, but I am advised that that power station
  1222
  does not have the capacity to take that coal by rail. It will have to go by road. At present, the power station consumes about 1 million tonnes of coal each year, which would come along roads of various classes. His constituents will complain bitterly about the destruction of those roads, the damage done by those heavy lorries to the roads, the congestion on those roads and the increase in the number of accidents on those roads.
  The hon. Gentleman should take that into account, as should the Minister. The Minister did not tell the House of any plans to upgrade the roads or the railway system, although he has some responsibility for making sure that the House is advised about the possibility of any such plans, about the rights and wrongs of the proposal and about the transport services involved. That is a matter of great regret.
  Mr. Barron: My hon. Friend will know that I represent a coal mining community that has suffered greatly, especially since the end of the strike. The problem of the movement of coal in many of the villages of my constituency is quite substantial.
  It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

  Liberalisation of Telecommunications
  10 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs (Mr. John Butcher): I beg to move,
  That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 4634/88 on the development of the common market for telecommunications services and equipment; and supports the Government's intention to work for the early liberalisation of telecommunications markets in the European Community to the benefit of network operators, service providers, equipment manufacturers and users.
  This Community initiative has stimulated considerable interest worldwide. This consultative process originated in the Commission's Green Paper on telecommunications policy, issued at the end of June 1987, with the aim, as it says, of starting a common thinking process and of satisfying the requirement for a debate within the Community of common objectives and the means to reach them. Naturally, the Commission had its own ideas about what needed to be done in respect of telecommunications in the Community. It also had ideas about how its objectives were to be achieved. Since the guiding principle of these ideas is to increase competition and to open markets in a field hitherto characterised, except in the United Kingdom, by monopoly and protectionism, the debate within the Community has been a lively one in which the Government have taken a leading part.
  The Government have had two main objectives in the course of these discussions: first, to support the Commission in pressing forward rapidly with market-opening and liberalising measures; and, secondly, to guard against the danger of over-regulation, which, instead of stimulating competition, could stultify it. Our objectives reflect the advantageous position which the United Kingdom has won for itself in telecommunications within the Community by being the first member state to adopt a liberalising pro-competitive policy in this sector.
  The market-opening measures adopted in the United Kingdom have resulted in a more competitive and efficient market. They mean that United Kingdom equipment manufacturers and service providers have learnt to live in the bracing environment of open competition at home, hitherto without being able to compete freely in the telecommunications markets of the Community. It follows that we have consistently and enthusiastically supported proposals by the Commission that would have the effect of giving our manufacturers a fair opportunity to sell their goods overseas, especially in Community markets. At the same time, we have been alert to any tendencies towards levelling down, where the United Kingdom has already progressed further than the Community as a whole is prepared to venture. The most obvious example is the introduction of competition into the telecommunications network itself—a policy whose benefits we continue to urge upon our partners in the Community.
  Where, then, has this long and intensive consideration of the Green Paper led? The first conclusion, reached unanimously by member states, is that the Commission put the Green Paper together with a great deal of skill and expertise. The Government wholeheartedly endorse the general view that it is a comprehensive, well-thought-out and well-researched document. No one—least of all the Government—dissents from the Green Paper's guiding principle that an efficient telecommunications sector is an
  1224
  essential factor in the Community's economy. No one questions the Commission's opinion that for the internal market to be fully complete it must include an open market in telecommunications. Nor is there any doubt about the overriding aim, which is to provide European users with a greater variety of telecommunication services, of better quality and at lower cost. But the most important conclusion to flow from the Green Paper debate is the acceptance by all member states of the principle, on which the Government have been conducting the United Kingdom's telecommunications policy, that the route to efficiency in the telecommunications market, as in most other markets, is the freeing of market forces through the introduction of competition.
  Agreement in principle has also been reached on several specific objectives, which would create in the Community as a whole market conditions in telecommunications not dissimilar to those now existing in the United Kingdom.
  It is that broad agreement at the political level throughout the Community, both as regards general economic aims in the telecommunications sector and particular action designed to achieve them, that has made it possible for the Commission to submit the document that we have before us.
  The Commission has recognised that the 12 member states differ widely in the structure of their telecommunications industries, which have been growing up since the 19th century, and that changes need to be introduced step by step and in a manner that takes account of these differences, and it has identified targets for future action. In listing the most important targets I shall refer also to the United Kingdom's position. First, there is separation of the regulatory and operational functions of the telecommunications authorities. We have done that. Secondly, there is the opening of the terminal equipment market to competition. We have done that. Thirdly, there is the opening of the telecommunications value added services market to competition, and subsequently definition of detailed general conditions for open network provision, which are the conditions under which competitive service providers use the basic telecommunications network. We have done that. Fourthly, there is the opening of the market for receive-only satellite antennae, as long as they are not connected to the public network. We announced in February that we shall be implementing that.
  Other areas for immediate action include progressive implementation of the general principle that telecommunications tariffs should follow the trends in costs. We have delivered the effect of that because that is the result that follows from competition. There is then the extension to the telecommunications sector of rules for fair and open public procurement. British Telecom and Mercury are free to procure network and terminal equipment from any source that they think fit.
  To complete a long list, there is the establishment of a European Telecommunications Standards Institute, which is affectionately known as ETSI, and full mutual recognition of type approval for terminal equipment. Those two facilities have our full support. Indeed, the United Kingdom was instrumental in the establishment of a free-standing ETSI.
  Mr. Dave Nellist: The Minister has praised the freedom of BT to procure equipment from any source that it chooses. What effect does he think that

  1225
  freedom has had on thousands of our constituents—his and mine in Coventry—who heard seven weeks ago that their jobs would come to an end because of rationalisations at GEC/Plessey Telecommunications Ltd? One of the factors was the purchase by BT of Ericsson equipment from Sweden.
  Mr. Butcher: For reasons that the hon. Gentleman will understand, I, too, am familiar with the arguments that surrounded the rationalisation programme. He said "one of the factors", and I hope he will agree that trends in the manufacturing of telecommunications equipment, especially switching equipment, worldwide show that there has been demanning across western Europe, North America and Japan. The labour-intensive aspects of that form of production for that sort of profit are being greatly reduced. I know that the trade unions prayed in aid the system Y procurement, but most countries in Europe have the principle of second-sourcing. If the company management were to connive at an argument that everything was down to second-sourcing, I believe that it would not be reflecting the true position. I do not believe that it would make such an assertion, but no doubt the hon. Gentleman will develop his arguments in his contribution later this evening.
  Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: On the logic of the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist), if the main function of an industry is to preserve jobs, one must surely conclude that GPT should still be assembling labour-intensive Strowger exchanges that no one wants to buy. There is surely no future for an industry in just preserving jobs for the sake of those jobs without considering what people want to buy.
  Mr. Butcher: Later, I hope to develop the argument that having a communications policy that places the interests of the users first is a policy for job creation. I seek to demonstrate that telecommunications improvements in the United Kingdom add to our overall efficiency, and in so doing add to our propensity to generate jobs in an internationally competitive market. One of the sources that I shall be quoting is one of our most vehement competitors, who agrees with the statement that I have just made.
  Mr. Nellist: He is probably a Tory, too.
  Mr. Butcher: I doubt it.
  Our already competing network operators, British Telecom and Mercury Communications, will be well placed to meet the challenges and opportunities presented by the internal market. It means also that it is wholly in our interest to assist the Commission and our partners in the Community—especially the Greek, Spanish and French presidencies, which will be in office over the next 18 months—to set the necessary Community legislation in place with the least possible delay.
  A good start has been made. ETSI is in being and will produce at an increasing rate the common European standards that are the prerequisites of a truly open market. The question often asked is whether the British are involved in that process, and whether we fear that others will take advantage of it. I can tell the House that the United Kingdom chairs the institute's technical assembly,
  1226
  which will determine the programme and adopt the standards. I know that the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) is very interested in that point.
  The Commission is on the point of submitting to the Council a directive for open public procurement by the network operators in the hitherto excluded sectors. Draft proposals have already been the subject of intensive work at official level. Another Commission target for 1988 is the submission of a draft directive on the full, mutual recognition of type approval for terminal equipment. That, coupled with the availability of European standards and the introduction of competition, will result in a truly open market for attachments of every kind.
  As to the introduction of competition, action has already been taken by the Commission to implement one of the immediate action lines, through the directive addressed to member states on 19 May under article 90 of the treaty of Rome, to accomplish rapid liberalisation of the Community's terminal equipment market. The Government are wholly in favour of that directive's aim, because it will enable other United Kingdom manufacturers to compete on fair terms in the domestic markets of other member states.
  Direct action by the Commission, using the powers conferred upon it to enforce treaty rules, is a relatively novel procedure that has the advantage, in suitable cases, of avoiding the lengthier procedures involved in Council measures. However, the use of article 90 in that way raises legal and practical issues that call for careful consideration. I shall be interested to hear the views of hon. Members on that point and will take account of them.
  After some initial heart searching, our Community partners are now responding to the need for change. In the beginning, they watched with interest what I am sure was regarded in many quarters as the British experiment. They are now minded to taste and to assimilate what is seen as a British success.
  I promised the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East that I would conclude with a quotation supporting my arguments. It is from M. Gérard Longuet, who has been a vigorous and perceptive French Telecommunications Minister. In his book "Telecoms: La Conquôte de nouveaux espaces"—and I assure the House that this is an accurate translation—he wrote:
  "When Japanese enterprises are contemplating the establishment of a European base it is to London that they turn, certain of being able to benefit there from communications which offer the best performance at the least cost."
  Coming from a French Minister, that is praise indeed. The Japanese know, as a number of colleagues in Europe know, that there has been a transformation of telecommunications in the United Kingdom. A number of users, both domestic and business, now look on Britain's success with a great deal of envy.
  10.14 pm
  Mr. Roger Scott: I want to dwell later on the proposition that the Minister has advanced tonight that Britain's telecommunications industry has had some success. I should at this stage declare my interest. I am sponsored by the National Communications Union, and before I came to the House I was a telecommunications engineer. The Minister and I crossed swords on many occasions for many hours during debates on the Telecommunications Bill, to which I shall return later.

  1227
  The Minister has pointed out that some time ago the Commission drew up a Green Paper on the proposition for a European telecommunications network for 1992. The Commission published its draft policy statement on the development of the common market for telecommunications services and equipment in June last year. Tonight the House is asked to take note of the update of the Commission's intentions and opinions on an open market for telecommunications for 1992.
  I note that in the foreword of that document the Commission stated that its aim was to launch a debate on European telecommunications and to attract comment from a broad spectrum of opinion. In particular, the Commission was seeking views from the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee, the telecommunications administrations—those bodies which are still in public ownership in Europe —the European telecommunications and data processing manufacturing industry, the users of communications services and the trade unions.
  I acknowledge that the Commission has done that because I know that the Postal, Telegraph and Telephone International, the umbrella organisation for all those unions in posts and telecommunications, particularly the European committee, has been actively involved in the discussions and the negotiations with the Commission on its policy.
  I am advised that there have been several meetings with Viscount Davignon, the Commissioner responsible for telecommunications, and, on 5 May this year, a delegation from the PTTI's European committee met Mr. Jacques Delors, the President of the Commission, and reaffirmed its view, which was set out in the document presented to the Commission, that telecommunications in Europe should, wherever possible, remain in public ownership.
  The PTTI committee disagrees with the Commission's fundamental policy on a number of issues. I have no doubt that the Minister has seen the PTTI submission to the Commission in which it outlines some of its fundamental opposition to some of the stances that the Commission has taken.
  I understand that some progress has been made on the PTTI's position. It, like me, was worried by the Green Paper's excessive reliance on competition as the force for the development of telecommunications services, the tendency to project private competition for telecommunications administrations with inadequate regard for the need to protect the financial viability of those administrations, and their right to compete on an equal footing with others in open competition.
  The Minister mentioned competition. The Government's position is to eulogise competition in British Telecom as something that should be adopted in Europe and an example that the rest of the world should follow. If we examine that contention, we find that competition has not worked very well.
  The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) will have imprinted on his mind for ever those wonderful speeches by John Golding, to name but one—
  Mr. Oppenheim: A lengthy embarrassment.
  Mr. Stott: It is not an embarrassment to me, and I shall make a further reference to Mr. Golding a little later.
  1228
  During those debates on the Telecommunications Bill in the watches of the night, we talked of what would happen if competition was brought about in the way that the Government wanted it to be brought about. I know that the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills was not particularly keen on that idea; he wanted much more competition in the system. What happened—and the Which? report bore this out when evidence was being taken from the consumer last November—was the epitome of all that was wrong with British Telecom. I must say that there has been a considerable improvement since then.
  Last November we told the Minister—not once, not twice, but several times—what would happen. What happened was that British Telecom devoted its resources, not only financial resources, but manpower resources, to trying to fight off the competition of Mercury. That meant that the business community tended to get a better service but the residential customer got a lousy service.
  I am not the only one to say that; everyone who has used British Telecom services understands that is the case. I say that more in sorrow than in anger. Members of my union, who have to face public discontent about a service that they care about, knew that if note was taken of what was said by City analysts about reductions in manpower there would be a problem in the maintenance of public call boxes and the provision of what used to be a public service. The public service ethos of the provision of a telecommunications network would no longer be there if resources, financial and manpower, were diverted to the attempt to fight off competition.
  If the Minister is saying that competition in British Telecom should be adopted throughout Europe, I must counsel grave caution, because it will not work. The residential subscriber—the ordinary punter with a telephone—will get a raw deal.
  Mr. Michael Grylls: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that competition ultimately means choice? We can argue about how efficient British Telecom is at any one time—and that is a perfectly fair argument —but at the end of the day, if the consumer is not satisfied with BT, he can switch to Mercury. That surely is to his advantage.
  Mr. Stott: Mercury is limited to what it can provide, and I did not particularly welcome its being given the opportunity to get into the trunk network. It has not provided that network; it has done nothing over the years to provide investment or infrastructure for it. The resources to develop the trunk network have been provided by the British people: the consumer, the taxpayer, the residential telephone user. But here is Mercury being given an opportunity to do what it wants and to link with the trunk network.
  The hon. Gentleman said that the consumer has the choice. I shall not stand up tonight—I never have, not even during the debates on the Telecommunications Bill—and be an apologist for the old Post Office. Much of what it did was wrong. It was unimaginative. It was wrong to tell the consumer that he could have any telephone so long as it was black. Many improvements were needed, and they took place. There were initiatives which I, the union that supports me and the people I came from originally welcomed.

  1229
  Nevertheless, we seriously question whether it is right to rely too much on competition. In Britain it has resulted in what Which? predicted and what we already knew.
  Mr. Richard Shepherd: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am sympathetic to some of his criticisms. The whole point is that we never had, and still do not have, competition. We had what was called a duopoly. I hope the hon. Gentleman remembers that the Mercury licence was limited to 3 per cent. of British Telecom's total revenues. The test of an efficient and competitive service was never there. The buying of mass lines and their retailing to the public, which would provide a test of commercial viability for Mercury and British Telecom, and which we could allow even now, would have been in the interests of the consumer, but we lost that opportunity. Indeed, was not the hon. Gentleman opposed to it?
  Mr. Stott: I certainly was. I am always glad to see the hon. Gentleman participate in these debates; he tilts against conventional windmills. I know that he was angry with the Government for the puny way—in his view—in which they dealt with the privatisation of British Telecom. So was I, and so were my hon. Friends.
  I never imagined that European Community economic policy would be preferable to that of the British Government, but that is certainly so in the case of telecommunications. The British Government and British Telecom may eulogise about competition in the network, but the Commission thinks that the aim must be to encourage one network in each country, joined as a European whole. It is prepared to make a concession to Britain, but sees us as the odd man out. Based on my discussions and negotiations with the people concerned, I do not believe the Commission wants anyone else to follow our example. The PTTI has been encouraged on that point during the talks that it has had over the past 12 months. It was pleased with the recent acknowledgement by the Commission that telecoms must provide not only a vital commercial service, but a public service.
  Those of us who were brought up and worked in this industry felt a sense of the public service ethos. The hon. Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) shakes his head, but I am proud to have worked in an industry with that ethos. I used to go to work in the morning and return in the evening feeling well satisfied that I had done something for the public good. I must tell the hon. Member for Amber Valley that those of my colleagues who remain in British Telecom do not feel that way any more. The general public has noticed that, too.
  If we are to move to a common market telecommunications system by 1992—it exists in France, Germany and Italy, where there is still a semblance of public service—public service must be one of the fundamental planks in a European policy.
  Mr. Oppenheim: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that unfortunately some of the engineers and old GPO employees were not quite as assiduous as he was in pursuit of their public duties? Much as one may criticise British Telecom—I am the first to criticise it for its shortcomings —it is at least possible to get a telephone installed within a month and to get jack plugs put in fairly quickly.
  1230
  When I put to the hon. Gentleman in Committee the fact that to get a jack plug installed for a fax machine in the early 1980s one had to wait six months, and that some business men had been forced to bribe Telecom engineers to put such jacks in within a month, he threw up his arms in horror and said that that was a terrible accusation. A month later 15 British Telecom engineers were gaoled for accepting bribes.
  Mr. Stott: I will not try to defend members of my union —if they were members—who participated in actions that were clearly illegal. The National Communications Union and the former Post Office Engineering Union would not take that view either. People ought to know their responsibilities. If the people that the hon. Gentleman mentioned did something that they should not have done, it is right that they should have to take the consequences of their actions.
  The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point about the difficulty of getting certain things done. I repeat the point that I made earlier. John Golding and I and my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam) were never apologists for the management structure of the Post Office or British Telecom. There was much wrong with it and there still is. I shall quote one brief example.
  Contrary to common belief, there are many fields in Wigan. There are some near where I live in Wigan and I walk my dog there on most nights. A friend of mine is building a stone farmhouse and I have watched it grow from the footings to the roof. He has designed and built it in such a way that there is no surface wiring—he has gone to a great deal of expense—and I said that it would be a pity if telephone wires were showing. I suggested that he ring British Telecom and ask for the dry wiring to be done before the plasterers came in. He did that, but British Telecom did not want to know and the electrician working at the farmhouse has done it. Even today at certain levels British Telecom management does not have the commitment that such management used to have. That is a problem.
  Earlier I talked about the public service ethos. In my view, and in the view of the PTTI, that means giving a telephone monopoly to the public administrations. The unions within Europe would prefer to see much more retained within the purview of the telecommunications administrations. They believe that that is essential for the massive investment that is required by the European telecommunications industry. In order to be profitable they believe that the industry, the system or network must remain within the purview of the telecommunications administrations.
  Those unions would have preferred the Commission to declare for public ownership, but perhaps that is too much to ask. At least the Commission has remained neutral, and it is certainly not advocating privatisation. That is not surprising, because, if there is to be a massive increase in telecommunications and information, all the countries of Europe will have to join together to compete against the Americans and the Japanese.
  John Golding, the former general secretary of the National Communications Union, to whom I pay full tribute, has worked most of his life in the industry and put a great deal into the NCU. On his suggestion, the Commission is now financing a study into the staffing consequences of the Commission's policies. British Telecom is faced with staff shortages because of daft

  1231
  advice from the City, but it will also face such shortages in future. These will have to be solved if the United Kingdom is to have an efficient service. I hope that the European study of the staffing consequences of the Commission's policies will assist British Telecom in its assessment.
  There are disappointments in the recommendations. We do not believe in reducing business tariffs at the expense of the domestic consumer, and in that context I take the Minister's point. Yet, in the logic of the Community's policy of having prices following costs, those two principles seem irreconcilable.
  In Committee we spoke at length about cross-subsidisation. I know that there is a theoretical and political difference between the Government and the Opposition on cross-subsidisation in telecommunications. If we are to set out on this European experiment, the Commission should examine cross-subsidisation as a means of providing adequate funds for socially desirable services, such as public call offices and emergency services, as well as lower prices for residential users who are financially or otherwise disadvantaged. I urge the Commission to take note of the social impact of the proposed policies and the need for training and retraining personnel. Without those additions, the Commission's recommendations would be incomplete.
  We need a common analysis of the social impact of the conditions for a smooth transition. The Commission must recognise that. In the formulation of telecommunications policies and regulations, account must be taken of the impact on jobs, and measures must be introduced to ensure job security and the creation of new jobs to replace those that disappear. That can be done. There will be job losses because of changes in technology and the very nature of the telecommunications system. However, we can also have job creation. A recent example is to be found in British Telecom. For the first time in about 10 years BT is having to recruit people to meet the needs of residential customers. That may not pay a very good dividend on the share price, but at least BT is satisfying residential consumers by providing a better service to them.
  Training and retraining personnel is an integral part of any comprehensive telecommunications programme. Adequate finance must be provided for those activities as well as for training for trade union representatives to enable them to participate efficiently in local and national discussions on the introduction of new technology, regulatory and structural changes and all the other effects of the huge changes proposed in European telecommunications.
  This is a "take note" debate on a series of documents. I believe that the documents are very important. The Commission has moved a long way towards understanding and accepting some of the proposals put to it by the PTTI, particularly on competition and privatisation. If the Commission understands the problem that the PTTI has underlined in its document and if we get it right, the signs are that with this new and exciting technology Europe could be in a strong position to challenge the Americans and the Japanese, to provide a universal service to all consumers and to have as its priority a fundamental belief in the public service ethos. If we do that, we shall not have wasted our time this evening.
  10.39 pm
  Mr. Kenneth Warren: I declare an interest as the Chairman of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, which is at present examining the subject of information technology. My remarks tonight will be based on my personal opinion alone.
  First, I warmly endorse the documents of which the Minister proposes we should take note. The liberalisation and privatisation procedures that have been promoted through the House have permitted the telecommunications explosion that we are fortunately now experiencing in this country. There can be no clearer evidence of that than the way in which London has been able to take up the open opportunity of Europe to become the centre of European financial affairs, in line with New York and Tokyo on the world scale. Without that liberalisation of communications and the parallel legislation on Big Bang from the House, London could not have taken that premier position in the European Community.
  I welcome the document put forward by Commissioner Narjes, whom I had the pleasure of meeting recently. I advise my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State that it would be worth considering the time that it has taken us to get that document from Commissioner Narjes on to the Floor of the House. It has taken four months and a few days. I draw attention to that fact because the document itself, entitled "Towards a competitive Community-wide telecommunications market in 1992", gives the impression, on first reading, that there are four years within which the implementation can take place. However, as was pointed out in the 20th report of the Select Committee on European Legislation, and as is stated on page 17 of Commissioner Narjes' statement, things start buzzing on 31 December 1989—next year. In other words, we have taken four months to get on to the Floor of the House something that is only four months away.
  I hope that on future occasions it will be possible for us not to lose that amount of time, because we have lost time here on something for which industry must be revved up. Industry must understand that the House, having taken note of the document, expects industry to respond to the opportunities that are there. I hope that, following those four lost months, we can now accelerate the process and that the Government will give the widest possible publicity to the opportunity. The House often talks about the problems presented by European legislation, but here is an opportunity for job creation.
  I have every sympathy for the hon. Member for Coventry, South-West—
  Mr. Butcher: I think that my hon. Friend means the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist).
  Mr. Warren: Yes, I meant the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist). I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me, because I always have sympathy with him for having to promote such debates in the House.
  I have every sympathy for the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East in the problems faced by his constituents, but I ask him to reflect on the fact that the job opportunities that his constituents have lost resulted, not from the liberalisation process that was passed through the House, but because of the long historic cosy relationship, which became self-destructive, between the British telecommunications industry in the Post Office, as it then was, and certain companies in this country—and more's

  1233
  the pity that that happened. However, that is the reality and I want British industry to respond to it because if there had been sufficient appreciation of what was to happen in industry there would have been no need for such a situation to arise. I am sure that the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East will address himself to that point when he has the opportunity to speak. I want to detain the House for only a few minutes.
  I hope that industry will read what is said in the House tonight and see this as an opportunity and not as a problem. The newspapers of this country often publish all the bad news about the European Community, rather than see the opportunities that arise from this kind of legislation.
  I turn now to three of my concerns about this document and the rival communications on the EEC internal market. The first is the question of equipment and the need of British companies to be able to respond to what is there. I notice that the 20th report from the Select Committee on European Legislation states that the
  "Commission's proposed Directive … would have the effect of opening the market for telecommunications terminal equipment in other Member States of the Community as it is already open in the United Kingdom."
  I trust that that will be a two-way street and that British manufacturers will charge into Europe.
  Two other areas particularly concern me. The first is that the Commission must go further than is intended in the document and endorse the reality of communications, because we are talking not only about equipment, but about networks. Networks must be trans-frontier and European Community networks not limited to within member states. Satellite communications, whether on a receiver basis or a transmit and receive basis, must be across member states to the whole Community, not indigenous national systems.
  Whereas we keep talking about European standards, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will seek to promote world standards that are acceptable across export markets. The biggest market opportunities for British equipment manufacturers lie in world markets rather than in EEC markets. I hope that he will give our compliments to the commissioner and say, "Let there be world standards."
  Much as I enjoyed the salutary quotation by my hon. Friend the Minister of a French Minister, whom I trust has been returned at a recent election—it would be difficult if he had not—I am reminded of the attitude of my dear wife, who was a logical mathematician from Cambridge. If one asked her "Will we get these chances which the Europeans say are presented?", she would say, "If that is so, show me". That is what we should say from the House tonight. I endorse what is proposed.
  10.45 pm
  Mr. Dave Nellist: Tonight's debate follows the issue of the European Green Paper last summer on the telecommunications industry. Those who support the Common Market hope to create a homogenous European market place in electronics and telecommunications. The failure to do so to date or, in the words of the document, the "slow pace" of that progress is said to have led to the weaknesses of Europe's
  1234
  telecommunications industry, particularly compared with its American and Japanese rivals, with their economies of scale.
  This document is about the future deregulation and liberalisation of the telecommunications market. The Minister is one of the most enthusiastic champions of that, but he is strangely mute about the effects of deregulation and liberalisation, particularly when they strike his constituents. Eight weeks ago he was up in arms about 800 job losses at GPT in Coventry and promised all sorts of initiatives in the Coventry Evening Telegraph, but we have had seven weeks of silence.
  Mr. Butcher: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way so early in his speech. It is not my intention to turn this into a constituency debate. If his memory is accurate, he will recall that when GPT made its announcement I said that I wanted to meet representatives, and indeed I did. At that meeting senior executives gave me the clear impression that they have high ambitions for the new company and are bringing new forms of work to Coventry.
  Mr. Nellist: The Minister is right about the new forms of work. My figure of 800 redundancies is net—after the introduction of new work. It gives no satisfaction to the workers at Spon street, Raglan street, Ford street and Stoke that, having met those executives seven weeks ago, the Minister has still to meet the working people's representatives—the trade unions in GPT factories—and pass on those rosy predictions which he seems to have gained from the management.
  The Minister is a prime exponent of the supposed benefits of deregulation. On 23 October he made a speech in Geneva as part of United Kingdom Day at Telecom 87, which is described in his press release as
  "the world's premier international telecommunications exhibition and conference held every four years."
  He said:
  "In the field of telecommunications, Britain has zoomed past virtually all the other European countries. We have two digital trunk networks, expanding to local level; two optical fibre systems; two national cellular radio operators",
  and so the list goes on. Two of everything is probably wasteful duplication. I will believe it when somebody proposes that we should have two Prime Ministers so that we can have proper competition there as well.
  The Minister continued:
  "We have liberalised our regime and ended the former BT monopoly in apparatus supply. We have ensured interconnection for our two competing networks—BT's and Mercury's —…resulting in falling prices, rising quality and more innovative products and services than ever before."
  The key words are rising quality and falling prices. That was said in October 1987.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) said, some four weeks later a survey was being done by Which? of some 600 subscribers to the British Telecom network. It came up with a different picture. In 1983, the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said on Second Reading of the Telecommunications Bill:
  "We offer the millions of BT customers a newly enshrined set of rights and the benefits of competition and new technology."—[Official Report, 18 July 1983; Vol. 46, c. 38.]
  The Which?survey published this month said:
  "Our research shows that so far the company has failed to achieve an overall improvement in its service after privatisation.…BT's record since privatisation has been a big disappointment".

  1235
  My hon. Friend has said that there has been some improvement since November. I will accept that because he has said it, but I am trying to compare like with like. The Minister said in Geneva that everything was perfect. The survey of exactly the same period showed something different.
  Which? found that one in 36 calls did not get through, so there had been no improvement since 1983, that noisy and faint lines, making conversation difficult, were worse since 1983, that the average waiting time for a new line had improved since 1983 but that too many were still waiting a long time for connection, and that 40 per cent. of those surveyed said their phones had been out of order at least once in the previous 18 months; I can confirm that from personal experience. That was also up on 1983.
  The survey also found that the state of repair of BT's call boxes was among the worst in Europe, and that the proportion of customers rating the overall service as efficient had dropped from eight out of 10 in 1983 to seven out of 10 in 1987. Although itemised bills were the most requested improvement, progress in introducing them more widely had been at a snail's pace. One quarter of people querying their bill had difficulty in getting BT to reply; that was nearly double the proportion who had trouble in getting BT to respond in 1983.
  The Consumers Association criticism came less than a month after the Minister was praising competition and also after Oftel announced that the 24,186 complaints received in 1987 were almost double the 13,660 received in 1986. Over one third were about disputed bills.
  In March of this year, the Telecommunications Managers Association, representing 30 per cent. of BT's business income, said:
  "There is little evidence of any improvement since our surveys of 1985 and 1986 and indeed, in some areas, a marked deterioration has occurred."
  Yet after all that, on 9 June, BT announced profits of £2·29 billion, up 11 per cent. on last year, clearly showing that the profits and the dividends for shareholders were more important than the improvement of services for business or domestic consumers.
  Incidentally, the city stockbroker firm, Wood Mackenzie, has estimated that, if BT is to keep its profit at the same level for the next four years, it will have to shed 70,000 jobs. I do not think that the comments from business sources, the stockbrokers or the Consumers Association bear out the remarks of the Minister in October about the "wonderful" benefits of deregulation and liberalisation.
  Mr. Oppenheim: I do not think anyone could objectively claim that British Telecom's service is worse, or not significantly better, than it was in the 1970s, but to the extent that it is still unsatisfactory, which I think most hon. Members would accept, is that not partly due to the under-investment in the 1960s and the 1970s, which in turn was partly due to the cosy, almost incestuous, relationship which British Telecom had with its main suppliers, Plessey and GEC, who are the component parts of GPT, and indeed with STC, which led to overpriced equipment, late equipment, and equipment that was unexportable?
  Does the hon. Member agree that it takes many years to make up for lack of investment? Against a background of many years of under-investment, British Telecom was faced with a massive increase in demand for lines, obviously in areas where the service was deteriorating.
  1236
  Now it is in the private sector, British Telecom is investing far more than in the bad old days when the GPO was in the public sector.
  Mr. Nellist: I confess that I lost track of the hon. Member's question because of its length. However, I agree with him on one point. As a young trade unionist, I opposed the cartel of Plessey, STC and GEC which existed in the 1960s and 1970s in that cosy relationship with the Post Office, and called on my colleagues in the then Labour Government to end it by taking the three companies into public ownership, so that there could be some open planning of the producer systems as well as the user systems.
  Today there is no excuse for lack of money for investment. If British Telecom can report profits of £2·3 billion, there is certainly scope for it to invest that money in ending standing charges for pensioners and those on low incomes, and providing a better service for the public services, hospitals and other domestic and business consumers.
  We have to decide whether deregulation and liberalisation will produce the benefits that the Minister and Lord Young pray for. If they do, will they be for a few advanced capitalist countries in the centre of the Common Market, as opposed to what are called peripheral countries? What attitude do we take to the wild claims that have been made in the press and elsewhere about the supposed benefits to Britain of taking such a step?
  On 8 April, The Times, under the headline, "Britain set for £55 bn communications harvest", stated:
  "Britain is poised to capture the lion's share of Europe's £55 billion a year telecommunications industry if plans to create a European internal market by 1992 go ahead as scheduled, according to leading industry sources."
  Where is the evidence for that? In the 1960s, Britain's share in the world's trade in telecommunications manufactured goods was 20 per cent. It is now under 5 per cent. The balance of trade between the Common Market countries and Britain has gone from bad to worse in recent years. The British experience of liberalisation has given us L. M. Ericsson and system Y, but we have yet to see any major exports of system X from GEC or Plessey.
  In 1984, British exports of telecommunications hardware to the European Community amounted to £156 million. In 1987, four years later, the latest available data show that that figure had climbed to £172 million. Imports from the same source in the same period had gone up from £147 million to £194 million, meaning that the United Kingdom's balance of trade with the Common Market in telecommunications hardware had changed from an £8·5 million positive balance in 1984 to a £21·2 million deficit in 1987. Those figures, rather than illustrating the benefits that will accrue from entering the Nirvana of an expanded, deregulated and liberated market, sound warning bells as to what will happen to the hardware manufacturing industry in Britain if the plan goes ahead.
  Rather than gearing up for the promises of expanded sales and production that the Minister has said are available to British firms, seven weeks ago, GPT, which was formed earlier this year from GEC and Plessey and is the prime manufacturer of telecommunications equipment in Britain, announced 1,800 redundancies. GPT is contracting its work force. Of the 1,800 redundancies, 800 are in my constituency in Coventry, South-East, '700 arise

  1237
  from the complete closure of the Kirkcaldy factory in Scotland and the rest affect Liverpool, Beeston and Aycliffe.
  One of the central arguments of workers in Coventry, many of whom have given their lives to raising GEC's profits to enable Arnold We instock, its chairman, to buy his legendary £500,000-a-time racehorses, is that it is clear that the redundancies in GPT are being done on the cheap. All but a handful of the 1,800 redundancies are at former GEC plants. The old Plessey firm had a redundancy agreement four times better than GEC. Whereas GEC offered one week's pay per year of service, Plessey offered four weeks. The overwhelming majority of redundancies have been at GEC plants.
  As one Transport and General Workers Union convener at Coventry said:
  "the cuts are being made at the cheapest point".
  That is in sharp contrast to yesterday's news in the Evening Standard that Sir John Clark, the chairman of Plessey, had awarded himself a £167,000 a year pay rise. You may have noticed, Madam Deputy Speaker, that 179 Labour Members have signed early-day motion 1135, which I have tabled. It supports the union's campaign of opposition to plant closures and redundancies. If this proposal becomes a reality by 1992, those redundancies will be only the beginning of job cuts in hardware manufacturing in Britain.
  Despite the merger, GPT is a small fish in a big pond. It is unable to compete, especially on research and development, with firms such as Siemens in Europe or AT and T and NTT in America and Japan respectively. In my view, GPT is planning for a short-term future and for maximising its profits before 1992, when it will be exposed to the chiller winds of competition which this liberalisation will bring. GEC, the parent company, makes more profit from its cash assets of £1·5 million in its bank than it does from investing in research and development and jobs, and those profits will be enhanced by the increase in interest rates which was announced today. The future for jobs in GPT is grim for the next couple of years, as stockbrokers who have analysed it say. They predict the same number of redundancies in the next couple of years. In the longer term, the redivision of the world market in telecommunications will probably mean further mergers and rationalisations.
  We have already witnessed the acquisition of ITT's European telecommunications equipment interests by Alcatel of France, the takeover of CGCT of France by Ericsson, and the merger of GEC and Plessey in the United Kingdom. During the next four or five years, if, as many columnists predict, there is a worldwide recession in the next year, the pressure will be on to make major economies of scale, so there will be further mergers and rationalisations, and job cuts will be inevitable.
  My preference is not for deregulation but simply for renationalisation of BT. As I said in reply to the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim), it should not stop at BT. It should include GPT, STC and Thorn-Ericsson so that some rational planning can be brought into the production and use of telecommunications equipment. My preference for control would not be for the MacGregors, the Graham Days or the Edwardeses
  1238
  of the past, but for working people inside and outside those industries having the majority of seats on a board of control.
  It is clear that, whereas BT used to support the research and development of manufacturing companies, which gave some stability, but was involved in what was called "the ring"—that cosy cartel relationship with GEC, Plessey and STC—deregulation will bring about wholesale competition. If BT begins to go for the cheapest tenders, it is inevitable that those who tender will begin to cut longer-term plans such as those for research and development—which often takes five or seven years before it shows any profits because of lead times—and for training and retraining. In the case of GPT, the unions have demanded retraining for those workers threatened with redundancy.
  Over the past 12 months, BT has been looking for a 20 per cent. reduction in its engineering staff. Research and development and engineering staff are likely to be cut further as BT seeks to encourage the private manufacturers to do the installation and servicing of the systems it produces. Deregulation and liberalisation is losing jobs, both in the service and manufacturing industries. After 1992, our experiences in Britain will be translated throughout Europe.
  For me, for the past 15 years, the Common Market has been simply a chimera. We have had over 15 years of promises of benefits and of more jobs, yet the deficit in manufacturing trade with Common Market countries is now £10·2 billion, according to an answer given by a Treasury Minister to my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) in column 277 of Hansard of 16 June. It has been said that we pay the best part of £2 million a day for membership of the Common Market club, yet we have the lowest pensions and supplementary benefits of almost any member state, and we certainly have the lowest unemployment benefit, as a percentage of former earnings, of any member state.
  I well remember, during the 1975 referendum campaign, in which I participated in support of a vote against continued membership of the Common Market, huge posters in Coventry, with Lord Jenkins' face some 10 or 12 ft across on them and the headline "Jobs for the Boys". He might have done all right—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. The hon. Gentleman is not relating his remarks to the "take note" motion on the Order Paper, and I should be obliged if he would now do so.
  Mr. Nellist: It is not for me to differ, but we are being asked tonight to take note of a document to enhance the development of the Common Market—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: To deal with telecommunications.
  Mr. Nellist: —particularly in telecommunications. The Minister's promise at the Dispatch Box was that that would provide a range of benefits for working people in this country, in which he included jobs. I am trying to show that that has never been true, and I do not believe that it is true this evening. In 1975, promises were made to my constituents in Coventry that, if we remained in the Common Market and looked to a future of deregulation and harmonisation, including the telecommunications market, according to Lord Jenkins there would be jobs for

  1239
  the boys. In the preparations that GPT is making for that harmonisation programme in 1992, my constituents heard seven weeks ago the announcement of 800 redundancies. I believe that it is a perfectly legitimate point to make in the House.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. It is a perfectly legitimate point to make, but it is not legitimate to go back 10 years. The hon. Gentleman should relate that to what is happening at present.
  Mr. Nellist: We entered the Common Market 16 years ago. Many of the documents that we are discussing tonight had their genesis in the 1970s, particularly those such as the Green Papers which refer to the harmonisation in industrial sectors that is due to take effect over the next 18 or 36 months, or by 1992. I contend that it is perfectly legitimate to talk about the history because, as Aneurin Bevan—the hero of both of us, Madam Deputy Speaker —once said, why should we look in the crystal ball when we can read the book? The book of the history of the Common Market has never given the citizens of Coventry any benefits from its membership, contrary to those offers that Lord Jenkins made during the referendum in 1975.
  People argue that deregulation and harmonisation of the telecommunications market and the creation of a supranational market in telecommunications within Europe will benefit consumers or those who provide either the equipment or the service in Britain, but it will not provide the best service to working people, particularly because as capitalism in Britain, Europe and worldwide moves into the next downward cycle of its development, there will be even more pressure on nation states to protect their home markets and resist cross-border fertilisation, which has been put forward as one of the main benefits of the measures in this document. We have heard of American steel workers complaining about British Steel exports to America. American car workers have smashed Japanese cars, Italian and French farmers have argued about cross-border travel of agricultural products, and we shall see the same in the next three or four years in telecommunications, just as British workers complained when Ericsson Information Systems Ltd. got the contract for systemwide equipment from BT three or four years ago.
  There will not be a united, unified common market in telecommunications or in any other industry. Those who describe the measures in this document as leading to that are not giving the British people the best advice they can get. If the document is noted by the House and adopted by the Common Market, employers and Governments will come together on a 12-country basis to harmonise and deregulate telecommunications, and it is for trade unions to do the same. They must harmonise their organisations across national boundaries and set up Euro shop stewards committees to protect the jobs and living standards of their members, just as those who are in favour of this deregulation—the gaffers and the employers in Europe —want to protect the profits of their shareholders.
  11.11 pm
  Mr. William Cash: The hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) has given a whole new meaning to the phrase "sending people to Coventry", and it is not inducing silence.
  1240
  I have risen to speak because I am a member of the Select Committee on European Legislation, and I shall refer specifically to the powers on which my hon. Friend the Minister said he would be interested to hear comments by hon. Members. We are dealing with important prospective legislation on a matter that will have a dramatic and beneficial effect on the prospects for our telecommunications industry. With the liberalisation of terminal equipment in the value added services markets, and the separation of the regulatory and operational functions of posts, telegraphs and telecommunications administrations, the Commission proposes that the form of procedure used will effectively bypass other institutions within the Community, let alone the House. That is a serious matter.
  By coincidence, I have written an article about this that will be appearing in The Times tomorrow. Those of us who are genuinely enthusiastic about the prospects of the EC cannot view with equanimity the use of such powers, which are bound to lead to a sense of remoteness and Byzantine complexity bypassing the elected representatives and against the express wishes of member states, as my hon. Friend could tell us, because the Government made representations to the Commission that the use of article 90(3) should not be allowed.
  The Commission is persisting in this view, for reasons that have not been explained to the Select Committee, nor —I do not criticise my hon. Friend for this—by the Minister tonight. Also, if, as is proposed by the Government and other member states, the Commission proceeds by another procedure, it would be by the use of article 100A.
  It is late at night and we are discussing a matter which is vital to the future of the telecommunications industry and to industry as a whole. We are in the telecommunications age. Some would argue that the future for industry and commerce generally will be increasingly affected by telecommunications, information technology and everything that goes with those developments. At 11.15 pm, in a virtually empty Chamber, we are discussing a critical issue and looking into the black hole, as it were, in considering whether the proposed liberalisation measures should pass through the Commission without any further reference—I refer to the explanatory memorandum from the Department of Trade and Industry—to the Council of Ministers itself
  "or to consideration by the European Parliament or the Economic and Social Committee, but must be implemented by any Member States to which they are addressed "
  There would be no further reference to the House, and that is inconceivable. In my judgment, no right-minded person should allow this procedure to continue without registering the strongest possible protest.
  The problem does not end when article 100A is invoked. The Select Committee on European Legislation, in public session, is cross-examining the Treasury Solicitor in an attempt to elicit information on the misuse of article 100A, which, in simple langage, relates to the harmonisation programme for the whole of the internal market and the Single European Act.
  Grave problems have been arising, and we have had evidence of the misuse of article 100A. I do not want to exaggerate, but increasingly legislation is being imposed upon the House and we are obliged to implement it under the European Communities Act 1972. I am prepared to accept that Act, because I am not an anti-European in the

  1241
  sense in which that term is used by many, but I ask whether it is right that the elected representatives of Britain should be bypassed on matters of direct concern to the industry, to commerce and to the prosperity of their constituents. That must be a matter of concern to us. I am saying not that it has no relevance to the European Parliament but it has a great deal of relevance to us. The issue that is before us will bypass the whole shooting match if what is proposed by the Commission goes ahead.
  Under article 100A the majority procedure is used, and I shall not make a song and dance about the fact that that procedure has been introduced. I made my point when the Single European Act was passing through the House, in the course of which I said that there would be some difficulties. On the other hand, I can see some advantages in the majority procedure.
  There is something called Russian roulette. I suggest that we are moving into a new world in which there is something called European roulette, in which there are 12-chamber guns. As we found in our deliberations this afternoon in the Select Committee on European Legislation, it is becoming increasingly difficult to determine how matters will turn out. With the best will in the world, we must get our scrutiny procedures right. It has been said that we have lost four months and that the scrutiny procedure is not working properly. I wish merely to say that we are moving into accelerated procedures under article 100A. Indeed, we are moving into a new world in which things will move faster than we would like. The Select Committee on European Legislation has received evidence that on occasions—these are somewhat more frequent than in the past—when it recommends that certain matters should be debated, which means that it applies a scrutiny reserve, an explanatory memorandum is issued by the Department which, in effect, states, "We are sorry, but things are moving too fast. We shall have to make the decision to adopt the proposal before the debate has taken place."
  A number of questions seriously affect rulings and agreements as between the Select Committee on European Legislation and the formal channels in this House, which have recently been the subject of correspondence with the Leader of the House. I ask, in no spirit of criticism, that when important matters such as this pass through the House and through the European Community—to which I do not object in principle, because I am not anti-European—we should be fully involved in key decisions affecting our constituents.
  The key word there is "involved", because we cannot leave such matters to the European Parliament alone. It is not designed for, or capable of, properly scrutinising such matters either now or in the indefinite future. The House concerns itself with scrutinising Bills line by line, yet it is prepared to pass legislation at this time of night without so much as a glance at the nuts and bolts of its content. We must consider this matter properly, not just for the sake of tradition but also to safeguard the role of the House. In a nutshell, we must represent our constituents effectively and efficiently to the best of our ability.
  11.21 pm
  Mr. Richard Shepherd: My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) concentrated his remarks on an issue that is dear to the heart of the House in relation to the proposal that is before it. I did not intend to speak, but I want to respond to a number of the issues raised by the hon. Members for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) and for Wigan (Mr. Stott).
  Mention was made of British Telecom's role in Europe. My instinct is to acknowledge the extraordinary role played by Mr. John Golding in ensuring British Telecom's monopoly in the contemporary scene. I do not know a man who has fought more strongly, bravely and courageously for his union in defending—almost in partnership with Sir George Jefferson, whom I consider to be the eminence grise in that lamentable situation—the interests of his members as he perceived them, though I believe wrongly. "Hallelujah!" they should be singing, to the man who struggled and fought for British Telecom's lamentable—I would argue—monopoly. He argued on behalf of his members in a manner which I would acknowledge with statues and monuments, but that must be a judgment for others.
  The House is united in the belief that the provision of a service to consumers is what should guide our interest in telecommunications. It is there that I take issue with some of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East. I ask him to reflect, on behalf of his constituents, on the situation if there were only one shoe shop, one shirtmaker and one food shop in Coventry. One would then be hijacked in terms of prices and the provision of service. If those suppliers decided to provide a service for only four hours daily, and at a price that was not affordable, people would have to go without.
  The essence of the underlying argument is that one achieves the best provision of service by competition. The regret and anxiety in the Government's arguments this evening are that we constructed a system that was not designed to do that, but which institutionalised much of what had gone before, ensuring that the measured pace by which we arrived at its provision would place us ill in the worldwide race to provide a service.
  I shall contrast that with a situation with which I know the hon. Member for Wigan will be very familiar concerning Northern Telecom. It came from nowhere. Its market was nationally limited—the Canadian market—and yet, despite the inhibitions of a small market place, it has grown into an undoubted world leader. The test of being vital and viable in a competitive market has taken it from nothing to something grand. The tragedy of British Telecom is that it started as something grand and is going somewhere that is not so grand. It is not an example that we can hold out to the world.
  The provision of competitive tendering in equipment was essential. It was something about which the Government were anxious. The maintenance and continuity of the service were all arguments that we rehearsed in Committee. At the end of the day the House is about the provision of service. Opposition Members will get nowhere until they believe that unless the service is delivered to the consumer it cannot be argued that to maintain the jobs of three people today is the end of the matter. It is delivering the service to the consumer that leads to the creation of the jobs that the hon. Member for

  1243
  Coventry, South-East desperately and genuinely wants for his constituents. That is the route by which we believe that that can best be tackled.
  I have tried to talk about technological gains. Many things inhibit the Government's objectives. We still have great opportunities ahead of us. The price restraint on BT comes to an end next year, as my hon. Friend the Minister will no doubt confirm. I genuinely do not believe that a monopoly that runs for 25 years is in our interests. We can still break up BT and that will become increasingly imperative in order to serve markets and compete in Europe and so take advantage of any directive that comes from there. If, as we look forward to the year 2000, we want to hold markets, create more jobs and take over the opportunities that Northern Telecom in a curious way pioneered for us all in order to beat the Americans or the Japanese, we must take away those restraints. My hon. Friend the Minister will well recall that in Committee we did not talk about competition. Throughout we referred to a duopoly. That is not consonant with competition.
  11.26 pm
  Mr. Butcher: To a certain extent, the debate has been a reunion of those who debated the competition policy issues in the Telecommunications Bill. I recall the eloquence of my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) many years ago. He has shown tonight that his views are unshakeable and that his convictions on competition policy, as it applies to the telecommunications market, are as clear as ever.
  May I share with him and the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) their view of the doughtiness of Mr. John Golding? I cannot agree with my hon. Friend's conclusions that the Golding-Jefferson axis has triumphed. I have tried to demonstrate tonight, and shall continue to do so in future, that competition across the piece is alive and kicking in the telecommunications services in the United Kingdom.
  1244
  My hon. Friend is worried about whether the domestic user has a real choice. When there is competitiveness between the two service providers, I am sure he will agree that the final piece of the jigsaw will be in place.
  I hope that my hon. Friend will be encouraged by the fact that, after making a massive investment, Mercury is now in a position to start advertising for customers from domestic subscribers outside the Greater London area. That surely is confirmation that it is serious about competing with BT in the last area in which BT has enjoyed a quasi-monopoly. Everywhere else, full-blown competition is raging.
  Many points have been raised tonight, and there will not be enough time to respond to all of them. I was asked in a couple of contributions what objective the United Kingdom was seeking to achieve. Let me return to the words of the French Minister when he identified the Japanese propensity, indeed choice, to invest in the United Kingdom—often in London—because of the efficacy of our telecommunications services.
  One of our objectives is to ensure that London becomes one of the three major information exchanges in the world. It is already one of the three major financial exchanges, and I believe that Tokyo, New York and London will be the three major information exchange centres. I hope the House will remember that there are now more than 3,000 value added data service and network service operators in London. Only four years ago, we did not have any that we could count.
  It being half-past Eleven o'clock, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted Business).
  Question agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 4634/88 on the development of the common market for telecommunications services and equipment., and supports the Government's intention to work for the early liberalisation of telecommunications markets in the European Community to the benefit of network operators, service providers, equipment manufacturers and users.

  Cross-Bradford Rail Link
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Boscawen.]
  11.30 pm
  Mr. Bob Cryer: I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak about a section of the city in which I was born and bred, and for which, as a consequence, I have a great affection. I speak tonight not simply as a constituency representative, but as someone who has always wanted to see railways and the city develop—for railways and transport facilities generally are an important part of a city.
  Bradford's railway circumstances are singularly unfortunate because of a series of historical quirks. Those historical quirks have meant a steady decline in Bradford's position as a city with railway facilities. The ASLEF branch closed recently because it is no longer a signing-on point. Leeds has become the centre. There are no locomotive depots and no freight yards, and there are inadequate freight facilities in the interchange station, which is the subject of continuing complaint by the postmaster general in Bradford. Parcels are taken from a major post office facility in the centre of Bradford as far a field as Preston to join the railway network. That cannot be reasonable or right.
  As a result of those historical quirks, we have two railway stations, both termini: the Interchange, which is modern, bleak and inadequate, approximately seven miles from Leeds, and Forster square, approximately three miles from Shipley—which can be seen to have an air of faded grandeur, when it is possible to burrow behind the buildings and find out where it is. Shipley is the junction for the Leeds-Skipton railway from which there is access to Lancaster, Morecambe, and, further north, Settle and Carlisle.
  The history of railway development in Bradford is essentially one of missed opportunity. If I give the Minister a brief resumé—provided that he has not already got one —it will demonstrate that the House has already in past years given approval for various sorts of railway link to join the two stations, and therefore to provide a regeneration of railway facilities, as I hope will still be possible.
  Let me quote from a small booklet by Alan Whitaker, "Railways of Bradford." He pointed out:
  "A change of mind by Leeds and Bradford Railway Company chairman George Hudson"—
  not the most eminent railway entrepreneur—
  "wrecked Bradford's first chance of a through line as early as 1846 when, after initially supporting a plan to link the Manchester and Leeds and Leeds and Bradford lines to put Bradford on a through route, he decided against it and the chance was lost.
  …Yet another opportunity arose in the early 1880s when reconstruction of Bradford Exchange station was in an advanced state of planning. A leading local architect was hired by a group of prominent Bradford businessmen to prepare plans for a central station on a through line and the cost was put at £300,000. But, after conferring on the scheme, the three railway companies, which already had local interests … sent a sharp rebuff to the promoters saying that the project was unrealistic".
  One of those railways—the Midland—13 years later drew up its own proposals for a Bradford through line, at an estimated cost of £2·1 million; and the scheme was authorised by the Midland Railway (West Riding Lines) Act 1898. The House was so keen to endorse Bradford's
  1246
  view that it gave its consent for the extension of time to promote the scheme to build the railway in 1901, 1904 and 1907. But the local authority rightly suspected that the Midland railway was dragging its feet, and so eventually produced yet another scheme. At that stage, the local authority was so keen to promote the idea that the Bradford corporation offered to deduct £8,000 a year from the Midland railway's rates bill for a period of 20 years.
  The Bradford Through Lines Act received the Royal Assent on 25 July 1911. But before anything could be done, the first world war intervened in 1914, and in the post-war recession the scheme was again put to one side and forgotten.
  In the 1950s, a circular route that would involve joining the stations was considered but thought too ambitious, and so not pursued.
  What is the current position? The InterCity service is pathetic. Bradford is a city of almost 500,000 people. It is a major provincial city, and it deserves better. There is one through service each way each day. British Rail is not prepared to electrify the Leeds-Bradford branch, and is talking of diverting all InterCity trains to Forster square and developing Shipley as a station with a parking facility. That would mean a major development miles from the city centre, taking the heart out of the railway centre in Bradford.
  Bradford local authority considered a cross-Bradford rail link during 1986, in conjunction with a proposed new court house site by the Property Services Agency. The alignment under consideration was a route extending from the interchange, under Bridge street, crossing land formerly occupied by the Exchange station, returning parallel to Vicar lane and swinging so as to cross the subway well at the junction of Hall Ings and Petergate. It would then go along Petergate by a viaduct, whose columns could be accommodated within the central reservation of Petergate. The line would then swing across the former Forster square goods yard to join the track reaching Forster Square station, thus providing a through route for the first time in the city's history.
  Written representations were made to the PSA in February 1987, and a response was received in March of that year from the court house project manager, a Mr. D. Jones. The local authority sent me a letter, dated 6 October, outlining Mr. Jones' objections. He apparently objected to having a railway on the land on which the court house was to be built—the former Exchange station site—on the grounds of security. That is curious. Did he think that court house prisoners were going to leap from their confines on to the roofs of passing trains to make a dramatic escape? He did not like the idea of a railway so close to the court house.
  In a parliamentary answer on 26 May the Minister said that the idea would create
  "unacceptable levels of noise and vibration, …unsurmountable security problems, and would be visually intrusive."—[Official Report, 26 May 1988; Vol. 134, c. 307.]
  I do not believe that the Property Services Agency is so incompetent that it cannot design a secure building that is reasonably insulated against noise. Railways are considerably less noisy than either a busy city centre road or a trunk road. There are ways of insulating railways. For example, rubber pads can be used on the chairs holding the rail to the sleeper. Buildings can also be insulated effectively. I do not therefore support the noise argument.

  1247
  Railways are much less visually intrusive than, say, multistorey car parks which have grown with the increase in car ownership like some sort of cancer across the face of our cityscapes. I cannot think of any multistorey car parks that are exciting and appreciated by architects and citizens everywhere. The car scene is visually much less attractive than railways. In any case, the railway of the cross-Bradford link would be on only a slight gradient, so the argument about engines or diesel motive units working hard and making a great deal of noise would not apply.
  The local authority and the passenger transport authority want the option of a sufficient strip of land across the court house site—round the back of it as it were —so that at some future date there will be the possibility of a cross-Bradford rail link. A man in Whitehall should not have the right to veto the local authority or the local passenger transport authority. They represent people who live and work in Bradford and who can see for themselves that a rail link would not be particularly noisy or intrusive. Certainly it would not be aesthetically jarring to the people of Bradford who would benefit greatly from such a link.
  The passenger transport authority is commissioning an independent review and a technical assessment of the potential for a cross-Bradford rail link in the specification for a study to be commissioned jointly by Bradford local authority, British Rail and the passenger transport authority. That is the general position of the cross-Bradford rail link.
  The Property Services Agency made it clear that if the Bradford local authority did not accede to the view of, presumably, Mr. Jones, the agency would think again about whether a court house should be built on the site. Then the question of the time to build the court house arose. The local authority, anxious to secure jobs, yielded to what some people might see as a crude form of blackmail, but I am sure that that was not intended by the Property Services Agency. However, that might be seen as the implication.
  There would be enormous transport improvements if the option that I have mentioned was available to be taken up at some future date. There could be through trains from Leeds to Bradford, from Bradford to Shipley, to Skipton, Lancaster or Carlisle, or trains could run from Leeds to Bradford and then round to Leeds and on in a southerly direction to London. They could run from Leeds to Shipley and Bradford and through to Halifax and Manchester. In a note to me the passenger transport authority said:
  "The construction of a cross-Bradford rail link would allow routing of train services from Leeds to Lancaster/Carlisle and from Leeds to Manchester/Blackpool via Bradford without reversal. One possible service pattern (fig. 5)"—
  which the authority gives in a diagrammatic form—
  "would result in improved Leeds-Bradford frequencies and links between Airedale and Calderdale without necessarily increasing train operational costs."
  That means that there would be an improved train frequency without additional costs in a way that has never been possible before.
  The Minister should not close his mind to the option. He should say that he recognises the importance to the passenger transport authority and to the local authority of this potential development. He should consider whether further discussions can result in an accommodation for a rail alignment.
  1248
  It is Government policy to regenerate inner cities, and the link would certainly help to regenerate the heart of the city of Bradford. It would help to provide Bradford with a railway service such as it has never been able to achieve because of the wretched, if small, division between the two stations, which, as I have explained to the Minister, has been under discussion off and on for more than 140 years. If the court house project goes ahead willy-nilly, the option will be cut off for 100 years. It will not be available at any rate for the period for which a modern court house can be expected to last, which I suppose may be less than 100 years. Once the building is constructed and in operation, the option will not be open to us.
  The option of the cross-Bradford rail link would place Bradford at a railway crossroads. It would stimulate rail traffic and provide a greatly improved railway service for the people of Bradford. It would not be intrusive, and the short viaduct across Petergate would blend in well with the surroundings and provide a dramatic and unusual journey through the city. Most of all, the link would stimulate rail traffic. Instead of two stations withering away at the end of two short branch lines, Bradford would once again have a railway service to match its status as one of the most important cities in Yorkshire.
  I hope that the Minister will accede to my requests and tell the Property Services Agency to reconsider the matter to see whether the rail link option—which is a very important option to the city and is supported by the passenger transport authority and the local authority—can at least be retained for further examination.
  11.46 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Christopher Chope): We have been entertained to a fascinating history of the development of the railway in Bradford and its environs.
  It is clear from the remarks of the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) that there is much misunderstanding over the role of the Property Services Agency in this matter. I am grateful for this opportunity to set out the respective responsibilities of the Lord Chancellor's Department and the city of Bradford. After the hon. Gentleman has heard what I have to say., I think he will accept that the PSA is not dictating anything, but that the ball is in the court of the local authority, which owns the land and decides the planning issues. It has agreed to the development of the land for an important court house and accepts that it would not be possible to have both a court house and a rail link on the site.
  The Property Services Agency, as its name implies, acts as the agent for the Lord Chancellor's Department in the selection of sites for courts and in their construction. Decisions of where courts are needed, their size and the selection of a specific site in each city are essentially matters for the Lord Chancellor's Department, advised by the PSA. The cost of the court building programme falls on the public expenditure programme of my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor, and from 1 April this year the annual expenditure for the courts programme has fallen upon his Vote.
  For this, as for other construction projects, the PSA is bound to obtain the view of the local authority on planning matters under the appropriate circular—in this case circular 18 of 1984. The Government have repeatedly said that they are bound by the spirit of planning

  1249
  legislation and in the case of Crown court development there is rarely occasion to seek to set aside the views of the planning authority. I can assure the House, from my inspection of the relevant documents, that there has been the closest co-operation between the PSA and the officers of Bradford city council over planning matters.
  Against that background of roles and responsibilities, let me deal with the history of this project. Bradford has been without a Crown court building since 1982, when the two court rooms in the city hall, owned by the local authority, were closed because of maintenance problems. Since then cases have been heard at Leeds, and my right hon. and noble Friend the then Lord Chancellor declared in 1983 that the Crown court would not return to Bradford until permanent modern accommodation could be provided.
  Having assessed the case load in Bradford, the Lord Chancellor's Department decided that it needed a court building to house eight Crown and two county court rooms. The PSA identified six potential sites in Bradford, of which two were shortlisted. One of these was the Bradford Exchange site, which was by common consent the best, in that it fulfilled the criteria for accessibility and security, while providing a focal point for a new building of civic significance. Both it and the other shortlisted site at Vickers lane were in the ownership of Bradford city council.
  The PSA and the Lord Chancellor's Department therefore opened negotiations with the city authorities over the use of the Exchange station site for courts, with the aim of purchasing it if the authority was prepared to agree to its use for courts. A deputation of members from the city council met officials of the Lord Chancellor's Department and the PSA in June 1986 to discuss aspects of the scheme, and on 13 November 1986 the PSA submitted a planning application to the council.
  The Council replied on 3 February 1987 saying that, while it was favourably disposed to the development, it was aware that the West Yorkshire passenger transport authority was considering a proposal to provide a cross-Bradford rail link between the Interchange and Forster square stations, across the Exchange station site. It therefore invited the PSA to consider the effect of the PTA's proposals on the court scheme and to let it have comments.
  The PSA carefully examined the proposal from a professional viewpoint. Would it be feasible and physically acceptable to have a court and a rail link on the same site? Writing to the director of planning of the city council on 4 March 1987, the PSA project manager said that the design team had concluded that it would not be possible for the rail link and the court house to share the same site. There would be problems for secure access and egress for custody vehicles, problems of general layout, and a change in the character of the site which would remove the sense of civic importance that the court house development would enhance.
  In those circumstances, the project manager went on to say that it was for the council to make a clear decision to approve either the rail link or the court house development.
  The hon. Gentleman asked why the PSA took the view that it did, and he referred to the answers that I gave to his
  1250
  parliamentary questions on 22 October 1987 and 2 November 1987. The possibility of a rail link being taken into account was not drawn to the PSA's attention until February 1987. It was not, as I said in my reply on 2 November 1987, for the PSA to give reasons for rejecting a rail link. It simply pointed out that a rail link and the court house to the standards required by the Lord Chancellor's Department could not be accommodated on the same site. In answer to the hon. Gentleman's more recent question on 23 May 1988 I explained that the construction of a rail link, close to the court house, would create problems of noise and vibration, add to the security problems and be visually intrusive.
  In effect, the hon. Gentleman has asked me to elaborate on the reasons that I gave him then. First, a court house containing eight Crown and two county courts requires a site of between 2 and 2½ acres. The Exchange station site is slightly under 2½ acres, and of this a little over one quarter would be taken by the proposed railway development. If we sought to realign the agreed site boundaries to take account of the rail link, it would mean encroaching upon adjacent land identified by the local authority for future commercial development and for a civic square. If we did not realign the site boundaries, the railway would pass within 30 ft of the court room walls.
  Secondly, the proposed railway route creates major access problems. It would divorce the court house site from the only realistic road access, which is from Vicar lane. Because of the slope of the ground—the hon. Gentleman will know the details of this better than I do —other roads do not give ready access, and bridges or tunnels would be impractical. A level crossing is unacceptable for security reasons—this is where security is crucial—because vehicles bringing defendants to court must be able to get in and out without impediment. Clearly, a level crossing would be an impediment.
  If the access problems could be resolved and the railway link provided, the noise, vibration and visual intrusion would create problems in planning and building the courts, and impair their value in use. The design of the foundations, building frame and fabric would have to be adapted in a way that would be costly and cause delay; and it would be difficult, if not impossible, to meet the agreed standards for court design, particularly for noise levels and daylight. Even if these problems were overcome, the visual intrusion of a railway line on the same level as the court building is not hard to imagine.
  Those were the PSA's reasons; the decision, though, was for Bradford. On 16 March 1987 the director of development services of Bradford city council wrote to the project manager, conveying outline planning clearance. He said that he had carried out consultations with the leadership of the council and the view had been taken by the council that the court house development should proceed as programmed, because it was appreciated that it was not a feasible proposition to think in terms of physically accommodating the rail link and the court house on the Exchange station site and adhering to the stated programme.
  That is the current position. The site is to be developed for the court building and there has been close consultation with Bradford council over the design of the scheme. A new civic square will be laid out fronting the court house, which will do much to regenerate the

  1251
  important central area of Bradford. Both the PSA and the Lord Chancellor's Department have been happy to co-operate with the local authority in this scheme.
  The programme to which we are working is dictated by the needs of the Lord Chancellor's Department. Advance works, to prepare the square, are due to begin next year. The scope of the work and apportionment of cost are being negotiated as part of the site purchase agreement. The construction of the court house itself, on which there will be further consultations about the exterior appearance, will begin later that year or in 1990. The Lord Chancellor's Department hopes to bring the new building into use in 1992.
  From that brief history the House will see that, far from being bureaucratic or authoritarian, the PSA has fully and properly carried out its responsibilities and observed both the spirit and the letter of the consultation process.
  Mr. Cryer: The local authority said in its letter to me that when it had been engaged in correspondence with the PSA it had been requested to make an urgent decision, as failure to do so could jeopardise the timing of the court house project. That could be interpreted as suggesting that if it did not agree with the PSA view the court house project might be taken from Bradford. Was that the case? That was certainly the implication.
  Mr. Chope: Clearly, if considerable delay was caused by arguments about whether both could be accommodated on the site, or whether the rail link should have priority over the court house, or vice versa, that would have affected whether we could proceed with the site or should look for an alternative. The hon. Gentleman goes too far in suggesting that that was more or less tantamount to blackmail or a threat. All the cards were with the local planning authority and it could have written back and said that it wanted more time, giving reasons for it. It did not do so. It unequivocally accepted the arguments of the PSA.
  The choice between the rail link and the court house, or, indeed, the decision whether the two could co-exist on the one site, was a matter for Bradford city council. That choice was made and communicated in March 1987. I am confident that Bradford will not regret its choice, and that the new court house, when it is built, will prove a worthy addition to the civic architecture of the city.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at three minutes to Twelve o'clock.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Nicaragua
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much aid has been sent to Nicaragua by the United Kingdom in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  I refer the hon. Lady to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Wray) on 20 June.

  £ million at 1987–88 prices

  1982–83 outturn

  1983–84 outturn

  1984–85 outturn

  1985–86 outturn

  11986–87 outturn

  21987–88 estimated outturn

  1988–89 plans

  1989–90 plans

  1990–91 plans

  Schools

  9,608

  9,721

  9,519

  9,320

  10,077

  10,633

  10,630

  10,585

  10,552

  Higher and further education

  4,970

  4,999

  4,987

  4,790

  4,823

  4,904

  4,866

  4,828

  4,760

  Miscellaneous educational services research and administration

  833

  884

  896

  895

  937

  975

  1,032

  1,066

  1,079

  Research Councils and related bodies

  594

  608

  617

  623

  639

  657

  669

  672

  649

  Total Department of Education and Science

  16,006

  16,106

  16,019

  15,629

  16,476

  17,169

  17,197

  17,150

  17,040

  Central government

  Voted in Estimates

  Schools

  Building grants to voluntary and special schools

  48

  45

  52

  59

  51

  55

  68

  70

  73

  Music and ballet schools

  5

  3

  3

  3

  3

  3

  4

  4

  4

  Assisted places scheme

  11

  18

  26

  32

  40

  49

  53

  54

  54

  City technology colleges

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4

  18

  30

  30

  Higher and further education (including teacher training) Universities

  Capital

  152

  142

  139

  145

  155

  154

  147

  141

  140

  Current

  1,580

  1,567

  1,540

  1,490

  1,485

  1,562

  1,614

  1,613

  1,594

  Voluntary and direct grant institutions

  Capital

  5

  5

  6

  5

  5

  7

  6

  5

  5

  Current

  108

  106

  97

  93

  92

  95

  93

  89

  89

  Adult education

  14

  15

  15

  16

  16

  16

  17

  16

  16

  Postgraduate awards to humanities students and other student awards

  8

  5

  5

  4

  5

  6

  5

  5

  5

  Miscellaneous services, research and administration

  Youth service

  4

  4

  4

  4

  4

  4

  4

  4

  4

  Research programme and other education services

  19

  23

  24

  25

  24

  27

  45

  68

  74

  Administration and inspection costs

  41

  54

  55

  56

  57

  58

  65

  63

  62

  Compensation payments

  5

  5

  6

  6

  7

  7

  7

  7

  7

  Research Councils etc.

  Capital

  96

  91

  89

  97

  97

  93

  85

  99

  76

  Current (including postgraduate science awards)

  498

  517

  528

  526

  542

  564

  584

  573

  573

  Total voted expenditure

  2,594

  2,601

  2,589

  2,562

  2,582

  2,703

  2,812

  2,841

  2,806

  Other central government Schools

  -4

  -5

  -4

  -4

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Expenditure
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish in the Official Report a table based on table 12·1 of the public expenditure White Paper, Cm. 288–II, with all figures converted to 1987–88 prices.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The information requested is set out in the table. The figures have been revalued using the Budget assumptions about movements in the GDP (market prices) deflator, which is assumed to rise by 5 per cent. in 1987–88, 4·5 per cent. in 1988–89, 4 per cent. in 1989–90 and 3·5 per cent. in 1990–91. All figures have been rounded to the nearest £1 million, so that the totals shown may not equal the sum of their rounded components.
  553

  1982–83 outturn

  1983–84 outturn

  1984–85 outturn

  1985–86 outturn

  11986–87 outturn

  21987–88 estimated outturn

  1988–89 plans

  1989–90 plans

  1990–91 plans

  Total central government

  2,590

  2,596

  2,585

  2,558

  2,582

  2,703

  2,812

  2,841

  2,806

  Of which: Total central government and capital expenditure

  298

  280

  284

  304

  309

  310

  309

  317

  297

  1982–83 outturn

  1983–84 outturn

  1984–85 outturn

  1985–86 outturn

  11986–87 outturn

  21987–88 estimated outturn

  1988–89 plans

  1989–90 plans

  1990–91 plans

  Local authorities

  Relevant current spending Schools

  Under fives

  345

  355

  380

  380

  414

  441

  443

  454

  459

  Primary schools

  2,950

  2,898

  2,855

  2,832

  3,140

  3,370

  3,403

  3,469

  3,505

  Secondary schools

  4,452

  4,482

  4,434

  4,283

  4,678

  4,957

  4,895

  4,796

  4,751

  Special schools

  480

  495

  496

  501

  527

  544

  546

  538

  533

  Meals and milk

  516

  511

  492

  472

  475

  469

  431

  414

  400

  Transport

  232

  235

  229

  226

  221

  213

  205

  203

  203

  Non-maintained school fees

  144

  141

  139

  127

  125

  125

  123

  118

  113

  Teachers' centres

  29

  28

  32

  34

  37

  39

  42

  42

  41

  Child guidance

  35

  34

  35

  38

  41

  45

  45

  45

  44

  Pupil support

  32

  32

  37

  38

  38

  38

  38

  38

  37

  Higher and further education Advanced further education

  765

  763

  769

  783

  788

  780

  774

  778

  781

  Non-advanced further education

  1,103

  1,117

  1,147

  1,062

  1,108

  1,098

  1,104

  1,078

  1,035

  Adult eduation

  96

  103

  107

  110

  117

  123

  125

  126

  126

  Discretionary students awards and support

  152

  158

  163

  164

  177

  189

  200

  199

  198

  Miscellaneous services, research and administration

  Youth service

  122

  131

  134

  136

  144

  150

  160

  162

  160

  Recreational services and research

  58

  65

  67

  63

  67

  68

  75

  75

  74

  Administration and inspection costs

  547

  572

  578

  583

  615

  642

  664

  674

  685

  Total relevant current spending

  12,058

  12,120

  12,094

  11,832

  12,712

  13,291

  13,273

  13,209

  13,145

  1982–83 outturn

  1983–84 outturn

  1984–85 outturn

  1985–86 outturn

  11986–87 outturn

  21987–88 estimated outturn

  1988–89 plans

  1989–90 plans

  1990–91 plans

  Local authorities

  Non-relevant current spending Mandatory student awards3

  840

  880

  855

  770

  738

  742

  733

  728

  721

  Local authority capital4

  Schools

  335

  341

  314

  300

  286

  281

  316

  309

  306

  Higher and further education

  146

  139

  144

  148

  138

  134

  50

  50

  49

  Miscellaneous education services

  Youth service

  15

  12

  13

  12

  12

  12

  8

  7

  7

  Other education services

  22

  18

  15

  10

  7

  7

  6

  6

  5

  Total local authority capital

  518

  509

  486

  469

  444

  434

  379

  372

  368

  Total local authorities

  13,416

  13,509

  13,434

  13,071

  13,894

  14,467

  14,385

  14,310

  14,234

  Total Department of Education and Science

  16,006

  16,106

  16,019

  15,629

  16,476

  17,169

  17,197

  17,150

  17,040

  1 The 1986–87 figures incorporate a distribution by sector of total current spending by local authorities based on their provisional outturn expenditure on education.

  2 The 1987–88 figures incorporate a provisional distribution by sector of total current spending by local authorities based on their budgets

  3 Includes payments to public sector higher education institutions as reimbursements of fees for European Community students.

  4 Local authority capital expenditure figures are net of receipts attributable to education. They include provision for the Urban Programme.

  Medical Research Council (Pensions)
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what account he took of the current relative level of contributions paid by men and women in the Medical Research Council's pension scheme and of the Government Actuary's calculations as to the 554
  cost of a widowers' pension within that scheme when issuing guidelines to the Medical Research Council indicating that widowers' pensions should be funded by increasing members' contributions in order that the cost be shared by employer and employees.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Government's policy on implementation of the Social Security Act 1986 is that the cost of
  555
  introducing additional benefits to existing public sector pension schemes must be shared by the employer and the employees. We are still discussing with the Medical Research Council and the Treasury the appropriate basis for applying this policy to the MRC scheme, taking account of all the relevant factors including the current level of contributions paid and the Government Actuary's calculations. A final decision has not yet been reached.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Mr. Anthony Cavendish
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Attorney-General when he expects to be in a position to give the final outturn of costs incurred in relation to the proceedings on Mr. Anthony Cavendish's memoirs.

  The Attorney-General
  I will not be in a position to give the final figure for the costs of this case until after the conclusion of the proceedings, which are still at the interlocutory stage.

  "The Friends: Britain's Post-war Secret Intelligence Operations"
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Attorney-General why Her Majesty's Government have not sought an injunction to restrain publication of the book written by the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) under the pseudonym of Nigel West entitled, "The Friends: Britain's Post-war Secret Intelligence Operations."

  The Attorney-General
  The Government deplore the publication of books of this nature, and especially when advice from the D Notice Committee secretary has to any extent been disregarded.

  As regards legal action, this is not a case of an author who is or has been a Crown servant, and taking that fact into account, together with the contents of this particular book, the Government concluded that an application for an injunction to restrain the book's publication would be unlikely to succeed.

  "Spycatcher"
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Attorney-General (1) for what reason the Treasury Solicitor approached Messrs Nilsson and Lamon regarding their circular to British booksellers about the book, "Spycatcher"; what form the approach took; what warnings it contained about the risk of criminal contempt on the part of Nilsson and Lamon and on the basis of what legal precedents; how the Treasury Solicitor became aware of the circular by Nilsson and Lamon; what is his general policy towards issuing warnings to organisations and individuals about the possible criminal nature of their actions or intended actions; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what assessment he has made of the implications for Her Majesty's Government's obligations under the treaty of Rome and the European Convention on Human Rights of his attempts to prevent paperback editions of the book "Spycatcher" being distributed to British booksellers; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  These questions relate to a letter which is referred to in an affidavit before the Judicial 556
  Committee of the House of Lords, which is currently hearing the Government's appeal against The Guardian, The Observer and the Sunday Times newspapers. It would therefore not be appropriate for me to comment upon it while the proceedings continue.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Rolls-Royce
  Mr. Milian
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he has received a request from Rolls-Royce for launch aid in respect of the development of the RB211–524L engine; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  I have received an application from Rolls-Royce for launch aid under the Civil Aviation Act 1982 towards the development of the RB211 family of engines including the RB211–524L. This is being considered.

  Furniture (Fire Safety)
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many written representations he has so far received on the subject of furniture fire safety regulations.

  Mr. Butcher
  Some 275 representations have been received.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) what video or film evidence he has so far received concerning the furniture fire safety regulations; and if he will list the film or video producers in each case;

  (2) if he has made any representation to the British Rubber Manufacturers Association in relation to procedure used during the fire safety test contained in the video sent to him by the association; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Butcher
  [holding answer 21 June 1988]: The British Rubber Manufacturers Association video contains comparisons of the fires in a number of suites which were identical apart from the fillings. Rapid ignition was ensured, for experimental and video recording purposes, by the use of the small crib, ignition source 4 of the British standard, although the acrylic velvet generally ignites readily from a match. The test burn showing the cover burning off a substitute non-combustible mineral wool filling demonstrates very forcibly the contribution that a burning cover as part of the overall construction can make to the hazard of fire in furniture.

  I have made no representations to BRMA in response to this video.

  We have also received some short sales videos relating to fire blocking or barrier systems produced in-house by the manufacturers concerned.

  Steel Industry
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what has been the levy per tonne set each year since 1973 on steel production for the ECSC budget; and how much was raised each year by the levy on production from(a) British Steel Corporation works and (b) private steelmakers.
  557
  Mr. Atkins
  The ECSC levy is raised on the average value of the production of coal and steel by enterprises falling under the treaty of Paris. Details of the levy rate are as follows:

  Percentage

  1973–79

  0·29

  1980-

  0·31

  Separate figures on the amount raised each year by the levy on production from the British Steel Corporation and private sector steelmakers are not readily available.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many applications the Government have made since 1973 to the Commission of the European Communities under article 56.2.(b) of the treaty of Paris for workers in the steel industry; how many of their workers were employed in (a) British Steel Corporation works and (b) private steel works; and how much was received from the ECSC budget for each sector.

  Mr. Atkins
  Since 1973, the Government have applied for ECSC contributions towards aid to be given under the iron and steel employees readaptation benefits scheme in respect of some 129,000 projected redundancies in the steel industry. Of these, some 102,000 were in respect of employees of the British Steel Corporation, and some 27,000 in respect of employees of private sector steel companies. To date, 85,173 former employees of BSC and 23,112 former employees for private sector companies have registered to receive aid under the Scheme.

  The ECSC contributes towards the cost of the scheme retrospectively, and to date the Government have received £158,255,862 towards aid paid to former steel employees. Of this, approximately 76 per cent. was in respect of former BSC employees, and approximately 24 per cent. in respect of former private sector employees.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what has been Britain's contribution each year since 1973 to the ECSC budget by way of the levy made on steel production.

  Mr. Atkins
  The ECSC annual financial report provides figures on the ECSC levy revenue, broken down by industry and member state, only since 1981. The latest available figures are for the year 1986. The figures are as follows:

  Levy Revenue from the United Kingdom Steel Industry in ECU

  Number

  1981

  11,122,803

  1982

  9,515,579

  1983

  12,661,061

  1984

  13,199,907

  1985

  13,838,549

  1986

  13,961,944

  Electrical Appliances (Plugs)
  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what estimate he has made of the cost to manufacturers of household electrical equipment of requiring the fitting of electrical plugs to their products.

  Mr. Butcher
  The cost of fitting plugs to household electrical equipment is subject to many factors, the details 558
  of which will be known only to the manufacturers. No Government estimate has been made of such a proposal and were it to be done it would require a substantial input from the industry.

  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what regulations oblige the manufacturers of household electrical equipment to fit electric plugs as standard; what comparable regulations exist in other member states of the European Community; and what plans he has to ensure a standardisation of the regulations.

  Mr. Butcher
  Many manufacturers of electrical equipment are marketing equipment with a fitted plug and the number s growing but there is no statutory requirement which would oblige manufacturers of household electrical equipment to fit electric plugs prior to sale.

  There are no plans to impose such a requirement. The current legal position in other member states of the European Community is not at present available. There is no Community initiative to harmonise the national legislation governing the fitting of plugs to equipment.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Prisoners (Statistics)
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many mentally disordered offenders are presently in prison in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  On 30 September last year, the most recent date for which figures are available, 315 inmates of prison department establishments in England and Wales were, in the opinion of medical officers, suffering from mental disorder of a nature or degree with would satisfy the criteria in the Mental Health Act 1983 for detention in hospital for medical treatment.

  Civil Defence
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to improve current arrangements for dealing with civil emergencies in the metropolis.

  Mr. John Patten
  Following recent major emergencies the Home Office is looking closely at the effectiveness of our present arrangements for responding to emergencies anywhere in the United Kingdom and at the possibilities for improvements. Officials will shortly be issuing a consultation paper to explore the issues with the emergency services and other interested parties, including local government associations; the Association of London Authorities and the London Boroughs Association will be included in this consultation process.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what criteria are used in the compiling of lists of approved contractors and tenderers for work on civil defence facilities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  Companies seeking inclusion on lists of approved contractors must first satisfy the Department that they are technically, financially and commercially able to perform the contracts for which they apply. The
  559
  Property Services Agency, which manages civil defence building projects on behalf of the Home Office, applies similar criteria.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps his Department is taking to utilise private sector expertise in the hardening against nuclear electro-magnetic pulse of civil defence communications systems in both local authority emergency centres and regional government headquarters; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  The private sector has provided assessments of equipment resilience and advice on protection measures; we expect to continue to draw on such expertise.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps are being taken to ensure that the new PABX telephone switchboard systems to be fitted in local authority emergency centres will fully meet all the operational requirements of such systems, including hardening against nuclear electro-magnetic pulse; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  Operational requirements for these systems have been prepared in consultation with local authority users, and an assessment of resilience against the effects of electro-magnetic pulse will be a requirement of the equipment specification.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what involvement Rainford Secure Systems has had in the drawing up of specifications for the new PABX telephone switchboard systems to be installed in local authority emergency centres; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  None, although before specifications were prepared, and in accordance with normal practice, information was sought from communications equipment suppliers, including Rainford Secure Systems, in order to establish the range of equipment and facilities likely to be commercially available.

  Library Facilities (Prisons)
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list those local authorities which receive a lump sum and additional rate support grant for library facilities that are required to be made available to prisoners in Her Majesty's prisons; and if he will calculate the amounts for each of the past five years.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  As the hon. Member will be aware, the question of rate support grants is for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. As far as the system for funding prison libraries is concerned, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to his earlier question on 28 January at column 305.

  Bullwood Hall
  Mr. Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what were the numbers of planned hours of education, and the numbers of actual hours of education for inmates at Bullwood Hall prison and youth custody centre in each week since 1 April; what is the reason for any discrepancy; and what plans there are to ensure that education classes at this establishment take place as planned.
  560
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  In the nine weeks following Easter, only 43 class sessions were made available to inmates out of a total of 125 sessions planned for the period. The establishment is in dispute with the Prison Officers Association regarding the level of prison officer cover for education classes and it is not possible to state when the matter will be resolved. The loss of educational facilities for inmates at Bullwood Hall is very much regretted.

  Crime Statistics
  Sir Peter Hordern
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will publish a table showing the number of crimes committed with violence per 1,000 population in each police authority area of the country for the latest convenient period;

  (2) if he will publish a table showing the number of robberies per 1,000 population in each police authority area of the country for the latest convenient period.

  Mr. John Patten
  Because the numbers of offences are relatively small, numbers of offences are recorded per 100,000 population. Those for 1987 are given in the table. Figures in this form are published annually in "Criminal Statistics, England and Wales" (table 2.6 of the issue for 1986, Cm. 233); the issue for 1987 will be published later this year. Copies of this publication are held in the Library.

  Table 2.6

  Certain notifiable offences recorded by the police per 100,000 population by police force area

  England and Wales 1987 Number of offences per 100,000 population

  Police force area

  Violence against the person

  Sexual offences

  Robbery

  Avon and Somerset

  256

  42

  44

  Bedfordshire

  370

  43

  51

  Cambridgeshire

  246

  48

  18

  Cheshire

  232

  37

  16

  Cleveland

  400

  60

  21

  Cumbria

  281

  31

  13

  Derbyshire

  264

  49

  14

  Devon and Cornwall

  201

  42

  12

  Dorset

  187

  26

  12

  Durham

  339

  59

  14

  Essex

  228

  36

  20

  Gloucestershire

  188

  40

  18

  Greater Manchester

  289

  50

  83

  Hampshire

  205

  66

  16

  Hertfordshire

  199

  43

  17

  Humberside

  583

  92

  30

  Kent

  199

  43

  16

  Lancashire

  208

  51

  13

  Leicestershire

  268

  42

  30

  Lincolnshire

  259

  56

  13

  London, City of

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  Merseyside

  340

  40

  116

  Metropolitan Police1

  312

  53

  250

  Norfolk

  194

  34

  12

  Northamptonshire

  349

  53

  26

  Northumbria

  319

  49

  37

  North Yorkshire

  201

  34

  9

  Nottinghamshire

  602

  104

  47

  South Yorkshire

  318

  55

  26

  Staffordshire

  395

  49

  17

  Suffolk

  241

  49

  13

  Surrey

  215

  41

  13

  Sussex

  175

  49

  24

  Thames Valley

  200

  55

  24

  561

  Police force area

  Violence against the person

  Sexual offences

  Robbery

  Warwickshire

  188

  27

  10

  West Mercia

  229

  42

  8

  West Midlands

  291

  52

  110

  West Yorkshire

  334

  64

  37

  Wiltshire

  291

  50

  18

  Dyfed-Powys

  223

  60

  8

  Gwent

  367

  73

  8

  North Wales

  310

  45

  13

  South Wales

  271

  33

  17

  England and Wales

  282

  50

  65

  1 Including City of London

  n.a. = not applicable.

  Police (Statistics)
  Sir Peter Horden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish a table showing the number of police officers per 1,000 population in each area of the country, excluding the number of officers serving at Gatwick airport from the Sussex forces.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The information is as follows:

  Force

  Police Officers per 1,000 population1

  Avon and Somerset

  2·18

  Bedfordshire

  1·98

  Cambridgeshire

  1·86

  Cheshire

  1·96

  Cleveland

  2·64

  Cumbria

  2·35

  Derbyshire

  1·96

  Devon and Cornwall

  1·95

  Dorset

  1·94

  Durham

  2·26

  Dyfed Powys

  2·07

  Essex

  1·92

  Gloucestershire

  2·25

  Greater Manchester

  2·69

  Gwent

  2·25

  Hampshire

  1·89

  Hertfordshire

  1·94

  Humberside

  2·32

  Kent

  1·96

  Lancashire

  2·29

  Leicestershire

  1·98

  Lincolnshire

  2·09

  Merseyside

  3·19

  Norfolk

  1·84

  Northamptonshire

  2·00

  Northumbria

  2·42

  North Wales

  2·09

  North Yorkshire

  1·95

  Nottinghamshire

  2·28

  South Wales

  2·40

  South Yorkshire

  2·27

  Staffordshire

  2·12

  Suffolk

  1·89

  Surrey

  2·18

  Sussex

  1·89

  Thames Valley

  1·86

  Warwickshire

  2·04

  West Mercia

  1·87

  West Midlands

  2·57

  West Yorkshire

  2·55

  Wiltshire

  1·97

  City of London

  159·60

  Metropolitan

  3·88

  1 Latest Establishments and mid 1986 population figures.

  562
  The figures are in the form requested, but do not allow for extraction for airport duties from forces other than Sussex.

  Satellite Television
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what form of Government monitoring and control there will be over the contents of programmes beamed at the United Kingdom by satellite television.

  Mr. Renton
  British Satellite Broadcasting Limited plans to launch a three channel direct broadcasting by satellite (DBS) service for the United Kingdom in autumn 1989. This service will be regulated by the Independent Broadcasting Authority under the Cable and Broadcasting Act 1984. Existing non-DBS satellite services are virtually all transmitted for reception and distribution via cable systems; and they are therefore subject to regulation by the Cable Authority under the Cable and Broadcasting Act 1984 in the same way as other cable services. We are considering introducing legislation to extend the authority's remit to all non-DBS services transmitted direct to the home whether or not relayed by cable. Services linked from Europe may be made subject to rules currently being discussed in the Council of Europe and the European Communities. Finally, the satellite television services will be subject to monitoring by the Broadcasting Standards Council.

  In all cases, regulation and monitoring is or will be undertaken by independent bodies. The Government have no wish or any plans to control any television services themselves.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether satellite television now being made for schools programmes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  I am not aware of any satellite television service in the United Kingdom which provides schools programmes.

  Prisoners (Rule 43)
  Mr. Tom Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the present number of prisoners subject to rule 43 in prisons in England and Wales.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  On 1 January 1988, the most recent date for which information is available, 1,916 male sentenced and unsentenced prisoners were segregated under rule 43 in prisons in England and Wales. Figures are not kept centrally for female prisoners.

  Mr. Tom Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the prisons in England and Wales that take only rule 43 prisoners.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  No prisons in England and Wales take only rule 43 prisoners.

  Prisons (Education Services)
  Mr. Tom Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the number of staff employed full time on education services in the following prisons: Wandsworth, Wormwood Scrubs, Brixton, Pentonville and Holloway.
  563
  Mr. Dougas Hogg
  At the present time, the complement of full-time teachers seconded by the Inner London education authority to the five prison establishments in central London is 24·5 posts.

  Prisons (Category A Prisoners)
  Mr. Tom Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the number of category A prisoners at present held in prisons in England and Wales who are serving a life sentence.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  On 16 June 1988, there were 252 confirmed and 11 provisional category A inmates in penal establishments serving sentences of life imprisonment. In addition there were 14 confirmed and two provisional category A inmates serving sentences of youth custody for life or detained during Her Majesty's pleasure.

  Tranquillisers
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if his Department has evidence of misuse on any of the benzodiazepines;

  (2) if he or his officials have had discussions with the United Nations officials involved with the United Nations convention on psychotropic substances regarding the reports of misuse of benzodiazepines in other countries; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) whether the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs has recommended adding benzodiazepines to the list of drugs controlled by the Misuse of Drugs Act.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  There is evidence that some benzodiazepine drugs, particularly temazepam, are subject to misuse. Neither my right hon. Friend nor I, or Home Office officials, have had recent discussions with United Nations officials about the misuse of benzodiazepines in other counties, but we are kept fully informed by them about world trends in drug abuse. On 1 April 1986, in preparation for the United Kingdom's ratification of the United Nations convention on psychotropic substances 1971 and following consultation with the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, 33 benzodiazepine drugs, including temazepam, were brought within the controls of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 as class C drugs. We are keeping this classification under review.

  Election Returns
  Sir Geoffrey Finsberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, pursuant to his answer of 14 June, he will list the names and constituencies of those candidates in the 1979, 1983 and 1987 general elections who failed to submit a return within the statutory period allowed.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The information requested is given in the return to an address on election expenses which is published after each general election (HCP426(87/88) for the 1987 election, HCP130(83/84) for 1983 and HCP374(79/80) for 1979). In the 1983 publication, the footnote reference indicating that a return of expense had not been received was omitted in error for the National Labour Party candidate in the Ashford constituency.

  Staines Police Station
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what plans he has to replace Staines police station; and whether he will make a statement;

  (2) whether he will make it his policy that any new police station for Staines will be sited in the town centre.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that Staines is high on the priority list of police stations to be replaced, but that no firm date for doing so has yet been set. The location of the new station will be determined after a thorough assessment of operational requirements and available sites.

  Police (Nottinghamshire)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has received any further requests from the Nottinghamshire police authority for more policemen.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The latest application from Nottinghamshire police authority was received in May 1987 for 173 posts to be recruited over three financial years. On 18 May this year my right hon. Friend announced that he had approved 35 posts with effect from 1 June. The authority has been informed that he will consider the remainder of its application when he takes decisions on the next tranche of posts to be approved under the programme which my right hon. Friend announced in May 1986.

  Religious Broadcasts
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will extend the remit of the Broadcasting Standards Council to cover religious programming; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  The main purpose of the Broadcasting Standards Council is to act as a focus for public concern about violence and sex on television. Consequently, religious programmes are not likely to receive much attention from the council.

  Misuse of Drugs
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to implement the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs recommendation that the prison department give urgent consideration to means of providing confidential but easy access to evidence; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Health to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) on 29 March at columns 452–54.

  Mrs. Nannete Goodman (Passport)
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will inquire into the circumstances in which Mrs. Nannete Ida Goodman of 12 Avenue terrace, Southend on Sea and whose date of birth is 5 October 1907, has not received her renewal passport for which she applied to Petty France on 19 April, despite her having explained the urgency.
  565
  Mr. Renton
  The application has been traced, and a replacement passport was posted to Mrs. Goodman yesterday. The application form indicated an intention to travel during June or July for holiday purposes, but no specific travel date or destination were shown, and no indication of urgency was given. The application was not therefore given priority at the Passport Office.

SOCIAL SERVICES

  Housing Benefit
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services when he next plans to meet representatives of local authorities to discuss the changes in housing benefit.

  Mr. Portillo
  Officials meet regularly representatives of the local authority associations through the housing benefits standing committee, and its sub-groups, to discuss housing benefit matters. The next meeting of the standing committee is on 21 July 1988.

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what action he has taken to remedy past inequalities in employment practices in his Department, in compliance with the codes of the Commission for Racial Equality and the Equal Opportunities Commission, respectively.

  Mrs. Currie
  The Department has adopted a programme of action in support of its equal opportunity policy including the following measures to promote positive action to assist women and ethnic minority staff:Monitoring of recruitment has been introduced and managers are encouraged to utilise all possible advertising outlets to attract in particular applicants from ethnic minority groups, for example, through use of ethnic minority press and radio. youth clubs and local ethnic employment groups.
  The Department participates in the Civil Service Commission's advertising campaign which aims to recruit staff from ethnic minority groups; and in the commission's national schools liaison network, as well as a continued commitment to schools liaison at a local level.
  Promotion board monitoring studies, to identify harriers to the success of women and those from ethnic minority groups, are being carried out.
  Specific developmental training for women from HEO grade and above is provided. The Department is reviewing the development of equal opportunity training for all grades including the nature and delivery of the training.
  Job sharing and part time working is encouraged and publicised in departmental training for women in management grades.
  A "keeping in touch" scheme was introduced on 1 June 1988 which will enable officers to maintain regular contact with the Department whilst taking career breaks for domestic reasons and assist in their eventual return to work.

  On the wider front, as part of our equal opportunities initiatives we commissioned Isobel Allen's research study on women doctors, "Doctors and their Careers" recently published by the Policy Studies Institute. This compares the career patterns of male and female doctors. We will be discussing the findings with the medical profession and others involved in the training and development of doctors at two seminars in July and November, and will take such Further action as is indicated.

  Acute and Elderly Patients
  Mr. Nelson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will list the 10 lowest spending and the 10 highest spending health authorities on in-patient servies for acute and elderly patients; and what are the amounts so spent per resident in the areas.

  Mr. Newton
  I regret that comprehensive information on each health authority's in-patient expenditure specifically on acute or elderly patients is not collected centrally. However, from financial year 1987–88, the annual financial returns of health authorities will include a district-based analysis of hospital expenditure over a range of separate specialties.

  Supplementary Benefit
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many claims have been received in(a) the Greenock office and (b) the Port Glasgow office of his Department from former British Shipbuilders Ltd. employees about 13 weeks arrears of supplementary benefit; how many of these claims have been accepted; what was the average payment; and what were the reasons for refusal in each case.

  Mr. Portillo
  Local offices are not required to keep statistics of this kind. Some information on claims from former employees of British Shipbuilders Ltd. is, however, available from local unofficial records:

  Greenock office

  Port Glasgow office

  Claims received to date

  650

  554

  Claims processed

  650

  385

  Claims paid and average amount (where known)

  350 @ 350

  not available

  Reasons for refusal. In the main claims have been disallowed because income exceeds requirements or capital exceeds £3,000.

  Low-income Families
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he intends to publish the low income families statistics for 1987.

  Mr. Portillo
  No. I refer the hon. Member to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) on 29 March at column 448 and my subsequent reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Carttiss) on 19 May at columns 563–64.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will publish in the Official Report a table showing the number of persons in low-income families in Scotland (i) on supplementary benefit, (ii) below 100 per cent. of supplementary benefit and (iii) below 140 per cent. of supplementary benefit for each of the years 1979, 1981, 1983 and 1985, as reported for Great Britain in the DHSS low-income families tables.

  Mr. Portillo
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) on 27 May 1988 at columns 413–14.

  Mr. Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will publish a table, extrapolating from his
  567
  Department's paper, "Households Below Average Income: A Statistical Analysis", showing the proportion of individuals and children below various income thresholds held constant in real terms and analysed by family type and economic status both before and after housing costs.

  Mr. Portillo
  It is not possible to project "Households Below Average Income" tables forward to later years on a reliable basis.

  Ethics Committees
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) if he will give those district health authorities that have ethics committees along with any information he has on the qualifications of such committees; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) to whom ethics committees in district health authorities report; if these reports are published; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  All health authorities are required to have a committee to advise them on the ethical aspects of clinical research. The objectives and composition of these local ethical committees are described in circular HSC(IS)153 of June 1975, a copy of which is in the Library. The reports are not normally published.

  Ambulances
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has any proposals to change the national criteria on the replacement of National Health Service ambulances.

  Mrs. Currie
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) on 12 May at column 241. The review of purchasing policy referred to in that reply is expected to be completed later this year.

  Drugs (Limited List)
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what have been the annual savings as a result of the introduction of the limited list of drugs available on the National Health Service in 1985; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) on 22 January at column 895.

  Leicester Night Shelter
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services why Leicester staff of his Department have discontinued their practice of visiting the Leicester night shelter to take fresh claims.

  Mr. Portillo
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) on 16 June at column 288.

  Further Education Courses
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the prescribed period between YTS 568
  terminal date and eligibility to start a further education course of less than 21 hours per week for a claimant in receipt of income support or unemployment benefit; and if he has any plans to change this period.

  Mr. Portillo
  A person starting an education course of less than 21 hours a week could receive income support immediately if he or she had been: on a YTS course for the previous three months; or on a YTS course or receiving benefit for at least three months out of the last six months.

  Otherwise, a person must receive unemployment benefit, sickness benefit, or income support, for three months before starting the course. There are no plans to change this period.

  Tranquillisers
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many of the 25 million prescriptions for benzodiazepines in 1986 were repeat prescriptions.

  Mrs. Currie
  I regret that the information requested is not available. Repeat prescriptions are not separately identifiable.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what steps are being taken to ensure that represcription of benzodiazepines is done under controlled conditions.

  Mrs. Currie
  General practitioners are free to decide how best to issue repeat prescriptions to suit the needs of the patient. Many general practitioners already operate control systems which ensure the patients are regularly reviewed. We have made it clear in the White Paper "Promoting Better Health" that family practitioner committees will be expected to review prescribing patterns in future.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will undertake a sample survey of benzodiazepines prescribing so as to obtain a profile of the patients taking these drugs, relating numbers to the period of time for which the drugs have been taken.

  Mrs. Currie
  The Department has in the past supported research into prescriptions for minor tranquillisers and investigations into techniques for the cessation of tranquilliser consumption but has no plans to undertake a survey of benzodiazepine prescribing.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) what is his estimate of the number of long-term chronic users of the benzodiazepines; and what is the source of the estimated figures;

  (2) what estimate he can give of the proportion of the 25 million prescriptions for benzodiazepines in 1986 which was prescribed to patients who had been taking the drug for longer than two to four weeks.

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

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what discussion he has had with relevant medical bodies regarding controls on the use of benzodiazepines; and what conclusions were reached.

  Mrs. Currie
  Representatives of the Committee on Safety of Medicines had useful and informal discussions
  569
  with the Royal College of Psychiatrists prior to the issue of "Current Problems" No. 21. However, in recognition of the current concern about benzodiazepines, issues about the prescribing of these drugs are soon to be the subject of discussions between professional organisations and the chief medical officer.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services in which areas of the United Kingdom leaflets approved by the local drug and therapeutic committee and warning about the risk of benzodiazepine addiction are being circulated; and what action is being taken by his Department to encourage the wider circulation of such leaflets.

  Mrs. Currie
  Leaflets and other literature approved by local drug and therapeutic committees are issued on local initiative, and information about them is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what proportion of the money provided by his Department for drug services has gone to help those suffering from addiction to benzodiazepines; and what steps are being taken by his Department to direct money to this area.

  Mrs. Currie
  Under the central funding initiative set up to develop drug misuse services, grants totalling £339,000 were made to four projects specifically for those dependent on tranquillisers. Each year funds are allocated to regional health authorities (£6·5 million in 1988–89) specifically for the development of drug misuse services. It is for health authorities to allocate these funds to individual services, since they are best placed to determine local needs. Many of the services financed from these allocations, and the other 184 projects funded under the central funding initiative, provide help for those dependent on tranquillisers.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if there is evidence of a change in the prescribing of the benzodiazepines following the notice sent to doctors by the Committee on Safety of Medicines in January which recommended restricted prescribing of these drugs.

  Mrs. Currie
  Official statistics about prescribing of benzodiazepines for the period following January 1988 will not be available until the beginning of 1989 at the earliest.

  Hospital Management (Public Inquiries)
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many public inquiries he has authorised into the management of individual hospitals in each of the past 10 years and of these how many were concerned with the management of surgical divisions within hospitals.

  Mr. Newton
  None.

  Consultants
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many consultants were suspended from 570
  employment by health authorities; how long was the average length of suspension; of those suspended how many were subsequently dismissed from their National Health Service employment and with what compensation in each of the past five years; and how many of those so dismissed have continued to work in private practice.

  Mr. Newton
  I regret that the information requested is not routinely collected.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has any plans to change the disciplinary powers available to health authorities in relation to alleged clinical or other misconduct by consultants; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  We are expecting a report shortly from the joint working party established in March 1987, to review hospital and community doctors' and dentists' disciplinary procedures.

  Hospital Complaints Procedure Act 1985
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services when he intends to lay a commencement order in respect of the Hospital Complaints Procedure Act 1985.

  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether the Hospital Complaints Procedure Act 1985 is now in force at National Health Service hospitals.

  Mrs. Currie
  [holding answer 18 January 1988]: Directions on the complaints procedures to be operated in respect of complaints by hospital patients have been made. A copy of the direction and covering circular has been issued to health authorities arid is available in the Library. Health authorities will be required to ensure that the procedures are brought into effect not later than 29 July 1988.

  NHS Staffing
  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will provide a functional breakdown, showing numbers in post and grades, of staff of his Department in London dealing with National Health Service management and policy, and showing the formal means of communication with regional and district health authorities.

  Mr. Newton
  [holding answer 25 May 1988]: The functional breakdown requested, showing numbers and grades of staff, is given in the table.

  The Department communicates formally with regional and district health authorities by means of health circulars and health notices. NHS Management Board members regularly meet NHS regional general managers and their teams; and staff in the Department and health authorities communicate on a regular basis within their own spheres of responsibility.
  571

  Staff in post by grade at 1 April 1988

  Function Grades

  1/1A

  2

  3

  4

  5

  6

  7

  Executive

  Clerical and support

  Total

  Chief Executive and Personnel Director NHS Management Board

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  2

  2

  7

  NHS Operations

  (Liaison with Health Authorities on policy, accountability and programmes. Purchasing and supply. NHS buildings. Estate and property management

  —

  1

  3

  1

  16

  21

  80

  191

  69

  382

  Property Adviser to NHS Management Board (ungraded)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  NHS Personnel

  —

  1

  1

  1

  5

  1

  22

  56

  30

  117

  NHS Planning and Information Technology

  —

  1

  —

  —

  3

  1

  9

  35

  14

  63

  NHS Finance

  (Health Authority financial management and control. Management consultancy services for the NHS)

  —

  1

  2

  —

  3

  1

  12

  49

  23

  91

  Second Permanent Secretary

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  1

  4

  Health and Personal Social Services Policy1

  —

  1

  5

  —

  17

  4

  50

  141

  79

  297

  Family Practitioner Services

  —

  1

  2

  —

  7

  4

  32

  77

  49

  172

  Medical Groups2

  1

  3

  7

  8

  48

  1

  9

  19

  58

  154

  1 Policy relating to: health issues; primary care; community services; hospital services; mental, maternity and child health; child care.

  1 Advice on health issues relating to: prevention and health promotion; children, disablement, and nutrition; primary care; mental health and illness; hospital policies and services; management, planning and community medicine; medical manpower; scientific services, equipment building and supplies; cancer; maternity and the elderly.

  Note:

  Figures include: 1. Professional staff (shown under equivalent grading level).

  2. Staff seconded to the Department.

  3. Staff with significant duties concerned with NHS management and policy though many have other Departmental responsibilities.

  Spending Power
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will publish tables using the assumptions in his answer to the then hon. Member for Kensington of 4 February,Official Report, column 737, but using expenditure and benefit figures appropriate for families in Bradford for which he has sufficient data, and with an additional column showing the extent of the differences that will result from the changes in benefit in April.

  Mr. Scott
  [holding answer 14 June 1988]: The information requested is set out in the tables. It should be

  Old benefit system at hypothetical rates April 1988

  Bradford Local Authority

  Married couple with two children aged four and six

  Earnings head

  Tax

  NI

  FIS

  Child benefit

  Rent

  Rent rebate

  Rates

  Rate rebate

  Fares to work

  Free school meals

  Free welfare milk

  Net weekly spending power

  60·00

  0·00

  3·00

  28·70

  14·50

  19·98

  17·40

  8·62

  5·87

  5·85

  2·55

  1·83

  93·40

  70·00

  0·00

  4·90

  23·70

  14·50

  19·98

  16·15

  8·62

  5·47

  5·85

  2·55

  1·83

  94·85

  80·00

  1·22

  5·60

  18·70

  14·50

  19·98

  14·90

  8·62

  5·07

  5·85

  2·55

  1·83

  96·28

  90·00

  3·92

  6·30

  13·70

  14·50

  19·98

  13·65

  8·62

  4·67

  5·85

  2·55

  1·83

  96·23

  100·00

  6·62

  7·00

  8·70

  14·50

  19·98

  12·40

  8·62

  4·27

  5·85

  2·55

  1·83

  96·18

  110·00

  9·32

  9·90

  3·70

  14·50

  19·98

  10·88

  8·62

  3·70

  5·85

  2·55

  1·83

  93·49

  120·00

  12·02

  10·80

  0·00

  14·50

  19·98

  8·80

  8·62

  2·89

  5·85

  2·55

  0·00

  91·47

  130·00

  14·72

  11·70

  0·00

  14·50

  19·98

  5·50

  8·62

  1·59

  5·85

  2·55

  0·00

  93·27

  140·00

  17·42

  12·60

  0·00

  14·50

  19·98

  2·20

  8·62

  0·00

  5·85

  2·55

  0·00

  94·78

  150·00

  20·12

  13·50

  0·00

  14·50

  19·98

  0·00

  8·62

  0·00

  5·85

  0·00

  0·00

  96·43

  160·00

  22·82

  14·40

  0·00

  14·50

  19·98

  0·00

  8·62

  0·00

  5·85

  0·00

  0·00

  102·83

  170·00

  25·52

  15·30

  0·00

  14·50

  19·98

  0·00

  8·62

  0·00

  5·85

  0·00

  0·00

  109·23

  New benefit system from April 1988

  Bradford local authority

  Married couple with 2 children aged 4 and 6

  Earnings head

  Tax

  NI

  Family credit

  Child benefit

  Rent

  Rent rebate

  Rates

  Rate rebate

  Fares to work

  Net weekly spending power

  Difference between systems

  60·00

  0·00

  3·00

  40·32

  14·50

  19·98

  5·22

  8·62

  0·98

  5·85

  83·57

  -9·83

  70·00

  0·00

  4·90

  34·65

  14·50

  19·98

  3·64

  8·62

  0·00

  5·85

  83·44

  -11·41

  572
  noted that the results are essentially hypothetical. They compare the post-reform position in April 1988 not with the actual pre-reform cash situation but with a hypothetical position which they might have been in, had the previous structure continued and been uprated on the assumptions in "Impact of the Reform Structure of Income Related Benefits" (October 1987). Second, the comparisons are based on average local authority housing charges in Bradford but do not reflect the wide variety of rents and domestic rates that people actually pay. Finally, the comparisons do not take account of the transitional cash protection arrangements announced on the 27 April.
  573

  Earnings head

  Tax

  NI

  Family credit

  Child benefit

  Rent

  Rent rebate

  Rates

  Rate rebate

  Fares to work

  Net weekly spending power

  Difference between systems

  80·00

  1·22

  5·60

  28·99

  14·50

  19·98

  2·06

  8·62

  0·00

  5·85

  84·28

  -12·00

  90·00

  3·92

  6·30

  24·37

  14·50

  19·98

  0·77

  8·62

  0·00

  5·85

  84·97

  -11·26

  100·00

  6·62

  7·00

  19·75

  14·50

  19·98

  0·00

  8·62

  0·00

  5·85

  86·18

  -10·00

  110·00

  9·32

  9·90

  16·67

  14·50

  19·98

  0·00

  8·62

  0·00

  5·85

  87·50

  -5·99

  120·00

  12·02

  10·80

  12·19

  14·50

  19·98

  0·00

  8·62

  0·00

  5·85

  89·42

  -2·05

  130·00

  14·72

  11·70

  7·71

  14·50

  19·98

  0·00

  8·62

  0·00

  5·85

  91·34

  -1·93

  140·00

  17·42

  12·60

  3·23

  14·50

  19·98

  0·00

  8·62

  0·00

  5·85

  93·26

  -1·52

  150·00

  20·12

  13·50

  0·00

  14·50

  19·98

  0·00

  8·62

  0·00

  5·85

  93·26

  0·00

  160·00

  22·82

  14·40

  0·00

  14·50

  19·98

  0·00

  8·62

  0·00

  5·85

  102·83

  0·00

  170·00

  25·52

  15·30

  0·00

  14·50

  19·98

  0·00

  8·62

  0·00

  5·85

  109·23

  0·00

  Old benefit system at hypothetical rates April 1988

  Bradford Local Authority

  Married couple with 3 children aged 3, 8 and II

  Earnings head

  Tax

  NI

  FIS

  Child benefit

  Rent

  Rent rebate

  Rates

  Rate rebate

  Fares to work

  Free school meals

  Free welfare milk

  Net weekly spending power

  60·00

  0·00

  3·00

  32·90

  21·75

  19·98

  18·44

  8·62

  6·20

  5·85

  5·10

  1·83

  108·77

  70·00

  0·00

  4·90

  30·50

  21·75

  19·98

  16·54

  8·62

  5·60

  5·85

  5·10

  1·83

  111·97

  80·00

  1·22

  5·60

  25·50

  21·75

  19·98

  15·29

  8·62

  5·20

  5·85

  5·10

  1·83

  113·40

  90·00

  3·92

  6·30

  20·50

  21·75

  19·98

  14·04

  8·62

  4·80

  5·85

  5·10

  1·83

  113·35

  100·00

  6·62

  7·00

  15·50

  21·75

  19·98

  12·79

  8·62

  4·40

  5·85

  5·10

  1·83

  113·30

  110·00

  9·32

  9·90

  10·50

  21·75

  19·98

  11·39

  8·62

  3·91

  5·85

  5·10

  1·83

  110·81

  120·00

  12·02

  10·80

  5·50

  21·75

  19·98

  9·74

  8·62

  3·26

  5·85

  5·10

  1·83

  109·91

  130·00

  14·72

  11·70

  0·50

  21·75

  19·98

  8·09

  8·62

  2·61

  5·85

  5·10

  1·83

  109·01

  140·00

  17·42

  12·60

  0·00

  21·75

  19·98

  4·96

  8·62

  1·37

  5·85

  5·10

  0·00

  108·71

  150·00

  20·12

  13·50

  0·00

  21·75

  19·98

  1·66

  8·62

  0·00

  5·85

  5·10

  0·00

  110·44

  160·00

  22·82

  14·40

  0·00

  21·75

  19·98

  0·00

  8·62

  0·00

  5·85

  2·55

  0·00

  112·63

  170·00

  25·52

  15·30

  0·00

  21·75

  19·98

  0·00

  8·62

  0·00

  5·85

  0·00

  0·00

  116·48

  New benefit system from April 1988

  Bradford Local Authority

  Married couple with 3 children aged 3, 8 and 11

  Earnings head

  Tax

  NI

  Family credit

  Child benefit

  Rent

  Rent rebate

  Rates

  Rate rebate

  Fares to work

  Net weekly spending power

  Difference between systems

  60·00

  0·00

  3·00

  51·72

  21·75

  19·98

  3·56

  8·62

  0·00

  5·85

  99·58

  -9·19

  70·00

  0·00

  4·90

  46·05

  21·75

  19·98

  1·98

  8·62

  0·00

  5·85

  100·43

  -11·54

  80·00

  1·22

  5·60

  40·39

  21·75

  19·98

  0·00

  8·62

  0·00

  5·85

  100·87

  -12·53

  90·00

  3·92

  6·30

  35·77

  21·75

  19·98

  0·00

  8·62

  0·00

  5·85

  102·85

  -10·50

  100·00

  6·62

  7·00

  31·15

  21·75

  19·98

  0·00

  8·62

  0·00

  5·85

  104·83

  -8·47

  110·00

  9·32

  9·90

  28·07

  21·75

  19·98

  0·00

  8·62

  0·00

  5·85

  106·15

  -4·66

  120·00

  12·02

  10·80

  23·59

  21·75

  19·98

  0·00

  8·62

  0·00

  5·85

  108·07

  -1·84

  130·00

  14·72

  11·70

  19·11

  21·75

  19·98

  0·00

  8·62

  0·00

  5·85

  109·99

  +0·98

  140·00

  17·42

  12·60

  14·63

  21·75

  19·98

  0·00

  8·62

  0·00

  5·85

  111·91

  +3·20

  150·00

  20·12

  13·50

  10·15

  21·75

  19·98

  0·00

  8·62

  0·00

  5·85

  113·83

  +3·39

  160·00

  22·82

  14·40

  5·67

  21·75

  19·98

  0·00

  8·62

  0·00

  5·85

  115·75

  +3·12

  170·00

  25·52

  15·30

  1·19

  21·75

  19·98

  0·00

  8·62

  0·00

  5·85

  117·67

  +1·19

  Old benefit system at hypothetical rates April 1988

  Bradford Local Authority

  Single Person with 2 children aged 4 and 6

  Earnings head

  Tax

  NI

  FIS

  Child benefit

  Rent

  Rent rebate

  Rates

  Rate rebate

  Fares to work

  Free school meals

  Free welfare milk

  Net weekly spending power

  60·00

  0·00

  3·00

  28·70

  19·40

  19·98

  16·18

  8·62

  5·48

  5·85

  2·55

  1·83

  96·69

  70·00

  0·00

  4·90

  23·70

  19·40

  19·98

  14·93

  8·62

  5·08

  5·85

  2·55

  1·83

  98·14

  80·00

  1·22

  5·60

  18·70

  19·40

  19·98

  13·68

  8·62

  4·68

  5·85

  2·55

  1·83

  99·57

  90·00

  3·92

  6·30

  13·70

  19·40

  19·98

  12·43

  8·62

  4·28

  5·85

  2·55

  1·83

  99·52

  100·00

  6·62

  7·00

  8·70

  19·40

  19·98

  10·92

  8·62

  3·72

  5·85

  2·55

  1·83

  99·05

  110·00

  9·32

  9·90

  3·70

  19·40

  19·98

  9·27

  8·62

  3·07

  5·85

  2·55

  1·83

  96·15

  120·00

  12·02

  10·80

  0·00

  19·40

  19·98

  7·19

  8·62

  2·25

  5·85

  2·55

  0·00

  94·12

  574 575

  New benefit system from April 1988

  Bradford Local Authority

  Single person with 2 children aged 4 and 6

  Earnings head

  Tax

  NI

  Family credit

  Child benefit

  Rent

  Rent rebate

  Rates

  Rate rebate

  Fares to work

  Net weekly spending power

  Difference between systems

  60·00

  0·00

  3·00

  40·32

  19·40

  19·98

  0·00

  8·62

  0·00

  5·85

  82·27

  -14·42

  70·00

  0·00

  4·90

  34·65

  19·40

  19·98

  0·00

  8·62

  0·00

  5·85

  84·70

  -13·44

  80·00

  1·22

  5·60

  28·99

  19·40

  19·98

  0·00

  8·62

  0·00

  5·85

  87·12

  -12·45

  90·00

  3·92

  6·30

  24·37

  19·40

  19·98

  0·00

  8·62

  0·00

  5·85

  89·10

  -10·42

  100·00

  6·62

  7·00

  19·75

  19·40

  19·98

  0·00

  8·62

  0·00

  5·85

  91·08

  -7·97

  110·00

  9·32

  9·90

  16·67

  19·40

  19·98

  0·00

  8·62

  0·00

  5·85

  92·40

  -3·75

  120·00

  12·02

  10·80

  12·19

  19·40

  19·98

  0·00

  8·62

  0·00

  5·85

  94·32

  +0·20

  Old tax and benefit system—assuming average local authority rent and rates for Bradford and a simple reseating of April 1987 benefits to April 1988.

  Lone mother with 2 children aged 4 and 6.

  a. Not working-after one year on benefit

  b. Working part-time earning £20

  c. Working part-time earning £40

  Supplementary Benefit

  45·93

  30·89

  14·35

  Earnings

  —

  20·00

  40·00

  Tax

  —

  0·00

  0·00

  Nat. insurance

  —

  0·00

  2·00

  Fares to work

  —

  2·92

  2·92

  Rent

  19·98

  19·98

  19·98

  Rates

  8·62

  8·62

  8·62

  Housing benefit

  26·88

  26·88

  26·88

  CHB

  19·40

  19·40

  19·40

  FSM

  2·55

  2·55

  2·55

  FWM

  1·83

  1·83

  1·83

  Net weekly spending power

  67·99

  70·03

  71·49

  Benefit system from April 1988 Assumptions as in "Impact of reformed structure of income related benefits" October 1987

  Average local authority rent and rates for Bradford Lone mother with two children aged 4 and 6

  (a) Not working after one year on benefit

  £

  Income support

  45·35

  Rent

  19·98

  Rates

  8·62

  Housing benefit

  25·50

  CHB

  19·40

  FSM

  2·55

  FWM

  1·83

  Net weekly spending power

  66·03

  Difference between systems

  -1·96

  b. Working part lime—earning £20

  c. Working part time—earning £40

  Income Support

  40·35

  20·35

  Earnings

  20·00

  40·00

  Tax

  0·00

  0·00

  NI

  0·00

  0·00

  Fares to work

  2·92

  2·92

  Rent

  19·98

  19·98

  Rates

  8·62

  8·62

  Housing Benefit

  25·50

  25·50

  CHB

  19·40

  19·40

  FSM

  2·55

  2·55

  FWM

  1·83

  1·83

  Net weekly spending power

  78·11

  78·11

  Difference between systems

  +8·08

  +8·08

  AIDS
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services in respect of tests of the efficacy of the Karpas AIDS cell test kit conducted by members of the public health laboratory service on 3 and 4 June 1987, what test slides, laboratory notes, and serum samples used in the test slides have been preserved; and where this material is now retained.

  Mr. Newton
  [holding answer 16 June 1988]: I understand that the test slides were destroyed as is the usual practice. Laboratory notes transcribed to computer records, and serum samples, have been maintained at the Central Public Health Laboratory.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) why the report of the PH LS and DHSS evaluation of commercial anti-HIV test kits conducted by the virus reference laboratory displays at table C(3) results as to the efficacy of the Karpas AIDS cell test kit which differs in substantive detail from the signed interim report of the same evaluation, dated 8 June 1987 with regard to the description of an HIV seropositive serum sample testing as equivocal and a seronegative serum sample testing as positive; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what procedures in respect of the report of the PHLS and DHSS evaluation of five commercial anti-HIV test kits conducted by the virus reference laboratory resulted in the alteration of the data reported in the signed interim report of the evaluation, dated 8 June 1987, as compared with that displayed at table C(3) of the draft final report; and what the consequences of this alteration were in terms of the reported sensitivity and specificity of the Karpas AIDS cell test.

  Mr. Newton
  [holding answer 16 June 1988]: The interim report was a summary which did not evaluate the findings in detail. The draft final report rested on the same data obtained at evaluation, but gave a fuller interpretation of it. A further evaluation has been offered.

  Departmental Leaflets
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the average length of time for supplying leaflets to inquirers at the leaflets unit in Stanmore; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 17 June 1988]: The average length of time for supplying leaflets is currently 10 weeks. Additional staff have been recruited in order to reduce the backlog.

  Benefits
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will update his answer of 14 July 1987,Official Report, columns 459–60, on the value of the short and long-term rates of supplementary benefit for single

  Scale rates as a percentage of average earnings of all males1

  Single non-householder

  Single householder

  Couple

  Uprating date

  Ordinary rate

  Long-term rate

  Ordinary rate

  Long-term rate

  Ordinary rate

  Long-term rate

  November 1978

  19·0

  24·4

  23·8

  30·4

  36·6

  45·8

  November 1979

  18·3

  23·7

  22·9

  29·7

  35·5

  45·0

  November 1980

  18·3

  23·2

  22·8

  29·1

  35·4

  44·4

  November 1981

  18·4

  23·4

  23·0

  29·3

  35·8

  44·9

  November 1982

  19·1

  24·3

  23·9

  30·4

  37·1

  46·5

  November 1983

  18·6

  23·6

  23·2

  29·5

  35·9

  45·0

  November 1984

  17·8

  22·7

  22·3

  28·4

  34·4

  43·1

  November 1985

  17·6

  22·3

  21·9

  27·9

  33·8

  42·4

  July 1986

  16·6

  21·2

  20·8

  26·4

  32·1

  40·2

  April 1987

  15·6

  19·9

  19·5

  24·8

  30·3

  37·9

  Scale rates as a percentage of average earnings of manual males1

  Single non-householder

  Single householder

  Couple

  Uprating date

  Ordinary rate

  Long-term rate

  Ordinary rate

  Long-term rate

  Ordinary rate

  Long-term rate

  November 1978

  20·6

  26·5

  25·8

  33·0

  39·6

  49·5

  November 1979

  20·0

  25·9

  25·0

  32·4

  38·6

  48·9

  November 1980

  20·6

  26·2

  25·7

  32·8

  39·6

  49·7

  November 1981

  21·0

  26·7

  26·3

  33·4

  40·6

  50·9

  November 1982

  21·9

  27·9

  27·4

  34·9

  42·2

  52·9

  November 1983

  21·4

  27·1

  26·7

  34·0

  41·0

  51·4

  November 1984

  20·6

  26·2

  25·8

  32·8

  39·4

  49·4

  November 1985

  20·4

  26·0

  25·5

  32·4

  39·0

  48·9

  July 1986

  19·5

  24·8

  24·4

  31·0

  37·3

  46·8

  April 1987

  18·5

  23·6

  23·2

  29·4

  35·7

  44·7

  1 Net average earnings are gross average earnings less tax and national insurance contributions at the non-contracted out rate.

SCOTLAND

  Community Charge Register
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to announce the procedures or restrictions that will be associated with the sale of names and addresses from the community charge register.

  Mr. Lang
  This matter is currently under consideration. I expect that an announcement will be made shortly.

  Cervical Smear Tests
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what instructions he has given to Lothian health board concerning its system of providing its general practitioners with postage to notify results of cervical smear tests to their patients; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Lothian health board has written to my right hon. and learned Friend's Department seeking guidance on the payment of postage costs incurred by general medical practitioners in notifying results of cervical smear tests to their patients. This matter is under active consideration.

  Violent Crime (Knives)
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will call for a report from chief constables on 578
  non-householders, householders and married couples as a proportion of average net earnings for all males and manual males.

  Mr. Scott
  [holding answer 21 June 1988]: The information is as follows:

  the use of Stanley knives or similar tools in crimes of violence; and if he will consider taking action to control the sale of such tools.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  No. Restrictions on the sale of such articles could not be effectively enforced without due interference with their legitimate use by all kinds of people in all walks of life. It is already an offence to carry them in a public place with intent to cause injury.

  Further Education (College Principals)
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many representations he has received since the publication of circular FE/65 as it relates to the defined working week and annual leave allocated to principals of Scottish further education colleges; and whether any of these supported the new conditions of service which will be implemented on 1 September.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My right hon. and learned Friend has received representations on behalf of three college principals and one deputy principal. Several representations have also been made by or on behalf of the Association of Principals of Colleges. None of these has expressed support for the new conditions of service relating to the contractual working week or annual leave entitlement.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in 1989–90 in any situation, any person
  579
  in a household will be responsible for the payment of the community charge which any other person in that household is liable to pay.

  Mr. Lang
  Under section 8(7) of the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987 people who are married to each other and live together or, a man and woman who live together as if they were husband and wife, will be jointly and severally liable for their personal community charges. An amendment has also been made to the Local Government Finance Bill to make it clear that in the case of the standard and collective community charges where two or more people are liable, as would arise in the case of joint owners or tenants, they should be jointly and severally liable to pay the charges.

  Hospital Management (Public Inquiries)
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many public inquiries he has authorised into the management of individual hospitals in each of the past 10 years; and of these how many were concerned with the management of surgical divisions within hospitals.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  None.

  Consultants
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many consultants were suspended from employment by health boards; how long was the average length of suspension; of those suspended how many were subsequently dismissed from their National Health Service employment; with what compensation during each of the past five years; and how many of those so dismissed have continued to work in private practice.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Information on suspensions is not held centrally. The Scottish Home and Health Department is only informed of decisions to dismiss consultants where the individual concerned decides to appeal to the Secretary of State against dismissal. There has been only one such case in the past five years involving a consultant and in that case the appeal was upheld. A doctor dismissed by a health board, or any other NHS employer, is still permitted to undertake medical practice so long as he remains registered by the General Medical Council.

  Electricity
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the average domestic consumption of electricity(a) per head and (b) per household in (i) Scotland, (ii) the Strathclyde region and (iii) in Greater Glasgow for each year since 1974.

  Mr. Lang
  The figures requested for Scotland are set out in the table. Information on average consumption in Strathclyde region and Greater Glasgow is not available.

  Average Domestic Consumption of Electricity in Scotland

  Financial year

  Units (kWh) per head of population

  Units (kWh) per household

  1974–75

  2,216

  6,676

  1975–76

  2,043

  6,105

  1976–77

  2,060

  6,102

  1977–78

  2,082

  6,098

  580

  Financial year

  Units (kWh) per head of population

  Units (kWh) per household

  1978–79

  2,146

  6,213

  1979–80

  2,093

  5,996

  1980–81

  1,986

  5,632

  1981–82

  2,014

  5,628

  1982–83

  1,936

  5,366

  1983–84

  2,001

  5,489

  1984–85

  1,944

  5,265

  1985–86

  2,116

  5,679

  1986–87

  2,134

  5,652

  Drug Abuse
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has for dealing with problems relating to drug abuse in prisons.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  A range of security measures is used aimed at stopping drugs being smuggled into prisons. For dealing with drug abuse in prisons, medical examination on reception should identify drug abusers. They are counselled and educated as to the dangers of abuse, and physical or mental symptoms of withdrawal are treated as necessary.

  Community Programme
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions have taken place between his officials and those of the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations about the continued funding of present community programme projects in the community care fields; and what is the outcome of their discussions.

  Mr. Lang
  No such discussions have been held, but I am to meet a delegation including representatives from the Scottish Council of Voluntary Organisations today to discuss employment training, which will replace the community programme.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many Manpower Services Commission community programme projects there are in Scotland which provide community care; how many people they employ; and what are the running costs of these projects.

  Mr. Lang
  This information is not collected centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much Manpower Services Commission community programme money went into Scottish voluntary organisations during 1987–88.

  Mr. Lang
  £57·1 million (estimated).

  Bail Hostels
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has received any proposals from local authorities to establish bail hostels in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  No such proposals have been received. In October last year I commissioned from the Scottish Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders a study of the options which might exist for the provision of bail accommodation. The report of that study is now under consideration.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he established his programme of voluntary ethnic monitoring; what steps have been taken to progress that programme; what results were obtained from that programme; and why and when the programme is being updated.

  Mr. Eggar
  The diplomatic and aid wings participated in the Civil Servicewide survey on ethnic origins covering London, the south-east and East Anglia which took place between April 1986 and March 1987.

  In the diplomatic wing, 77 per cent. of staff have responded to the survey. Some 2 per cent. of respondents have classified themselves as coming from an ethnic minority. A further 5 per cent. declined to classify themselves.

  The response rate in the aid wing was 79 per cent. (84·8 per cent.) in the London and East Anglia survey) of which 5 per cent. classified themselves as coming from an ethnic minority.

  The databases in both wings are updated regularly with details of new entrants, promotions, resignations and retirements.

  The updated programmes will allow us to monitor recruitment, training, promotions etc. to ensure that we are meeting our obligations as a equal opportunity employer.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs by what methods he monitors recruitment and training; and what have been the results of such monitoring.

  Mr. Eggar
  The diplomatic wing monitors the following aspects in the grades for which it has delegated authority to recruit directly:—

  Gender

  Ethnic origins

  Geographic origins

  Educational backgrounds (state or public school, university, college or polytechnic)

  Educational qualifications

  Effectiveness of recruitment publicity

  Relevant details are drawn from application forms and ethnic monitoring questionnaires completed by individual applicants. Results in 1987 showed, for example, that of all recruits into the diplomatic wing of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in that year some 60 per cent. were women and 2 per cent. were from ethnic minorities.

  The diplomatic wing monitors the quality and effectiveness of training by means of examinations and assessments of subsequent performance. Participation of officers in training courses is monitored according to age, grade, gender and ethnic origin by means of voluntary self-classification forms. Results have shown, for example, that in the financial year 1987–88 a total of 31 per cent. of participants in training courses were women.

  The development wing monitors recruitment into those grades for which it has delegated authority to recruit directly on the basis of gender and ethnic origins. Relevant details are again drawn from application forms and ethnic monitoring questionnaires completed by individual applicants. Results have shown, for example, that the ethnic minority success rate in the majority of 1987 recruitment exercises were higher than the percentage of
  582
  ethnic minorities in the working population. The recruitment of women has been monitored only since July 1987. In the second half of that year 79 per cent. of all recruits were women.

  Participation of development wing officers in training courses is monitored according to gender only. Results have shown that in 1987 a total of 39 per cent. of participants were women.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in which of the ethnic minority press he has advertised; and with what results.

  Mr. Eggar
  In 1988 clerical vacancies in the diploma tic wing have been advertised in "The Voice". This produced 78 out of a total 811 inquiries. Applications from this competition are still being processed. We also advertise in other newspapers with a large ethnic minority readership.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has appointed an equal opportunities officer.

  Mr. Eggar
  As my right hon. Friend the Minister of State told the hon. and learned Gentleman in the reply given to him on 26 May we appointed equal opportunity officers in the diplomatic and aid wings in 1984. This month we appointed a new equal opportunity officer in the diplomatic wing who will deal exclusively with equal opportunity issues.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many, and what percentage of officers in each grade and overall in his Department, are women and from ethnic minorities, respectively.

  Mr. Eggar
  The table for the diplomatic and aid wings show the number of staff in post (counting part-time staff as whole units) broken down into five grade bands. The table also shows in each band the number of women and the number of staff who have identified themselves as coming from an ethnic minority.

  Diplomatic Wing

  Grade2

  Staff in post2

  Women per cent.

  Ethnic minorities per cent.

  DS 1–5

  1,119

  73 (6·5)

  1 (0·1)

  DS6–7

  1,464

  198 (13·5)

  9 (0·6)

  DS9

  1,477

  483 (32·7)

  8 (0·5)

  DS10 & below

  2,260

  1,300 (57·5)

  66 (2·9)

  Industrial

  114

  41 (36)

  4 (3·5)

  Totals

  6,434

  2,095 (32·6)

  88 (1·4)

  Aid Wing

  Grade

  Staff in post2

  Women per cent.

  Ethnic minorities per cent.

  HCS 1–7

  258

  20 (7·8)

  3 (1·2)

  SEO/HEO

  364

  90 (24·7)

  11 (3)

  EO

  255

  102 (40)

  14 (5·5)

  AO & below

  684

  440 (64·3)

  52 (7·6)

  Industrial

  —

  —(—)

  —(—)

  Totals

  1,561

  652 (41·8)

  80 (5·1)

  1 Includes Home Civil Service equivalent grades in the FCO.

  2 Includes staff at home and overseas at 1 May 1988.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has any plans to
  583
  improve equality of opportunity for women and for people from ethnic minorities in all grades of his Department, in connection with employment, training and promotion, respectively.

  Mr. Eggar
  As my right hon. Friend the Minister of State told the hon. and learned Gentleman on 26 May, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is pursuing the 1984 programme of action for women in the Civil Service.

  As an equal opportunity employer we recruit nationally and from all sections of society. We shall continue to monitor the proportion of women members of ethnic minorities amongst those who apply to, and join the diplomatic service.

  We provide training where appropriate for all members of the diplomatic service irrespective or gender of ethnic origin. We monitor participation on training courses by gender and grade.

  We promote those members of the diplomatic service who have shown the ability to do the work of a higher grade irrespective of gender or origin. We shall monitor the promotion of women and officers from ethnic minorities.

  The aid wing has similar arrangements.

  Cyprus and Turkey
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to seek to arrange a joint meeting of the Foreign Ministers for Cyprus and Turkey and himself to discuss matters of common interest; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We have no plans to seek to arrange such a meeting. The United Nations Secretary-General is working towards an early meeting under his auspices between President Vassiliou of Cyprus and Mr. Denktash, the leader of the Turkish Cypriot community, as a prelude to the resumption of intercommunal negotiations. We support the Secretary-General's efforts to arrange this meeting.

  Hong Kong Cattle Depot
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what steps are being taken to relocate the Hong Kong cattle holding depot as a matter of urgency in the light of the overcrowding and health hazards;

  (2) what measures are being taken by the Hong Kong agriculture and fisheries department to improve the state of the buildings in the cattle holding depot;

  (3) what steps are being taken to improve conditions at the agriculture and fisheries department cattle holding depot in Hong Kong; and if he will make a statement.

  (4) if he will make a statement on the conditions prevailing in the agriculture and fisheries department cattle holding depot in Hong Kong.

  Mr. Eggar
  Conditions at the agriculture and fisheries department holding depot at Ma Tau Kok are adequate. But the buildings which comprise the depot are old and the Hong Kong Government have begun renovative work which should be completed later this year. The depot is not overcrowded.

  Average occupancy in the past year has been well within capacity. The cattle-holding areas are washed down twice a day. There is no evidence that the depot is a health hazard.
  584
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what records are kept of animals arriving and leaving the Hong Kong agriculture and fisheries department cattle holding depot.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Hong Kong Government agriculture and fisheries department maintain daily records of the animals arriving at and leaving the cattle depot.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the average charges to dealers using the Hong Kong agriculture and fisheries department cattle holding depot; and whether this covers provision of bedding and water.

  Mr. Eggar
  No charge is made if the cattle are to be slaughtered in a public abattoir. A flat charge of one Hong Kong dollar per head is made if they are to be slaughtered in a private abattoir. Because of the climate in Hong Kong there is no requirement for bedding. Water is provided as necessary.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if he will make it his policy to impose full quarantine restrictions together with disease control and veterinary services, in the event of the Hong Kong cattle holding depot being an official agriculture and fisheries department quarantine station; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) for how long animals have to stay at the Hong Kong agriculture and fisheries department cattle holding depot in order for quarantine to have the desired disease control effect; and who enforces this;

  (3) if he will make a statement on the extent of veterinary services covering the Hong Kong agriculture and fisheries department cattle holding depot;

  (4) whether he will make a statement on the reasons for, and the timing of, the declaration by the agriculture and fisheries department of Hong Kong of the cattle holding depot to be a quarantine station.

  Mr. Eggar
  Regulations governing the use of the cattle depot as a cattle quarantine station date from 1956. All cattle imported into Hong Kong for slaughter are segregated from local animals from the time of their arrival until their slaughter. While regulations allow imported cattle to be held in quarantine for up to 21 days their average stay, over the past 12 months, has been 4·4 days. Care of the cattle in the depot is under the supervision of trained staff and this is supplemented by regular inspections by a Hong Kong Government veterinary officer.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will ensure that RSPCA inspectors will in future be able regularly to attend the Hong Kong agriculture and fisheries department cattle holding depot.

  Mr. Eggar
  The depot is managed and operated under the close supervision of a qualified veterinary surgeon. Routine visits by RSPCA staff are not required.

  Mr. Alex Zelichenok
  Mr. Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last raised the case of the Jewish refusenik Alex Zelichenok of Leningrad with the Soviet authorities; and if he will make a statement.
  585
  Mr. Eggar
  Mr. Zelichenok's case has been raised by us on several occasions in the past. His name was included in a list of refuseniks about whom we are particularly concerned which was handed to the Soviet authorities last December. We shall be raising it again during Anglo-Soviet talks on human rights on 23 June in Moscow, when we shall be pressing for all Soviet citizens who wish to emigrate to be allowed to do so.

  EI Salvador
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met the ambassador of El Salvador.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. and learned Friend last met the ambassador of El Salvador informally on 15 June. I last met him on 21 June.

  Hong Kong (Camps)
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy not to keep any person for more than five years in a closed camp in Hong Kong.

  Mr. Eggar
  As part of their new policy towards Vietnamese boat people arriving in the territory, the Hong Kong Government intend over the next six to 12 months to liberalise the regime in the centres which will house all those accorded refugee status. Those arriving after 16 June who are not accorded refugee status will be detailed in closed centres without access to resettlement, pending their return to Vietnam as soon as internationally acceptable conditions for this are established.

  Immigration Fees
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy, in the light of entry clearance fees being non-refundable, that where an applicant successfully appeals against refusal to grant a visa, the applicant will not be required to pay any additional fee.

  Mr. Eggar
  This is already current practice.

WALES

  Homelessness
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give figures for the number of households accepted as homeless in Wales in(a) 1979 and (b) 1987; and when he expects the number of households accepted as homeless in Wales to fall below the level recorded for 1979.

  Mr. Grist
  The number of cases accepted as homeless in Wales in 1979 and 1987 was 4,676 and 5,294 respectively. The 1987 figure represents an 11 per cent. decrease over 1986. It is impossible to predict when the number of cases accepted as homeless will reach the 1979 level. This will depend on social behaviour as well as availability of housing. I welcome the decrease in 1987 and hope that it will continue and I note that the 1987 figure was lower than the one for 1980.

  Cancer Treatment Services
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish and give details of the proposals concerning the comprehensive study of all cancer treatment services, including the possibility of establishing a satellite radiotherapy centre in north Wales, by management consultants; when the health authorities will discuss and decide upon their proposals; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  We propose to initiate a review of cancer treatment services provided for north Wales patients by north Wales health authorities and neighbouring English regional health authorities. When the review report is available we will consider it and take appropriate action.

  Corporation Management Programme (Health Service)
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement about the draft corporate management programme for the Health Service in Wales following the consultation exercise in 1987.

  Mr. Grist
  As a result of the consultation exercise which my hon. Friend has mentioned, the corporate management programme for the Health Service in Wales is to be issued today. It details the work which must be undertaken by a whole range of interests to enable the health care services in Wales to adapt constructively to changes in the environment, so as to ensure the highest standards of care and value for money. The programme paves the way for more patients in Wales to receive the health care they need, when they need it and for that care to be of the highest quality. There is further evidence of our commitment to ensuring that the people of Wales receive first-rate health services for the years to come. A copy of the document is available in the Library of the House.

  Regional Development Grants
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish the monthly regional development grant applications on which he based his 15 month total quoted in his statement on the Valleys Initiative.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  [holding answer 20 June 1988]: The following numbers of applications are assessed to derive from the valleys programme area:

  Date

  Number of applications

  1987

  January

  45

  February

  51

  March

  70

  April

  48

  May

  50

  June

  43

  July

  58

  August

  42

  September

  36

  October

  62

  November

  50

  December

  98

  1988

  January

  117

  February

  91

  March

  472

  1,333

  587
  The review of the first quarter of 1988 serves to validate what I said at Welsh Grand Committee on 2 December 1987. Our regional policy will expand not contract.

  Earnings
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish in the Official Report a table showing the proportion of full-time employees earning less than (i)

  Full-time employees1

  Males

  Females

  County

  Percentage earning less than £130 per week

  Percentage earning less than £140 per week

  Percentage earning less than £130 per week

  Percentage earning less than £140 per week

  Clwyd

  22·2

  29·6

  n/a

  n/a

  Dyfed (excluding Llanelli)

  31·7

  38·5

  59·3

  63·0

  Powys

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Gwent

  22·8

  30·8

  50·6

  58·2

  Gwynedd

  35·5

  42·4

  62·8

  68·1

  Mid Glamorgan

  24·6

  30·8

  58·4

  64·1

  South Glamorgan

  24·8

  33·1

  54·1

  60·5

  West Glamorgan (including Llanelli)

  21·8

  29·8

  54·4

  64·9

  Wales

  25·4

  33·0

  56·1

  62·6

  Source: New Earnings Survey.

  1 Data are based on the pay (excluding the effects of overtime) of full-time male employees, and full-time female employees, on adult rates, whose pay for the survey pay-period was not affected by absence.

  Full-Time Employees1

  Males

  Females

  County

  Percentage earning less than £130 per week

  Percentage earning less than £140 per week

  Percentage earning less than £130 per week

  Percentage earning less than £140 per week

  Clwyd

  15·3

  20·1

  n/a

  n/a

  Dyfed (ex Llanelli)

  24·0

  31·7

  57·8

  61·5

  Powys

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Gwent

  16·7

  20·2

  49·0

  55·8

  Gwynedd

  26·4

  31·5

  58·4

  64·6

  Mid Glamorgan

  18·6

  23·0

  54·8

  60·1

  South Glamorgan

  19·0

  26·0

  51·2

  59·1

  West Glamorgan (inc Llanelli)

  16·4

  21·8

  52·9

  62·2

  Wales

  18·9

  24·2

  53·4

  60·1

  Source: New Earnings Survey.

  1 Data are based on the pay (including the effects of overtime) of full-time employees on adult rates, whose pay for the survey pay-period was not affected by absence.

DEFENCE

  House Sales
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made in the sale of surplus married quarters to service men through the discount scheme.

  Mr. Freeman
  The scheme for the sale of surplus married quarters at discounted prices to service personnel began on 1 December 1983. As at 26 May 1988, 1,430 married quarters sales had been completed, with a further 547 potential sales in the process of completion.

  Strategic Defence Initiative (Polytechnics)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many contracts have been awarded to polytechnics in the United Kingdom by the United States Department of Defense for research in support of the strategic defence initiative; how many subcontracts have been awarded to polytechnics in the United Kingdom by existing strategic defence initiative contractors in the United Kingdom or abroad; and if he will list all
  588
  £130 a week and (ii) £140 a week, when overtime earnings are excluded, for men and women separately, in each county in Wales.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  [holding answer 16 June 1988]: There are no figures available since April 1987. The figures both including and excluding overtime for April 1987 are as follows:

  polytechnics which are or have been involved in strategic defence initiative research and state the value of each contract.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  One polytechnic in the United Kingdom has been awarded an SDI research contract. It would be for that polytechnic concerned to decide whether to divulge publicly any information related to that contract.

  RAF Leuchars
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he next plans to visit RAF Leuchars.

  Mr. Freeman
  My right hon. Friend has no such plans at present.

  Ethnic Monitoring
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to be in a position to make a statement on his policy toward ethnic monitoring exercises within the Army, the Navy and the Royal Air Force, respectively.

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer the hon. and learned Member to my right hon. Friend's evidence to the Defence
  589
  Committee. The Committee's report (HC391) was published on 25 April, and we shall be responding to it shortly.

  Search and Rescue Operations
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Royal Air Force pilots were assigned to flying duties in operational search and rescue helicopter squadrons in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Freeman
  It is not our practice to reveal numbers of aircrew assigned to specific operational roles. However, I can confirm that the search and rescue force is manned to requirement.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Royal Air Force helicopter pilots were under training for the search and rescue role in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information is as follows:

  Year

  Number

  1979–80

  14

  1980–81

  11

  1981–82

  19

  1982–83

  20

  1983–84

  13

  1984–85

  14

  1985–86

  18

  1986–87

  17

  1987–88

  13

  RAF Prestwick
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the function of the air defence notification centre at RAF Prestwick; and what plans there are to change its role and manning.

  Mr. Freeman
  The air defence notification centre at RAF Prestwick co-ordinates civil and military flight plans in the Scottish air traffic region.

  There are no plans to change its role or level of manning.

  Short-range Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what further discussions he has had with his European

  Northern Ireland Offences—Service men found guilty after prosecution

  Offences

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988 (to 30 April)

  Murder

  1

  —

  1

  1

  6

  1

  —

  Manslaughter

  3

  1

  1

  —

  —

  2

  —

  Assault/Wounding

  64

  44

  27

  37

  51

  54

  20

  Theft/Burglary/Robbery/Forgery/Fraud/Handling

  54

  44

  75

  47

  25

  53

  14

  Criminal/Malicious Damage

  7

  8

  7

  10

  11

  19

  6

  Firearms Offences

  5

  6

  5

  11

  22

  46

  1

  Disorderly/Riotous Behaviour

  21

  17

  11

  15

  22

  28

  14

  Possession of an Offensive Weapon

  —

  2

  2

  —

  3

  1

  2

  Wearing Paramilitary Clothing

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4

  —

  —

  Wasting Police Time

  —

  —

  1

  —

  2

  —

  —

  Blackmail

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Unlawful Carnal Knowledge

  —

  —

  2

  2

  1

  —

  —

  Kidnapping

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Offences Involving Animals

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6

  —

  —

  Unlawful Imprisonment

  3

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Indecent Assault/Behaviour/Exposure

  3

  2

  3

  3

  1

  5

  1

  Making a False Declaration

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  590
  North Atlantic Treaty Organisation counterparts about the modernisation of short-range nuclear weapons; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  My right hon. Friend last met his NATO European colleagues at the Eurogroup and Defence Planning Committee ministerial meetings in Brussels in May. I have nothing to add to the communiqués issued after those meetings, copies of which have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Service Personnel (Discipline)
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many members of the British armed forces have, since 1969, been convicted of murder or manslaughter while serving in Northern Ireland; and if he will give the name and date in each case;

  (2) how many members of the British armed forces have been charged, since 1969, with murder or manslaughter while serving in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 29 February 1988]: Since 1969, 23 members of the armed forces serving in Northern Ireland, including the UDR, have been convicted of murder. Five of these cases are currently the subject of appeals. A further 22 service men have been convicted of manslaughter. These figures cover offences involving negligent discharges of weapons where the victims were other soliders. It is not our policy to disclose details of individual cases.

  Figures are not kept for cases where charges did not result in conviction.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many serving British soldiers have, since 1969, been convicted of indictable offences while serving in Northern Ireland, giving the name and date in each case.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 29 February 1988]: Records of numbers of service men convicted of all indictable offences in Northern Ireland since 1969 are not available. The table shows the number of offences for which service men have been convicted between 1982 and April this year.
  591

  Offences

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988 (to 30 April)

  Drunken Driving/Excess Alcohol

  61

  54

  47

  41

  60

  56

  16

  Causing Death by Reckless Driving

  1

  2

  —

  2

  1

  1

  1

  Obstruction

  2

  7

  —

  1

  3

  —

  —

  Furious Driving

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Shoplifting

  —

  8

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  Misuse of Drugs

  —

  —

  7

  1

  —

  —

  1

  Obscene Phone Calls

  —

  —

  —

  5

  —

  —

  —

  Failing to Give Information

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Manufacturing Petrol Bombs

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  14

  —

  Collecting Information

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Member of a Proscribed Organisation

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  4

  —

  Offences

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  Hoax bomb

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Gross indecency

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Diverting electricity illegally

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Going equipped for stealing

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Arson

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Hijacking

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Resisting arrest

  2

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  No television licence

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Rape

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Breach of Exclusion Order

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5

  —

  Offences against Domestic Proceedings Act

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  Miscellaneous non-criminal offences

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Totals—offences for which service men convicted1

  230

  200

  191

  182

  223

  294

  81

  Service men convicted of above offences

  —

  —

  110

  106

  147

  161

  61

  Service men convicted of traffic offences

  —

  —

  213

  218

  225

  243

  84

  Total number of service men convicted

  —

  —

  323

  324

  372

  404

  145

  1 Less traffic offences.

  Nuclear Test Site (Maralinga)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has on the cost of decontaminating the area around the Maralinga nuclear test site in Australia; if Her Majesty's Government will contribute to the cost of this decontamination; if Her Majesty's Government will compensate victims of the nuclear tests at Maralinga in 1963; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 26 May 1988]: Responsibility for the test sites has been a matter for the Australian Government since the 1968 clean-up operation. However, the two Governments continue to liaise closely on the future of the sites. No United Kingdom atmospheric nuclear tests were undertaken after 1958. The Government do not accept that the health of participants has been affected by the ionising radiation generated by these tests or the experimental programmes which continued until 1963. Compensation other than that already provided by the war pension scheme administered by the DHSS cannot therefore be justified.

  Nuclear Weapons (Tests)
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement as to what action the Government propose to take in the light of the recent 592
  House of Lords judgment on the applicability of section 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947 in the context of radiation exposure and its somatic and genetic effects on soldiers participant in United Kingdom atmospheric nuclear weapons tests conducted by the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 23 May 1988]: The recent House of Lords judgment in the case of Mr. Melvyn Bruce Pearce was sought to resolve an important, but preliminary, legal point, and was to the effect that section 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947 does not constitute a bar to an action for personal injury damages in the particular circumstances of the case under consideration. Mr. Pearce is therefore free to proceed with a claim for damages through the courts. The decision whether or not to proceed with such an action is for Mr. Pearce to take in consultation with his own legal advisers. The Government, in the meantime, remain of the view that the radiological protection measures adopted during the United Kingdom's overseas nuclear weapons test and experimental programmes were effective.

  Radiation Exposure
  Mr. Ray Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has any plans to discuss possible
  593
  compensation with trade unions or representatives of those allegedly exposed to radiation during the course of their duties.

  Mr. Snape
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has any plans to discuss possible compensation with trade unions or representatives of those allegedly exposed to radiation during the course of their duties.

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has any plans to discuss possible compensation with trade unions or representatives of those allegedly exposed to radiation during the course of their duties.

  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has any plans to discuss possible compensation with trade unions or representatives of those allegedly exposed to radiation during the course of their duties.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 24 May 1988]: My right hon. Friend has no current plans for any such discussions.

EMPLOYMENT

  Training Agents
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what training he proposes to give to training agents to assist them in making assessments and drawing up appropriate personal action plans.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Training Commission is funding a full range of provision to help training agents provide training for their own staff where this is appropriate. The training will follow the planned approach for employment training itself, with staff being helped to assess their own training needs, prepare a personal training plan and to take training leading towards vocational qualifications. As part of this commitment a series of special training events for training agents has been arranged over the next few months.

  Child Care Facilities
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what will be the provisions for the development of supervised child care facilities for single parents participating in the Government's employment training programme.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Training Commission will meet costs of up to £50 per week, per child if lone parents make arrangements for the care of their children with a childminder, nursery or creche which is registered with a local authority.

  All travel costs over £5 a week incurred by the trainee including the cost of travel to the childminder, will also be reimbursed.

  I expect most child care to be provided through existing facilities. However, training managers and providers will be able to set up arrangements for the children of parents training with them, providing the facilities are appropriately registered with the local authority.

  Radiation Limits
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the terms of reference of the 594
  working group of the Health and Safety Commission, established to consider radiation dose limits in the United Kingdom; who are the members of the group; and when he expects it to report.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The terms of reference for the Health and Safety Commission's working group on ionising radiations are:"To consider all matters concerning the Ionising Radiations Regulations 1985 and related radiation protection matters that are referred to it by the Health and Safety Executive or the Commission, and to advise the Commission."

  The working group is due to report to the commission by the end of the year. However, it will send detailed reports to the commission on specific matters in the interim.

  The members of the working group are:

  Mr. E. A. Ryder—Chairman (Health and Safety Executive)

  Ms. B. Bernard—National Union of Public Employees

  Dr. R. Berry—British Nuclear Fuels plc

  Professor K. Boddy—Newcastle General Hospital

  Dr. R. Clarke—National Radiological Protection Board

  Mr. A. Cunningham—Electrical Electronic Telecommunications and Plumbing Union

  Dr. J. Gittus—United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority

  Mr. B. Godfrey—Department of Health and Social Security

  Dr. J. Hill—Ministry of Defence

  Mr. F. Howell—Transport and General Workers Union

  Dr. P. Roberts—Queen Elizabeth Medical Centre, Birmingham

  Mr. G. Shaw—Lancaster City Council

  Professor E. R. Davies—University of Bristol

  Mr. W. L. Ross—Royal College of Radiologists

  Professor J. Walker—University of Birmingham

  Dr. J. K. Wright—Central Electricity Generating Board

  Opencast Coal Mining
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether, in the light of recent medical evidence about the effects of opencast coal mining operations on the health of local populations, the Health and Safety Executive proposes to exercise its powers to prosecute under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, section 3(1), in relation to the duty owed by employers in such undertakings to ensure so far as is reasonably practicable that persons not in their employment who may be affected by their operations are not exposed to risks to their health; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The suggestion that opencast coal mining operations may have a significant effect on the health of local populations could only be tested by long term systematic epidemiological study. In the absence of medical evidence that there has been such a significant effect, no proposals have been put to me that regulations under section 3(3) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 are called for.

  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether, in the light of recent medical evidence about the effects of opencast coal mining operations on the health of local populations, he will prescribe under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, section 3(3) the cases, circumstances and manner in which it shall be the duty of any employer operating an opencast coal mining undertaking to give to persons not in
  595
  his employment, who may be affected by the way in which he conducts his undertaking, prescribed information about such aspects of the way in which he conducts his undertaking as might affect their health; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Health and Safety Executive's mines and quarries inspectors carry out tests at selected opencast sites for the presence of airborne respirable dust which might affect the health of those on site and of the local population. These samples are then analysed to determine the presence of any respirable silica. The tests do not cater for the collection and analysis of non-respirable airborne dust. The procedure for such sampling was determined in close conjunction with the medical profession and is regularly reviewed. Inspectors consider each case to see what, if any, enforcement action is required under their statutory power.

  Quota Working Group
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment to what extent the recommendations of the quota working group 1985 have been fulfilled.

  Mr. Lee
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced in 1985 that he proposed to defer action on the working group's proposals relating to the administration of the scheme pending research suggested by the group into the disabled working population and its characteristics.

  Research into employers' attitudes towards the quota scheme has been completed and the results will be published as soon as possible. Consideration is being given to the commissioning of a research project into the numbers and characteristics of people with disabilities in the working population in the light of a feasibility study completed last year.

  My officials continue to promote awareness of the scheme through the employment service's disablement advisory service and its network of jobcentres.

  Sex Discrimination and Equal Pay Act
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any plans to seek to amend the Sex Discrimination Acts and Equal Pay Acts.

  Mr. Nicholls
  We have already announced our intention to amend section 51 of the Sex Discrimination Act. We plan to introduce legislation as soon as parliamentary time permits.

  The Equal Opportunities Commission has also put forward recommendations to amend the law. Its proposals are under consideration by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in consultation with colleagues.

  Industrial Tribunals
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many applicants to industrial tribunals in(a) 1986 and (b) 1987 proceeded to a full hearing from a pre-hearing assessment.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The numbers are as follows:
  596

  Number

  12 months ended 31 March 1987

  350

  12 months ended 31 March 19881

  303

  1 Provisional figure.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many applicants to industrial tribunals in(a) 1986 and (b) 1987 were warned by the chairman at a pre-hearing assessment that costs might be awarded against them.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The numbers are as follows:

  Number

  12 months ended 31 March 1987

  515

  12 months ended 31 March 19881

  341

  1 Provisional figure.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many applicants to industrial tribunals in(a) 1986 and (b) 1987 proceeded to a full hearing despite being warned by the chairman at a pre-hearing assessment that costs might be awarded against them.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The numbers are as follows:

  Number

  12 months ended 31 March 1987

  97

  12 months ended 31 March 19881

  75

  1 Provisional figure.

  Household Expenditure Statistics
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will provide a table showing total housing costs, and separate sub-totals for rent, rates, water rates and other costs, for all households included in the income groups £100 to £125 a week and £325 to £375 a week, as reported in the 1986 family expenditure survey, table 5, included in expenditure items 1 to 4.

  Mr. Lee
  I am sending the hon. Member the information he requested. I am also sending a copy to the Library.

  Disposable Incomes
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) what was the aggregate disposable income in 1979, showing the median, the lowest and highest deciles, and the lower and upper quartiles for(a) all households in the United Kingdom and (b) for Greater London, in an adjusted form on the current basis, as if the housing benefit scheme had applied at that date, as provided for 1983 in the answer in the Official Report, 22 July 1987, columns 211–12;

  (2) what was the aggregate disposable income in 1979 and 1981, showing the median, the lowest and highest deciles, and the lower and upper quartiles, for (a) all households in the United Kingdom and (b) for Greater London, in an adjusted form on the current basis, as if the housing benefit scheme had applied at that date, as provided for 1983 in the answer in the Official Report, 22 July 1987, columns 211–12.
  597
  Mr. Lee
  It is not possible to produce estimates from the 1979 or 1981 family expenditure survey on the same basis as those provided for 1983, in the Official Report, 22 July 1987, at columns 211–212.

  Agricultural and Factory Inspectors
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his statement on 2 December 1987 at column 1007 that there will be 40 additional agricultural and factory inspectors in place before April 1989, whether he will state the number of inspectors in each of these two inspectorates on 1 December 1987, 1 May 1988 and 1 June 1988; by what date the 40 inspectors are expected to be in place; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The number of inspectors in each inspectorate on the dates mentioned are as follows:

  Factory Inspectorate

  Agricultural Inspectorate

  1 December 1987

  558

  150

  1 May 1988

  541·5

  150

  1 June 1988

  542·5

  150

  Some 30 successful candidates from a recent recruitment competition should be joining the Health and Safety Executive's factory and agricultural inspectorates shortly and further recruitment of inspectors to both inspectorates is currently under way.

  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many inspectors had(a) resigned, (b) retired and (c) otherwise left the agricultural and factories Inspectorates since 1 December 1987 by (i) 1 May and (ii) 1 June; and how many additional inspectors had been recruited in the same period.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information requested is as follows:

  Factory and agricultural inspector

  1 December 1987–1 May 1988

  1 December 1987–1 June 1988

  F1

  A1

  F1

  A1

  (a) resignations

  13

  0

  19

  0

  (b) retirements

  4

  0

  6

  0

  (c) otherwise left

  1

  0

  1

  0

  Note: Figures do not include inspectors returning from secondment or special leave, etc, those regraded or those transferring internally in HSE to and from the Inspectorates.

TRANSPORT

  Lorries (Hazardous Chemicals and Waste)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has for inspecting lorries carrying hazardous chemicals or hazardous waste to see that they are maintained and equipped up to British standards.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 as amended in 1987 and the Road Traffic (Carriage of Dangerous Substances in Packages etc.) Regulations 1986 are enforced by the police and the Health and Safety Executive.

  Roll-on/Roll-off Ferries
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what information he has about the minimum time it would take for a roll-on/roll-off ferry to capsize:

  (2) what information he has about the expected time in which a roll-on/roll-off ferry would capsize in the event of collision.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  If a roll-on/roll-off ferry is loaded correctly, operated in a safe and competent manner, and does not receive structural damage in excess of that assumed in the internationally agreed standards, there is no reason why it should capsize.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has about the number of collisions in which roll-on/roll-off ferries have been involved for each year since 1983.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  The number of collisions in which United Kingdom roll-on/roll-off ferries have been involved for each year since 1983 is as follows:

  Year

  Number

  1983

  4

  1984

  4

  1985

  2

  1986

  3

  1987

  3

  1988

  0

  In addition, since 1983, there have been seven incidents involving non-United Kingdom roll-on/roll-off ferries in collision with United Kingdom ships of other types.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consideration was given to the vulnerability of roll-on roll-off ferries to rapid capsize in determining the maximum evacuation time of 30 minutes under the passenger ship safety regulations.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  The 30-minute period prescribed to evacuate a passenger ship was first introduced by the 1960 international safety of life at sea convention, and has been repeated by successive conventions. The primary aim was to set a realistic target time in which to evacuate all the persons on board any passenger ship.

  London Airports (Traffic Distribution)
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he intends to review his traffic distribution policy for airports serving the London area; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Channon
  I have today written to the chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority formally seeking the authority's advice on traffic distribution policy for airports serving the London area. A copy of my letter has been placed in the Library. With that advice pending, it would be inappropriate for me to consider introducing either of the existing deferred rules, covering frequency capping at Heathrow and peak hour priority for scheduled services at Gatwick. I expect to receive the authority's formal advice by July next year.

  Ferries
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list those recommendations of the
  599
  formal investigation into the Herald of Free Enterprise which (a) he has implemented, (b) he plans to implement, (c) on which he is still undecided and (d) over which he has no control.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  [holding answer 21 March]: I have placed in the Library a list of the recommendations in the report of the court indicating the action that has been taken or is in hand.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Empty Dwellings
  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make a statement on the number of Government-owned empty houses and flats.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will publish a list of all Government Departments which own empty houses and flats and the length of time they have been empty.

  Mr. Fachett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has any proposals for the use of empty Government-owned houses and flats.

  Mr. Major
  The Government are concerned to reduce the number of empty dwellings in its possession to the minimum necessary for operational requirements. Departments, therefore, are encouraged to sell the empty dwellings that are surplus to those requirements. According to annual returns made by departments to the Treasury, in 1987 there were 18,426 empty dwellings owned by Government Departments. The Departments owning these were the Ministry of Defence, Home Office, Northern Ireland Office and Northern Ireland departments, PSA, Scottish Office, Forestry Commission, Department of Transport, and the Welsh Office. Information on the length of vacancy of each dwelling would incur a disproportionate cost.

  Exchange Rate
  Mr. Warren
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will not make it his policy to publish the upper and lower numerical levels in pounds sterling and the reference limits within which the Treasury and the Bank of England are seeking to operate in relation to other currencies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lilley
  Policy towards the exchange rate was set out in my right hon. Friend's Budget speech. The Government do not discuss the tactics they pursue in the foreign exchange markets.

  Government Data Network
  Mr. Michael Marshall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) whether the Government data network will have spare communications capacity when it first becomes operational;

  (2) whether, during the planning of future expansion of the Government data network, consideration will be given to developing opportunities for use of the Network's facilities by the private sector;

  (3) whether, when the Government data network becomes operational, Government Departments will still
  600
  be allowed to consider competing offers of services alternative to Government data network in order to meet their telecommunications needs;

  (4) whether any spare capacity of the Government data network will be made available on a commercial basis to other Government Departments or with appropriate security safeguards to private concerns.

  Mr. Brooke
  The Government data network takes account of the current planned needs of the four initial users. However, because of the size of the Inland Revenue and DHSS applications, and the wide geographical spread of all four users, the network will be designed from the outset to facilitate rapid and easy growth and increased geographical coverage. Private concerns are not expected to become users of GDN.

  Racal Data Networks Ltd. has to guarantee service levels and offer the GDN service at a lower cost than comparable public services. Departments will be free to compare alternatives to GDN to ensure best value for money. The GDN could be used to carry value-added services if Departments require these. The procurement of these services will normally be on a competitive basis.

ENERGY

  Coal Workers
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many applications the Government have made since 1973 to the Commission of the European Communities under article 56.2.(b) of the treaty of Paris for workers in the coal industry; how many of these workers were employed in (a) British Coal NCB deep mines, (b) opencast sites and (c) licensed mines; and how much was received from the ECSC budget for each sector.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  A total of 13 applications have been made, one covering the years 1973 and 1974, and one for each subsequent year up to 1986. An application for the period 1 January to 28 March 1987 is expected to be made shortly. All the redundancies included in previous applications have arisen from the closure, partial closure or merger of British Coal deep mines. However it would involve disproportionate cost to calculate the number of workers included in the applications who were actually employed at British Coal deep mines, as opposed to the number employed at other British Coal units such as area services. No workers employed at opencast sites or licensed mines have been included in the applications.

  Redundant Mineworkers
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many former employees of British Coal who were employed at opencast sites have received payments made under the Redundant Mineworkers and Concessionary Coal (Payments Scheme) Order 1973 and 1978 and amending orders; what were the dates on which such payments were made; and what were the opencast sites at which such persons were employed giving their occupations.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  None.

  Coal-fired Power Stations
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what applications or approaches he has had from
  601
  companies based in the United Kingdom or overseas for permission to build small, purpose-built coal-fired power stations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  None. The consent of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is not required for the building of private coal-fired power stations.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make it his policy to stipulate that any new small purpose-built coal-fired power stations must have advanced fluidised bed combustion techniques; if he will seek to ensure that any prefabricated parts in such stations are built in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  It is a matter for the generating organisations concerned whether they wish to utilise advance fluidised bed combustion techniques. All new coal-fired power stations must meet the requirements of HMIP for emission control.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Set-aside Scheme
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he intends to take to exclude the use of land for opencast coal mining from the terms of his set-aside policy.

  Mr. MacGregor
  Land used for opencast coalmining will not be eligible for set-aside payments under draft regulations shortly to be put to Parliament.

  Whale Conservation
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will press for measures within the European Community similar to those adopted by the United States of America which provide for trade sanctions against countries which ignore whale conservation measures.

  Mr. Gummer
  It has been widely recognised that the United Kingdom Government have taken a strong lead on the conservation of whales. We shall continue to do that and hope to have continued success working through the International Whaling Commission.

  Pigmeat MCAs
  Mrs. Gillian Shepherd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress is being made with regard to the abolition of monetary compensatory amounts for pigmeat; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The proposal is to remove 3·2 percentage points of the United Kingdom pigmeat MCA, leaving it at 1·7 per cent. and making it our lowest MCA. I have agreed this in principle, provided that the package remains as it was in Luxembourg.

  Plant Testing and Seed Certification
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what consultations have taken place with the potato seed trade in Scotland about the possible transfer of potato variety testing for distinctness, uniformity and stability from Edinburgh to Cambridge.
  602
  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given on Thursday 16 June, at column 231, to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (M r. Kirkwood). At the meeting with representatives from the Scottish Crop Research Institute and Caithness Potato Breeders Ltd. on 28 July 1987, there was no disagreement that potato variety testing for distinctness, uniformity and stability should remain at Edinburgh. The report on plant variety testing and certification in the United Kingdom recommends the same.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what account was taken in calculating the saving of £42,000 of overheads to be achieved by transferring vegetable variety tests to Cambridge as against Edinburgh.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  In 1987–88 the costs, including overheads, of vegetable variety testing for distinctness, uniformity and stability were estimated as £222·000 at Cambridge and £76,000 for the smaller number of species tested at Edinburgh. It was estimated that the extra cost of transferring all the work to Cambridge would be just under £35,000—a net saving of about £42,000.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will place in the Library copies of the detailed calculations by which the review on plant testing and seed certification systems arrived at its cost estimate for work which it is proposed to transfer from Edinburgh to Cambridge, showing, in particular, any assumptions about productivity or efficiency gains.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I refer the hon. Member to the replies given to him on Monday 20 June, Tuesday 21 June and today. The calculations were based on information provided by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland and the National Institute of Agricultural Botany.

  Colorado Beetle
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has on the frequency, and dangers from the accidental import, of the Colorado beetle.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  [holding answer 21 June 1988]:Up to 100 or so Colorado beetles are found in the United Kingdom each year. The beetles enter the country in a wide variety of ways. Most are found on fruit and vegetables imported from the continent but others occasionally arrive on timber, vehicles and other materials. Thanks to the vigilance of the public in alerting the police or my officials when beetles are found we have managed to prevent this pest being established in our potato crops, where it could do substantial damage. It is very important that this vigilance continues.

  Poisonous Algae
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) whether he is investigating the effect of the poisonous algae on the marine ecosystem of the North sea and its effect on fish stocks; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) whether he is investigating the causes of the presence of the poisonous algae found in the North sea; and if he will make a statement.
  603
  Mr. Gummer
  [holding answer 21 June 1988]: The algal blooms to which I believe the hon. Member is referring occurred off Scandinavian coasts and in the eastern North sea. The causes and effects of this phenomenon are being investigated by the responsible authorities in the countries concerned. We are keeping closely in touch with the progress of this work.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will increase research funds to be made available for investigating the cause and effect of the poisonous algae in the North sea; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  [holding answer 21 June 1988]: As indicated in my earlier reply the algal blooms which have occurred recently have not affected British waters. A substantial amount of research work on inputs into the North sea and their effects is already undertaken and there is no requirement for additional work on algal blooms to be given priority over other research activities related to the marine environment. The United Kingdom is contributing fully to the work of the scientific task force which is being established to enhance our knowledge and understanding of the North sea.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has had with Ministers of other Nordic countries about dealing with the poisonous algae in the North sea; what was discussed; whether any agreements were reached; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  [holding answer 21 June 1988]: An international scientific symposium has been convened by the Federal Republic of Germany to consider the growth of algae in the North sea and Baltic sea. This will take place on 23–24 June and representatives of the Governments concerned have been asked to participate; these are Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden. The United Kingdom is not directly involved, but we are sending an observer to this symposium and will be following the proceedings with interest and concern.

  Vegetable, Plant and Animal Matter (Imports)
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has on the restrictions placed on the import of vegetable, plant and animal matter(a) into the United States of America from the United Kingdom and (b) into the United Kingdom from the United States of America.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  [holding answer 20 June 1988]: The United Kingdom has a wide range of controls on imports of plant matter made under the Plant Health (Great Britain) Order 1987, and on imports of animal matter in orders made under the Animal Health Act 1981, which are aimed at protecting this country against serious plant pests and plant and animal diseases being introduced from the United States and elsewhere.

  Similarly the United States has a wide range of controls on imports of plant and animal matter, including those from the United Kingdom, made principally under the United States Code of Federal Regulations.

PRIME MINISTER

  Chlorofluorocarbon-related Products
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will designate a Minister to take interdepartmental responsibility for policy towards the use and taxation of chlorofluorocarbon-related products in respect of the protection of the ozone layer, the needs of developing countries, ecosystem conservation requirements, and export potential.

  Mr. Ridley
  I have been asked to reply.

  I have overall responsibility for policy on chlorofluorocarbons in consultation with other colleagues involved.

ENVIRONMENT

  "London Under Stress"
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action his Department proposes to take in response to the report from the London Boroughs Association entitled "London Under Stress", a copy of which has been sent to him; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ridley
  It is for the London boroughs grants committee, for whom the report was prepared, and the individual London boroughs to decide what action to take.

  Urban Programme
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much public money is estimated to have been spent on the urban programme in England since 1979.

  Mr. Trippier
  Estimated public spending on the urban programme between April 1979 and March 1988 is £2,477 million, cash.

  New Towns (Asset Sales)
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the progress of the Commission for New Towns in disposing of the former assets of the new town development corporations.

  Mr. Ridley
  The Commission for the New Towns is conducting an extremely successful programme of asset sales which in 1987–88 yielded receipts in excess of £200 million. I expect asset sales in the current financial year to be higher than this. The success of the asset sales programme is a clear indication of the confidence which private investors have in the future of the new towns.

  Sport
  Mr. Franks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to involve active or recently retired sportsmen and women in the administration of British sport.

  Mr. Moynihan
  On 16 May I hosted the first ever conference for sportsmen and women which enabled over 100 active participants in sport to have their say on a wide range of issues affecting the future of sport. A number of
  605
  top-level sportsmen and women are directly involved in three particularly important initiatives—first Steve Ovett, Clive Lloyd and Jeoff Thompson are members of my review group looking at sport and recreation provision in inner cities; secondly, Duncan Goodhew and Tessa Sanderson are working with me on my reveiw of sport for people with disabilities; and thirdly, Sebastian Coe and I have worked closely together on efforts to stamp out drug abuse in sport. Earlier this year I invited Chris Bailieu to be a member of the United Kingdom's delegation at the Council of Europe's sports committee.

  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has about the levels of private sector sponsorship in sport over the past 10 years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Between 1981 and 1987, the level of private sector sponsorship of sport rose from about £50 million to £170 million per year, a real terms increase of 150%. Over the same period, the number of companies involved in sponsorship rose from 700 to 1,000. Comparable figures are not available for the period 1978–81. I welcome this growth in the sponsorship of sport. It brings substantial benefits to sport at all levels.

  Housing
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what further measures he proposes to increase the availability of low cost housing for local people in rural areas.

  Mr. Ridley
  The Housing Corporation is aiming to double the present level of provision by housing associations in rural areas, and I have agreed that the Rural Development Commission should increase its funding of the National Agricultural Centre rural trust for its work in support of rural housing associations. We shall be making a full statement shortly.

  Mr. Robert Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any fresh proposals to help reduce local authority housing waiting lists; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ridley
  It is for each local authority to decide the criteria for its waiting list. The findings of the study "Queuing for Housing", a report published by my Department in March this year showed that nearly half of those on current waiting lists no longer required local authority housing. It is clearly important, therefore, for authorities to review their lists and procedures regularly.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what targets he is currently developing for housing starts in the north and midlands.

  Mrs. Roe
  My right hon. Friend does not have targets for housing starts. This is best left to the market. The Department's revised household projections for the period to 2001 were published on 15 February. I expect local planning authorities to consider these figures carefully in reviewing and extending their development plans.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has received calling for the construction of more new houses in the south-east.
  606
  Mrs. Roe
  Records are not kept in a form which directly answers my hon. Friend's question. Whilst many representations have expressed concern at the pressures for development in the south-east, there is also concern about housing shortages in some areas.

  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what further action the Government are taking in order to ensure an adequate supply of low-cost housing in rural areas.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what further steps he will take to assist the provision of modestly priced rural housing.

  Mrs. Roe
  I refer my hon. Friends to the answer given today by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key).

  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to bring into use for housing purposes privately-owned empty properties in England and Wales.

  Mrs. Roe
  Our proposals in the Housing Bill for the deregulation of new lettings will enable private owners lo let their property at market rents. This will encourage owners of empty private houses and flats to let them.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on his policy towards the provision of housing in the borough of Basingstoke and Deane under the north-east Hampshire structure plan, in relation to the demands of local commerce and industry.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Hampshire county council's strategy towards the provision of housing in the borough of Basingstoke and Deane in relation to the demands of local commerce and industry was an issue raised at the examination in public held in November 1987 into aspects of the second alteration to the north-east Hampshire structure plan. My right hon. Friend will need to consider the report of the panel which conducted the examination in public before deciding whether to propose any modifications to the housing or employment provisions for the Basinstoke and Deane borough.

  Smith Houses (Leicester)
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will make a statement on the reasons for the refusal of his Department to grant Leicester city council the extra money for the repurchase of Smith houses.

  Mr. Ridley
  For 1988–89, £20 million was reserved from the total available for housing investment programme allocations to assist authorities with particularly heavy obligations under the housing defects legislation. Leicester city council's bid for extra resouces was considered carefully but the needs of certain other authorities in the east midlands were considered to be greater.

  Planning Law
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has had any representations about the case of re-examining the presumption in favour of development in planning law.
  607
  Mr. Trippier
  Yes.

  Football (Crowd Behaviour)
  Mr. John Carlisle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he next plans to meet representatives from the Football Association and the Football League to discuss the implementation of future measures to combat hooliganism and disorder.

  Mr. Holt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he next intends to meet the Football League and Football Association; and whether he will be discussing new measures to combat football hooliganism for the forthcoming domestic season.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I shall discuss progress on existing measures and the possibility of further measures with the football authorities, on 5 July.

  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will authorise progress on the February 1987 joint Government and Football Authority agreement on measures to combat football hooliganism; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the latest initiatives by his Department to improve crowd behaviour at English football grounds.

  Mr. Moynihan
  In February 1987 the Government and the football authorities reached agreement on a package of measures aimed at combating hooliganism at Football League grounds. Progress on some elements of the package has been good, particularly on the introduction of local plans for dealing with home and away supporters. But I regret that some clubs still have to put CCTV in place and the progress on the introduction of membership areas has been slow. I will be discussing progress with the football authorities on 5 July.

  Urban Development Grant
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much public funding has been devoted to urban development grant in each year since it was introduced.

  Mr. Trippier
  Expenditure on urban development grants was as follows:—

  £ million

  1983–84

  7

  1984–85

  15

  1985–86

  22

  1986–87

  22

  Expenditure in 1987–88 is estimated to have been £23 million.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many applications have been received from Liverpool city council for assistance under the urban development grant scheme since its launch; and how many of those applications have been accepted by his Department.

  Mr. Trippier
  Since 1982 my Department has received seven applications for urban development grant assistance from Liverpool city council. One scheme has been approved.
  608
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much money has been spent in total on the urban regeneration grants since its launch.

  Mr. Trippier
  Eight urban regeneration grants totalling £40·7 million have been approved by my Department. Further approvals are expected to flow from applications received before the beginning of May. In each case payment of grant will be spread over the period in which the development is carried out.

  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many schemes were approved over the lifetime of urban development grants and urban regeneration grants; and at what cost to public funds.

  Mr. Trippier
  A total of 289 urban development grants and eight urban regeneration grants have been approved at a total cost of £175 million. Further approvals are expected to flow from applications made by the beginning of May.

  Improvement Grant Work
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will make a statement on the recommendations of the committee appointed by the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten), as Minister for Housing, Urban Affairs and Construction, regarding the financing of improvement grant work and preventing low-quality builders being involved in such work.

  Mr. Trippier
  The report of the working party is under consideration.

  Environmental Monitoring
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether it is intended to make any further changes in environmental monitoring procedures, and in particular of radioactivity in the environment, in the light of post-Chernobyl experiences.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The national response plan to cater for the consequences of nuclear accidents abroad incorporates new radiation monitoring arrangements. Details are set out in the HMSO booklet "The National Response Plan and Radioactive Incident Monitoring Network (RIMNET): A Statement of Proposals" published earlier this year, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Bail Hostels
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has received any representations on class CI of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes Order) 1987 regarding change of use to bail hostels and similar residences for offenders.

  Mr. Ridley
  We have received one letter about bail hostels and the use classes order, from an area probation service, and I am aware of my hon. Friend's concerns about a proposed hostel in his constituency.

  Cluttons Ltd.
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last met the directors of Cluttons Ltd; and what matters of mutual interest were discussed.
  609
  Mr. Chope
  My right hon. Friend has had no meeting with the directors of Cluttons. I met the senior partner approximately 18 months ago when we discussed the management of PSA district works offices.

  Development (Density)
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what guidelines he gives to planning authorities and planning inspectors on density of development.

  Mr. Ridley
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle).

  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has, in the light of the overdevelopment of the south-east, to introduce a new planning circular.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given earlier today by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle).

  Pollution
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will outline new proposals for steps being taken to reduce pollution from motor vehicles, in the light of the recent report on increasing air pollution in London.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I outlined the Government's proposals for further measures to reduce motor vehicle pollution in my reply of 7 December 1987 to my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Carrington), at column 20–21. We expect these measures to achieve reductions in air pollution, despite predicted increases in traffic.

  European Football
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will next meet the chairman of the Football Association to discuss the future of English participation in European football.

  Mr. Moynihan
  As I told the hon. Member in my answer on 18 May at column 941, I met the chairman of the Football Association on 14 May together with the president of UEFA and the president of the Football League. I have presented to UEFA my report on the 1987–88 domestic season and the preparations for the European Championship finals. UEFA will now take its decision on whether English clubs should be re-admitted to European competitions at its congress on 24 June.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will estimate the number of single people(a) under 18 years and (b) under 25 years who are homeless (i) in London and (ii) in England; and if he will introduce legislation to amend the Housing Act 1985 to include people under the age of 18 years within the category of homeless people who are in priority need and entitled to be housed by their local authority.

  Mrs. Roe
  Information about the ages of homeless single people is not available. Section 59 of the Housing 610
  Act 1985 does not specify any age limit for those who may be treated as in priority need for accommodation, and local authorities are therefore already able to house young people under 18 under the homelessness legislation when they judge them to be at risk.

  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the latest figures for families in bed-and-breakfast accommodation in England and Wales.

  Mrs. Roe
  The latest number of households temporarily placed in bed and breakfast accommodation by English local authorities, appears in table 4(A) of "Local authorities' action under the homelessness provisions of the 1985 Housing Act: England, Statistics for the first quarter 1988", which is available in the Library. For Welsh figures I refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many young single homeless people there are(a) in London and (b) in England and Wales.

  Mrs. Roe
  The information is not available.

  Urban Development
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much private money in total is estimated to have been attracted as a result of public funding for urban development and regeneration in the Merseyside and London Dockland development corporations; and what level of leverage that represents.

  Mr. Trippier
  Estimated private sector investment committed by the end of March 1988 to the London Docklands development corporation's area was £4 billion and to the Merseyside development corporation's area was £63 million. Total grant-in-aid paid to the two corporations over the same period was £564 million. This represents a leverage (defined as the ratio of grant-in-aid received to private sector investment committed) of 1:7.

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many(a) jobs have been provided, (b) homes have been provided and (c) areas of inner-city derelict land have been reclaimed, as a result of awards under the urban development and urban regeneration grants during their lifetime.

  Mr. Trippier
  Urban development grants and urban regeneration grants approved to date will result in the provision of 30,800 jobs and 8,500 homes as well as bringing 1,380 acres of land back into use. Further approvals are expected to flow from applications received by early May.

  Mr. Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much money has been spent in total o n the urban development corporation budget in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Trippier
  Urban development corporation grant-in-aid in the last three years was:

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  outturn

  outturn

  provision

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  82

  89

  133

  Planning Control
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he is considering for changes in the local authority planning control system.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  At any time we have a number of improvements to the planning system under consideration. In particular, revised rules governing planning inquiries have just been made; we have laid regulations to give effect by 3 July to the European Community's environmental assessment directive; we published on 15 June a draft planning policy guidance note on local plans; and we shall be laying a revised and consolidated general development order later this year.

  River Pollution
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what directions he has given to the chairman of the National Rivers Authority advisory committee with regard to the maintenance of river pollution standards subsequent to the introduction of the National Rivers Authority; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  None. The privatisation legislation will put the existing system of quality objectives and standards on a statutory basis, and allow my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State, to set such objectives in the light of recommendations from the National Rivers Authority. These arrangements cannot be brought into operation until the NRA has been established and the relevant pollution control functions have been transferred to it. Until then, such matters remain the responsibility of the regional water authorities.

  Ozone Layer (Protection)
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last discussed the question of the protection of the ozone layer with his European Economic Community counterparts; and what was the content of the discussion.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I refer to the answer which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) on 20 June 1988.

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he proposes to take, in the light of the report from the Environment Committee, published on 15 June, in so far as it relates to damage to the ozone layer caused by chlorofluorocarbons; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I refer to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) on 14 June at columns 143–44.

  Development (South-West)
  Sir Peter Emery
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what approaches and how many letters he has received from people and organisations concerned about the increased incursion of inappropriate modern buildings into the countryside of the south-west region of England; and what specific steps he proposes to take to preserve the rural heritage in this region.

  Mr. Moynihan
  In the year to 31 March the Department's south-west regional office received over 300 612
  letters about planning matters in the region. Some would have referred to the subject raised by my hon. Friend. The Government's policy for the countryside is aimed to encourage growth and diversification in the rural economy in ways that will enhance the quality of life in rural communities and conserve the nation's countryside heritage.

  Planning Appeals
  Mr. Sims
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what guidance his Department currently provides to inspectors appointed to conduct planning appeals to assist them in carrying out their duties.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Like local planning authorities, inspectors must have regard to guidance on planning policy published by my right hon. Friend, so far as it is material to the particular case. The Department also arranges training for inspectors on all aspects of their work.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many appeals he has allowed from developers every year for the last five years.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The number of planning appeals allowed in each of the last five years is as follows:

  Year

  Appeals allowed

  1983

  3,633

  1984

  3,773

  1985

  5,477

  1985–86

  5,581

  1986–87

  6,208

  1987–88

  6,955

  Local Government Finance Bill
  Mr. Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many people and how many organisations have now made representations to him in favour of the Local Government Finance Bill.

  Mr. Howard
  A summary of the 1,271 responses received by 31 October 1986, when the consultation period on the Green Paper ended, was placed in the Library on 15 December 1986. Since June 1987, my Department has received some 10,400 letters, the majority of which are from private individuals. The letters contain a variety of comments on specific aspects of our proposals, or requests for further information, and for this reason do not readily lend themselves to an analysis of correspondents' views.

  London Docklands Development Corporation
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much private finance has been attracted to the London Docklands development corporation as a result of Government urban regeneration and development funding; and what level of public/private sector leverage this represents.

  Mr. Trippier
  Estimated private sector investment committed by the end of March 1988 to the London Docklands development corporation's area was £4 billion. The grant-in-aid paid to LDDC over the same period was £396 million. This represents a leverage (defined as the ratio of grant-in-aid received to private sector investment committed) of 1:10.

  Olympic Games, Seoul
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has received any representations about the safety of United Kingdom sportsmen and women competing in the summer Olympic Games in Seoul.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I replied to a question on the safety of competitors at the Olympic Games from the hon. Member on 25 January at column 51, and I refer the hon. Member to the answer given today to my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Sir M. Fox). I have not received any letters on the subject.

  Sir Marcus Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he is satisfied with the security arrangements being made for the British Olympic team in South Korea.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Security for the Olympic Games is primarily the responsibility of the South Korean Authorities. They are taking extensive precautions and both I and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs are confident they are giving this matter very careful consideration. We will continue to monitor the situation between now and the start of the games.

  Litter Act 1983
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to review the effectiveness of the Litter Act 1983.

  Mr. Moynihan
  No, but we shall be monitoring the effectiveness of the City of Westminster Act which introduces a fixed penalty of £10 as an alternative to being prosecuted for an offence, to establish whether the concept is suitable for wider application.

  Urban Development Grant (Brent)
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much public funding has been awarded to Brent under the Government's urban development grant scheme since 1984; and how much private funding has been attracted as a result.

  Mr. Trippier
  Since 1984 two urban development grant schemes have been approved in Brent generating £2,125,000 of Government funding. These projects are expected to encourage private sector investment in excess of £7 million.

  County Precepts
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which counties in England have(a) the highest and (b) the lowest county precept.

  Mr. Howard
  In 1988–89 Derbyshire has the highest county precept (297·5p) and Hereford and Worcester the lowest (185·0p).

  Housing Investment Programme Allocation (Cherwell)
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from Cherwell district council concerning its housing investment programme allocation.
  614
  Mrs. Roe
  None.

  Water Pollution
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to reduce pollution levels in the waters around the United Kingdom coastline; and what information he has about pollution levels in other European Economic Community countries with coastal waters in relation to the levels in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The ministerial declaration of the second international conference on the protection of the North sea, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State chaired last November, contains a number of agreed proposals for reducing pollution of the North sea. The Department has since published a guidance note setting out the action the Government believe is necessary to implement the declaration. Discussions are in progress with water authorities and other interested parties with a view to drawing up an action plan for reducing inputs of dangerous substances via rivers and estuaries, and this will be reviewed at the third international conference to be held in the Netherlands in early 1990.

  The Government have stated that actions implied by the declaration will be applied consistently throughout the United Kingdom and not just to North sea waters.

  The North sea quality status report, prepared for last year's conference, provides the best assessment of the current state of the North sea. Copies of the ministerial declaration of the second conference, the Department's guidance note and the quality status report have all been placed in the Library of the House.

  Rents
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what procedures he intends to bring forward to co-ordinate the work of his own Department and of other Government agencies with regard to rent levels in the event of the Housing Bill becoming law.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We do not consider that there will be any need to alter arrangements for co-ordination as a result of the Housing Bill.

  Consortium Developments plc
  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he plans to meet the chairman of Consortium Developments plc to discuss his policy on housing development.

  Mrs. Roe
  My right hon. Friend has no plans at present for such a meeting.

  House Sales (Basildon)
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many New Town Commission houses and council houses have been sold in Basildon up to the present time.

  Mrs. Roe
  At 31 March 1988 11,083 new town houses and 1,685 council houses had been sold in Basildon.

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent ad vice he has received from public water authorities about the current state of nitrate pollution of public water supplies; and if he will make a statement.
  615
  Mr. Moynihan
  Water authorities and water companies have advised me of 49 public water supplies currently containing nitrate which regularly exceeds a concentration of 50 milligrams per litre.

  Planning Applications
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many applications for planning permission that fell outside county council structure plans he received in 1987.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Local planning authorities are required to notify my right hon. Friend of any planning application which would materially conflict with or prejudice the implementation of any of the policies or general proposals of the structure plan but which they intend to approve. Some 342 such applications were referred to him in 1987.

  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many planning applications for 3,000 houses or more have been called in by him within the last 12 months or are now under consideration by him with a view to calling in; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  One such application was called in; and another is currently unde consideration for call-in.

  Construction Industry
  Mr. Bevan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give the most recent set of construction figures; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  Provisional figures for the first quarter 1988 are given in the table.

  Construction activity in Great Britain—1st Quarter 1988 £m 1980 prices—seasonally adjusted

  Output1

  New orders2

  Housing

  Private

  1,086

  1,040

  Public

  177

  152

  TOTAL

  1,263

  1,192

  Other New Work

  Private industrial

  752

  659

  Private commercial

  1,214

  1,879

  Public non-housing

  837

  1,090

  All other new work

  2,803

  3,628

  TOTAL NEW WORK

  4,066

  4,820

  Repair Maintenance and Improvements3,4

  Housing R M and I

  Private

  856

  Public

  561

  Private Non-housing R and M

  552

  Public Non-housing R and M

  695

  TOTAL R M AND I

  2,664

  TOTAL All Work

  6,730

  1Includes DLOs of LA's and PAs

  2Private Contractors only.

  3 Includes housing refurbishment but non-housing refurbishment is included with new work.

  4Orders for R and M are not collected.

  These total output figures of £673 million are the best for 15 years and represent a 10 per cent. increase over the
  616
  same period a year earlier. It has been largely achieved by the dominant influence of work for the private sector reflecting the success of the Government's economic policies.

  The high level of contractors' new orders confirms that the healthy state of the industry will be maintained during 1988.

  Arpley Meadows Dumping Site
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he intends to meet representatives of Cheshire county council to discuss the future of the Arpley meadows dumping site.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I am arranging to meet representatives of Cheshire county council shortly.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what were his estimates in June 1987 and in December 1987 of the total number of people who will be exempt from paying the poll tax; and what is the latest equivalent estimate.

  Mr. Howard
  In June 1987 we estimated that about half a million people would be exempt from the community charge. We estimate that decisions taken since then will result in exemptions for about an additional 25,000 people.

  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received concerning exemption from the community charge of full-time residential community volunteer carers, including community service volunteers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Howard
  The Government have received a number of such representations, which are currently under consideration.

  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received concerning his proposals, announced on 17 November 1987 and 25 April to require 10 London boroughs to operate residual domestic rating for four years in addition to the community charge after 25 April.

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 20 June 1988]: I have received representations from the London Boroughs Association, the Association of London Authorities, the City of London and from members and officers of a number of the boroughs affected.

  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment on what date the Price Waterhouse report on administering the community charge was received; when he proposes to publish the report; what arrangements will be made for disseminating its findings; and if he will publish the cost of commissioning the report.

  Mr. Ridley
  The date on which both volumes of the final report were available was 16 June. I shall make both volumes available shortly and will distribute volume 2 of the report widely to local authorities as soon as this has been discussed with the local authority associations. The report is expected to cost £60,000.

  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if mature students paying the 20 per cent.
  617
  community charge with a non-student spouse, will be jointly and severally liable for their spouse's community charge at a rate of 100 per cent.

  Mr. Ridley
  All married and unmarried couples will be jointly and severally liable for the full amount of each other's community charge during the period that they live together.

  Air Pollution
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if his Department is monitoring the build-up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Although the Department does not monitor carbon dioxide concentrations directly, we keep in close touch with the United States National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration laboratories which maintains the definitive long-term records such as that at Mauna, Loa, Hawaii. The Department does monitor concentrations of many other important greenhouse gases (eg Methane, CFCs) in co-operation with NASA and University college, Galway, at a clean site in Western Ireland, which has been established with the co-operation of the Department of the Environment of the Republic of Ireland.

  "The Way Forward"
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received following the publication of the document entitled "The Way Forward" by United Kingdom Nirex Ltd.

  Mr. Moynihan
  My right hon. Friend has received a number of representations about Nirex's discussion document "The Way Forward". We have advised all respondents to make their views known to Nirex.

  Housebuilders Federation
  Mr. Model
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last met representatives of the Housebuilders Federation; what matters were discussed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Roe
  My hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning, last met representatives of the Housebuilders Federation at their conference on 24 March, when a wide range of issues of interest to the federation were raised. Ministers keep in regular touch with the federation.

  Housing Defects Act
  Sir John Biggs-Davison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the working of the Housing Defects Act.

  Mrs. Roe
  We have recently modified the rules of the scheme to enable local authorities more readily to give appropriate help to owners of houses designated as defective. We have also increased the cost limits up to which grants for repairs are available, and we have allocated a further £20 million to local authorities with the heaviest obligations to help house owners.

  Local authorities are now generally making good progress in implementing the legislation, but we are continuing to monitor the scheme closely, and to examine the scope for further streamlining.

  Right to Buy
  Mr. Eastham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will seek to extend the right to buy granted to council tenants to include tenants of privately rented properties without resident landlords.

  Mrs. Roe
  No.

  Planning Inquiries
  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to improve and make more cost-effective planning inquiries, particularly major planning inquiries; and if he will seek to introduce a power for inspectors at such inquiries to commission independent expert research not requested by parties to the inquiry.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  New procedure rules for planning inquiries were laid before both Houses on 16 June. 1 refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) on that date at columns 247–48. A major objective of the new rules is 1:0 speed up decision times by introducing time tabling provisions for the service of pie-inquiry statements and for the date by which the inquiry should open. There are also now provisions for the exchange of evidence before the start of the inquiry. The rules are supplemented by a code of practice giving additional guidance on the action required from the various participants in preparing for a major inquiry.

  The rules do not give inspectors a specific power to commission independent research, but there is nothing to prevent them from inviting submissions on a particular issue. In general, however, it is for the parties to an inquiry to decide the scope and content of their evidence.

  Sport (Drug Abuse)
  Mr. Brandon-Bravo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will outline the national and international steps taken to implement the proposals outlined in the Government's report on drug abuse in sport.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Nationally, the Sports Council began implementation on 1 April of a new drug-testing regime which provides for:

  (i) Testing to be undertaken by independent sampling officers

  (ii) Random selection of competitors

  (iii) Testing out of competition

  (iv) Publication of adverse findings and action taken by governing bodies of sport.

  Under this new regime, for which the Government allocated an additional £180,000 to the council's budget this year, testing has already taken place at over 100 events and 56 out-of-competition tests have been taken.

  Internationally, I proposed to Council of Europe Sports Ministers in Athens on 2 June that a European convention should be drawn up. Such a convention would be legally binding on the states which ratified it. Among other things, it would reflect international agreement to the principles of an independent testing regime set out in the report which Sebastian Coe and myself produced last summer. I am pleased that my European colleagues accepted my proposal. Additionally, the Council of Europe's working group on effective anti-doping measures is considering amendments to the existing European

  619
  charter which will take account of the proposals set out in our report; the first permanent world conference on anti-doping in Ottowa on 26–29 June will bring sports organisations together to consider a worldwide charter in line with the proposals in our report; and the European sports conference which includes eastern bloc countries and which meets in Sweden in October will consider the adoption and promotion of out-of-competition testing.

  Urban Development (Hull)
  Mr. David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much public money has been given to Hull under urban regeneration and urban development grants since 1983.

  Mr. Trippier
  Since 1983 a total of £22 million of urban development and urban regeneration grants have been approved in schemes for Hull. In each case payment of the grant is spread over the development period of the project.

  Council Properties (Wandsworth)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has as to the number of empty council properties in the London borough of Wandsworth on 1 June.

  Mrs. Roe
  I have nothing to add to the reply given to the hon. Member by my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning on 25 January 1988 at column 39.

  Waste Disposal
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has for licensing importers, transporters and disposers of hazardous waste.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Disposal of controlled waste is subject to licensing under the Control of Pollution Act 1974. Proposals for the registration of waste handlers were included in a consultation paper issued in September 1986. We expect to announce our conclusions very shortly.

  Glanville Fritillary
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what further plans he has for protecting the Glanville fritillary.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I cannot at present add anything to the answer I gave my hon. Friend on 7 December 1987 at column 16. I will, however, write to my hon. Friend to explain the present position.

  Waste Imports
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement summarising the guidelines issued by his Department to local authorities on the subject of the import of hazardous and domestic waste from abroad.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Guidance on waste mangagement in respect of all controlled waste disposed of in this country is given in waste management papers issued by my Department. The guidance applies equally to imported wastes and wastes generated in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement outlining 620
  the policy of his Department on commercial agreements entered into by local authorities with companies allowing them to import waste from abroad to landfill sites in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Local authorities may enter into contracts to dispose of waste provided the disposal complies with all conditions necessary to ensure the protection of public health, water supply and local amenity.

  Planning Circular
  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has to introduce a new planning circular.

  Mr. Ridley
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar.

  Inner-City Sport
  Mr. Ken Hargreaves
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made in the Government's review of inner-city sport; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Since its official launch in March, the review group has had one full day's meeting and has undertaken a two-day visit to the west midlands region. During that visit the group looked at existing sport and recreation schemes and held discussions with business men, community groups and voluntary groups. Further meetings and visits are being arranged for the coming months.

  Lead-free Petrol
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps are being taken to ensure that petrol companies are doing enough to advertise the availability of lead-free petrol.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Petrol companies which have installed equipment to sell unleaded petrol already have a strong incentive to advertise its availability. The additional duty differential introduced in the Budget makes the new fuel highly attractive at about 6p per gallon cheaper than leaded 4-star. The work of the various organisations interested in the smooth transition to unleaded petrol is co-ordinated by the unleaded petrol group, which I chair.

  Hazardous Waste
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will publish the third report of the hazardous waste inspectorate; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  On behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Secretaries of State for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, I welcome the third report of the hazardous waste inspectorate which has been published today. Copies of the report have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses, and are publicly available from Her Majesty's Stationery Office.

  The report is concerned with standards of waste management for the year ending 31 March 1987. From

  621
  that time, the hazardous waste inspectorate has been incorporated in Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution under the new title of HMIP: Wastes. HMIP will in future publish reports on its activities as a whole including those of HMIP: Wastes. The present arrangements are being maintained in Scotland for the time being.

  While it is encouraging to note that the inspectorate found significant improvements in standards of waste management by comparison with its earlier findings, it is apparent that much remains to be done. The report particularly highlights the need for greater professionalism and training in the industry.

  The Government have already initiated a number of measures intended to ensure that the progress so far made is maintained and that waste management practice will continue to improve. On 11 May regulations were laid before Parliament which will inter alia clarify the application of the disposal licensing system in England and Wales; they do, for example, require the licensing of oil and solvent recovery operations as recommended in chapter 5 of the report. A separate review of the licensing provisions for waste disposal in Scotland is at present in hand, with a view to making new regulations. The provisions of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 on waste will not, however, be affected. Regulations are planned to be laid before the summer recess to implement the EC directives on transfrontier shipment of hazardous wastes; the regulations will apply to special wastes and will ensure that waste disposal authorities for the areas covering both port of entry and disposal site receive prior notification of such shipments from overseas. This will provide valuable assistance to waste disposal authorities in carrying out their enforcement duties.

  A revised version of waste management paper No. 4, which provides advice on the terms and conditions which should be applied to disposal licences will be published in September. Full publicity will be given to this up-to-date guidance, which the Government expect to be followed by both authorities and the waste disposal industry. Strict adherence to the guidance will avoid many of the unsatisfactory practices which the Inspectorate has found.

  The problem of landfill gas discussed in chapter 6 of the report is currently being reviewed by the inspectorate and the Secretary of State will consider urgently with the Secretaries of State for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland any recommendations for improving control of gas generation at landfill sites.

  We are also concerned by the inspectorate's comments in chapter 8 about waste management practice in some of the former metropolitan county areas, and we await the considered views of the inspectorate in the light of the comprehensive review they are conducting.

  So far as concerns waste disposal plans required under section 2 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974, the Department has written to all waste disposal authorities in England asking them to expedite their plans with the aim of completing them by October 1989.

  The Secretaries of State for Social Services and Wales share our concern about the inspectorate's comments on hospital incinerators. Health authorities no longer have Crown immunity from the requirements of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, and it is intended that the new controls on incinerator emissions associated with the proposed new air pollution legislation (see chapter 11) will apply to health authorities as to all other operators. Health authorities intending to dispose of waste by incineration
  622
  will, as they upgrade their installations to meet these new emission controls, also be required to obtain and comply with the requirements of waste disposal licences, in accordance with the provisions of the new collection and disposal of waste regulations.

  Work has commenced on the review of the special waste regulations for which we plan to issue a consultation paper in the autumn.

  Finally the inspectorate draws attention to the proposals for primary legislation to improve the framework of control for waste management on which a consultation paper was issued in September 1986. Very careful consideration has been given to the responses to the consultation and we expect to be able to announce our conclusions later this month. Following similar consultations in Scotland in 1987, consideration is being given to equivalent action there.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has as to the proportion of civil servants at grade 3 and above in his Department who were educated in(a) private schools and (b) state schools.

  Mr. Ridley
  [holding answer 20 June 1988]: Information on the types of schools attended by senior staff is not available.

  Local Government Finance Bill
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many Government amendments to the Local Government Finance Bill were tabled during(a) Committee stage in the Commons, (h) Report stage in the Commons and (c) Committee stage in the House of Lords.

  Mr. Ridley
  [holding answer 20 June 1988]: The Government have tabled amendments to the Local Government Finance Bill as follows:

  Commons Committee—218 amendments.

  Commons Report—135 amendments.

  Lords Committee—196 amendments.

  These totals include consequential amendments.

  Free Aluminium
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what studies are being conducted into the levels of free aluminium to be found in soil in the United Kingdom, and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  [holding answer 17 June 1988]: Studies on the mobilisation of aluminium in United Kingdom soils and freshwaters are being conducted by water authorities and a number of research contractors on behalf of the Natural Environment Research Council and this Department.

  Aluminium tends to be mobilised mainly in soils which have low or no acid neutralising capacity. Waters from these areas have higher aluminium contents than waters from calcareous areas but the contribution they make to the total aluminium content of public drinking water supplies is quite small.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Legislation
  Sir John Biggs-Davison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the Northern Ireland legislation passed since the abolition of the Northern Ireland Parliament(a) in the form of an Act of Parliament applying to the Province alone and (b) as part of a statute applying to the United Kingdom as a whole.

  Mr. Stanley
  As far as the first part of my hon. Friend's question is concerned, all, or most, of the provisions of the following Acts, passed since the abolition of the Northern Ireland Parliament in 1973, extend only to Northern Ireland.

  Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973

  Northern Ireland (Young Persons) Act 1974

  Social Security (Northern Ireland) Act 1975

  Industrial Injuries and Diseases (Northern Ireland Old Cases) Act 1975

  Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975

  Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) (Amendment) Act 1975

  Statute Law Revision (Northern Ireland) Act 1976

  Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1976

  Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) (Amendment) Act 1977

  Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978

  Education (Northern Ireland) Act 1978

  Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978

  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons (Northern Ireland) Act 1978

  Criminal Appeal (Northern Ireland) Act 1980

  Statute Law Revision (Northern Ireland) Act 1980

  Elections (Northern Ireland) Act 1985

  Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) (Amendment) Act 1987

  The list does not include certain Acts (such as the Northern Ireland Constitution and Constitution (Amendment) Acts 1973, the Northern Ireland Acts 1974 and 1982, and the Northern Ireland Loans Acts 1975 and 1985) which are of United Kingdom-wide extent, notwithstanding that they are principally concerned with Northern Ireland.

  As far as the second part of the question is concerned, there are more than 500 Acts of Parliament that have been passed since 1973 that have application throughout the United Kingdom. Complete lists of such Acts are published in the annual volume of Northern Ireland statutes as table IV or V according to year.

  Social Workers
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the number of whole-time equivalent social workers in Northern Ireland in each year from 1976–77.

  Mr. Needham
  The number of whole-time equivalent social workers (fieldwork and management stall) in Northern Ireland in each year from 1979 is as follows:

  Number

  1979

  582·54

  1980

  675·40

  1981

  747·38

  1982

  808·78

  1983

  827·45

  1984

  850·48

  1985

  874·02

  1986

  896·30

  1987

  927·91

  624
  The information is not available for earlier years.

  Schools (Joint Projects)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many Catholic and Protestant schools have applied during the last six months for grants for specific joint projects; how many have been accepted; how many rejected; on what grounds these rejections have been made; how many are still awaiting consideration; and if he will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Since the introduction of the cross-community contact scheme in September last year, 103 school-based projects have applied for grant support, involving 242 schools drawn equally from the two communities. Of the 103 applications, 79 have been accepted, 12 rejected and 12 await a final decision.

  Projects have been rejected for a variety of reasons: a number included proposals for capital expenditure which is not eligible for assistance under the scheme; others lacked a sufficient programme of ongoing contact.

  I am greatly encouraged that the scheme has succeeded in stimulating and encouraging cross-community activities not only in schools but also in youth and community organisations.

  Limavady
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether persons who made objections to the public inquiry into the Limavady area plan will be given an opportunity to comment upon the inspector's report before it is made public.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 21 June 1988]: No.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he expects the inspector's report of the public inquiry into the Limavady area plan to be published.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 21 June 1988]: The inspector's report is likely to be published by the end of September 1988.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what planning applications have been(a) received and (b) approved for the construction of dwellings on land which is not presently approved for such development in the area surrounding Limavady town; and whether any such development works are presently underway on land which is not presently approved but was shown for such development on the area plan presently under consideration.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 21 June 1988]: Five planning applications have been received in accordance with article 17 of the Planning (Northern Ireland) Order 1972. Outline approval has issued for one site and detailed approval has been given for the construction of two dwellings. Development works are under way on one site.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what comments have been made by the Department of the Environment, Northern Ireland, in respect of the inspector's report following the public inquiry into the Limavady area plan;

  (2) under what powers the Department of the Environment, Northern Ireland, acted in making

  625
  comment on an inspector's report following a public inquiry into the Limavady area plan before publication of the inspector's report.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 21 June 1988]: The Department of the Environment (Northern Ireland) has not made any official comment on the inspector's report following the public inquiry into the Limavady area plan.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether Limavady district council will be given an opportunity to comment on the inspector's report which was made as a result of the public inquiry into the Limavady area plan before publication of the report.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 21 June 1988]: No. There is no statutory provision in the Planning (Northern Ireland) Order 1972 for such comment to be made.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Staff Recruitment
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, if he will set out, for each Department of the House and for the service of the House generally, the procedure and responsibility for the recruitment of staff; and what interviewing procedure is followed to establish(a) the physical and (b) the mental capabilities of those applying to work.

  Mr. Beith
  The provisions of the House of Commons (Administration) Act 1978 require that, as far as is consistent with the needs of the House, the conditions of service of staff are kept broadly in line with those of the Home Civil Service. Recruitment procedures therefore follow those laid down for the Civil Service, selection being on merit and on the basis of fair and open competition.

  In general, administrative responsibility lies with the Establishments Office acting on the instruction of Departments. Every candidate is required to complete a confidential health and character declaration form which is only made available to an interview panel when appropriate. Every applicant is notified of the Commission's policy on employment of disabled persons and the fact that it is an equal opportunities employer.

  Interview panels usually consist of three or four staff of the appropriate grades, whose chairman is responsible for reporting to the appropriate departmental head with whom resides responsibility for appointments. Each panel member is advised of the need to avoid discrimination on the grounds of sex and race when interviewing and assessing the suitability of candidates.
  626
  Variations to this general procedure, which accommodate the usual health and character inquiries, include the following:

  (a) Clerk's Department and Library

  Assistant Clerks and Assistant Library Clerks are recruited through the Civil Service Commission. The respective Departments are represented on the interview panel and the recommendation is subject to the agreement of the respective head of Department in the normal way.

  (b) Serjeant's Department

  Doorkeepers are recruited from men and women who have completed a period of regular service in one of Her Majesty's forces. These required qualifications were endorsed by the Select Committee on House of Commons Accommodation etc. in its report of 1954.

  (c) Refreshment Department

  Vacancies for industrial staff of the Refreshment Department are notified to the specialist hotel and catering branch of the jobcentre located at Denmark hill and those interested are asked to complete an application form. Suitable applicants are interviewed by the personnel administrator and other staff as appropriate in that Department.

  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, how many staff have been recruited by the Commission in each of the past five years.

  Mr. Beith
  The information requested is set out in the following table, each 12-month period running from June to the following May.

  Staff

  1983–84

  76

  1984–85

  141

  1985–86

  106

  1986–87

  122

  1987–88

  141

  The figures include temporary staff and those recruited by way of the Civil Service Commission.

  Staff (Insurance)
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, what insurance cover is provided for employees of the Commission.

  Mr. Beith
  In line with practice in the Civil Service the House of Commons Commission acts as its own insurers in respect of its staff and meets its liabilities from the House of Commons Administration Vote.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES On the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Truro.

The Lord Bishop of Bradford
Robert Kerr, Lord Bishop of Bradford—Was (in the usual manner) introduced between the Lord Bishop of Carlisle and the Lord Bishop of Truro.

Motor Car Repair and Servicing
2.42 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress is being made, in concert with the relevant trade associations, towards improving standards in the service and repair of motor cars.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, the code of practice for the motor industry which has been drawn up by the motor trade associations, in conjunction with the Director General of Fair Trading, contains requirements about car servicing and repairs. Any changes to that code, with a view to improving standards of car servicing and repairs, are a matter for the director general and the relevant associations.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his reply. It shows there is not much progress that can be made public since my Question on 3rd November when the Minister's noble friend replied that the Office of Fair Trading was discussing changes to the code of practice. Is my noble friend aware that adverse surveys have continued since November, particularly one in the Observer of 15th March, indicating that there has been little if any improvement in services at garages?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right that there has been little progress. However, I should say that the Office of Fair Trading has been pressing the motor trade associations to take action. I believe that it would be very helpful if some strengthening of the guarantees that are given by garages to their customers could be incorporated in an updated code. There have been a number of surveys which cause concern; on the other hand, I suppose it is fair to say that many garages do an excellent job. It may well be for the motorist to shop around and find the very best garage that will provide him with good service at a fair price.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Office of Fair Trading can help no one who has purchased a car from abroad in getting spare parts or even getting repairs effected? It offers no help whatsoever, and has said so in writing—in particular, to me.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I think that is a very good example. What is wrong with me giving an example of things that I have suffered which might affect thousands of other Britons? This is the place to raise such complaints.
Is the Minister further aware that there seems to be a wide discrepancy of charges among garages in England, Wales and Scotland for the same kind of repair to the same kind of vehicle? Will he not approach the associations involved to see whether they can check on those who are ruthlessly exploiting innocent motorists?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I respectfully suggest that next time the noble Lord might try buying a British motor car. But I do suspect that the Government are correct in believing that competition is the best way to get standards improved. I should point out to the noble Lord that there is a new generation of service centres being operated by operators such as Kwik-Fit, B & Q and Halfords Service Centres. They are bringing considerable competition to the traditional garage trade. There is plenty of scope for motorists to shop around, as I have already said, and to get the best price and the best quality.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, the car I own is a British car. The Director-General of Fair Trading did not know that. I shall draw the attention of the Minister to his reply and educate him.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, the noble Lord said that he had suffered problems in obtaining parts from abroad. That was what I understood him to say.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, will the noble Lord explain to the House how competition is expected to operate in this instance? After all, we are talking about competition of service, not of price. How are services and the standard of service to be properly advertised to maintain proper competition? Are garages to say that they are operating a four-star service, or only a one-star service, or that they are not very good, or that they will not replace a gasket or that customers had better watch out for the exhaust systems on their cars? How is this all meant to operate? Does not the Minister accept that trading standards inspectors in local authorities are no longer willing to volunteer their own cars to go into service stations for service because in many cases they come out worse than when they went in?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, as in many other industries standards of service are usually judged by the reputation of the person providing them. I believe that in this particular industry—motor servicing—so many people own motor cars and so many people never stop talking about motor cars that no doubt the word spreads round very quickly when an inadequate service is being provided. But as regards the point made about how many stars a garage should advertise and so on, when it comes to safety I do not think that there is any difference at all. One just has to have the very best service to achieve an acceptable

755
standard of safety. When it comes to matters that are more of a cosmetic nature to a motor car than of a safety nature, again I think that reputation and price will lead the consumer to the right outlet.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that we hear from the other side of the House about the failure of service stations to give good service, but that my experience is that the small family service station which looks after my car does so to my utmost satisfaction? This must be the case in the great majority of cases. Is my noble friend aware that of course he is right in saying that just as when we are buying anything else we must look around at different suppliers and choose the best one?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. There are many satisfactory garages and I should hope that car owners will take more trouble to make sure that they go to satisfactory suppliers.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the Question of his noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy was totally unnecessary and that competition will resolve everything?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, my noble friend no doubt would not have asked his Question if he had felt it to be unnecessary.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, can the Minister give us a report of the last meeting that he had with the trading standards officers regarding this whole question of car servicing and the selling of vehicles which are in an unroadworthy condition? The powers of trading standards officers are very limited because the main ones lie with the police force. But will the Minister be able to report at some future date further consultations with trading standards officers in order to overcome the very bad service that a great majority of motorists receive?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, the Government's view is that trading standards officers have considerable powers to deal with unsatisfactory services, particularly garages which are in the business of putting unroadworthy cars into the hands of the general public. Anyone who has cause for complaint should approach a trading standards officer; individuals can also go to court. We do not feel that it is necessary to take further steps at this stage. However, we shall be watching the effect of local licensing of used car traders in Scotland to see if any lessons can be learnt.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, since insurance companies frequently pick up the tab for servicing and repairs to vehicles, is the Minister taking any action to ensure that insurance companies get value for money for repairs and services?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, insurance companies have their own teams of highly competent assessors. They are probably the last people to need government assistance.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it was the very disquieting and exhaustive survey in Which?, the journal of the Consumers' Association, which prompted my question of 3rd November last year? Is the Minister aware that his noble friend Lord Young was also much concerned as regards the survey? Is he aware that I have complete confidence that the Office of Fair Trading is the correct office to make any changes in the code of practice which his noble friend indicated would probably be necessary?
Lord Beaverbrook: Yes, my Lords, I am aware of the Which? report. I am also aware of a number of other reports published since then. The Office of Fair Trading is pressing the motor trade. If satisfactory progress is not made, no doubt the director general will have to consider his next step.

Defence Contracts and Small Firms
2.52 p.m.
Baroness Sharpies Baroness Sharpies asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many small businesses will have the opportunity to tender for defence contracts.
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, through the small firms initiative, these businesses are especially encouraged to bid for defence work. In 1986–87 some 4,000 small firms received direct payments from the Ministry of Defence totalling over £1,000 million. Last year 746 more firms came on to the defence contractors list, of which about 40 per cent. employed fewer than 200 people.
Baroness Sharpies: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that very encouraging reply. Am I right in assuming that most of those small firms deal with the Ministry of Defence through the main contractors? Does the Minister agree that in the past large contractors have been very slow in paying small businesses and that in some cases payment has been outstanding for as long as 90 days? Is he able to put pressure on the large contractors to pay their small suppliers more quickly?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, my Answer referred to firms which have a direct relationship with the Ministry of Defence. There are an infinitely greater number of small firms working as subcontractors to the main systems contractors to the Ministry of Defence—something in excess of 2,000. As for payment terms applied by main contractors to small firms, we have recently invited the main contractors to agree to a code of practice which we shall be putting into some of the terms of our own contracts. The main contractors will be required to treat their subcontractors no less favourably than the main contractors are treated by us.
Lord Irving of Dartford: My Lords, in the past firms have been deterred from tendering by long and complicated bureaucratic procedures. Will the Minister ensure that such impediments no longer exist so that many more firms will come forward?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the small firms initiative to which I referred in my original Answer was launched just over a year ago. One important feature of that initiative is a small firms advice division which is available to advise small firms on how to understand and operate the contractual arrangements which the Ministry of Defence has in place. At the same time, we are looking at ways of simplifying the tendering and contracting procedure, particularly where comparatively small sums are involved.

Environmental Health Hazards: Prevention
2.55 p.m.
Lord Orr-Ewing Lord Orr-Ewing asked Her Majesty's Government:
What they are doing to alert owners and managers of buildings in public use to the measures necessary for the prevention of environmental health hazards such as Legionnaires disease.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, the reports of the committee of inquiry into the outbreak of Legionnaires disease at Stafford in 1985 produced a range of recommendations aimed at all those, including the Government, who are responsible for the design, commissioning, operation and maintenance of buildings and building services. The Government, in particular through the health departments, the Health and Safety Executive and the Property Services Agency, have taken appropriate action in accordance with those recommendations.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that tests undertaken in 1987 by independent companies showed that some public buildings and even hospitals had air conditioning systems which were in the most alarming state? Is he satisfied that there is enough urgency in putting the matter right and that tests are carried out regularly at given intervals? Perhaps he can also tell the House how often those tests are carried out in order to ensure that there is an improvement in the air conditioning and consequently the safety of people in such buildings.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I assure my noble friend that the Government take the matter seriously. The Department of Health and Social Security has issued new guidance about the inspection and maintenance of hospitals with cooling tower systems. In the near future, that will be incorporated into a wider code covering hot and cold water systems. The Health and Safety Executive issued a guidance note on the nature and prevention of Legionnaire's disease in January 1987. The Property Services Agency has
758
also taken action. Only this morning I heard from the local authority associations that they were taking action as well.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the air conditioning systems on 125-trains are extremely unsatisfactory in that whenever the trains brake, the most appalling smell results? Some of us feel very much under the weather if we travel on those trains for more than a hour and a half. I have no idea whether that contributes to Legionnaire's disease. However, I am sure that it contributes to a great many other unpleasant conditions.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I have noticed that too. I do not think that it is relevant to the Question on the Order Paper. However, I note the interesting comments made by the noble Baroness.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, can the Minister give an assurance that the funding problems of the Health and Safety Executive, which have been given some publicity, do not mean that it is unable to give inspections which are as frequent as it would like? Has the executive indicated that the quality of its work is somewhat reduced as a result of funding difficulties?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I shall draw the comments of the noble Lord to the attention of my right honourable friend.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, in my view the BBC is by no means underfunded. It wastes a great deal of money on overpaying second-rate presenters and allowing them to operate within the organisation on a private basis. Is it not a fact that the air conditioning system at the BBC was found to be wholly out of order simply because the slats needed replacing? As a result of the non-replacement of those slats—it would not have happened if the system had been properly inspected and maintained—two people died. Why did the BBC take no notice of the Minister's guidance and frequent reminders about the need to maintain such systems properly?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord will not expect me to answer his questions in detail. Inquiries into the BBC outbreak are continuing: one by the BBC and the other by Westminster City Council. They are expected to report in September. I believe that it would be wrong for me to comment on the matter at this stage.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Yes, my Lords, but guidance and advice are available and notice should be taken by other firms to prevent further deaths from the same cause.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I repeat that guidance has been issued and that the Health and Safety Executive is also looking into the outbreak through its normal procedures. If necessary, it will update the guidance which it produced in January 1987.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, may I ask my noble kinsman if legionella can be found in the heads of sprays in bathrooms? If so, how best should they be disinfected?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I understand that the disease, and indeed Pontiac fever, can be caught from the evaporation of water. It is important that such installations as air conditioning systems and water supplies are maintained to a proper standard.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, could my noble friend come back to the question that I asked? How often are such installations to be inspected? If our cars have to be inspected every year for safety is it unrealistic to think that the air-conditioning systems of public buildings, and particularly hospitals, should equally be regularly and carefully inspected once a year?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am sure that there is nobody involved in health or responsible for public or private buildings who is not aware of the potentially disastrous consequences of Legionnaire's disease, and I am sure that they ensure that their maintenance is to a high standard.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, can the Minister give an assurance that the Houses of Parliament are inspected every 12 months in the way he has indicated?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I cannot give the noble Baroness that assurance without notice.

Homeless People and Mental Illness
3 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
What percentage of homeless people are known to be suffering from mental illness.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Skelmersdale): My Lords, the Government have no basis on which to make a calculation in the form requested in the noble Lord's Question. However, we know that during the first quarter of 1988, 3 per cent. of the 31,100 households accepted as homeless by local authorities in England were regarded as vulnerable on the grounds of mental illness.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Is he aware that people dealing with the problem of homelessness recently issued information which shows that in London alone over the past four years homelessness and the number of people sleeping rough have doubled? Is he also aware that it is now calculated that 12,000 people sleep out rough each night in London alone. Is he further aware that the numbers and percentage of people suffering from mental health disorders of various kinds are increasing substantially? Ought we not to be looking for drastic action in order to stop the escalation in the number of those very tragic cases?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I aceept on behalf of the Government that the number of homeless people is indeed greater in London. In the last quarter, 6 per cent. of those accepted as homeless were mentally ill compared with 1 per cent. in the non-metropolitan districts. There has been a slight increase over the first quarter of last year when 2 per cent. of those households accepted as homeless were vulnerable due to mental illness compared with 3 per cent. this year. The figures for London are likely to be double those that I have just mentioned, which are for England as a whole.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the National Schizophrenia Fellowship has asserted that 50 per cent. of people staying overnight in St. Mungo's and Salvation Army hostels are mentally ill? Is he further aware that a team of psychiatrists who interviewed a sample of people at the Crisis at Christmas 1986 discovered that 40 per cent. were suffering from psychotic disturbances? If he challenges those figures, will he instruct or at least encourage regional health authorities to institute proper systems for surveying, following up and statistically examining what happens to people who have been discharged from mental hospitals so that we can have the information which the Minister says that he does not have at present?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord has asked two questions. One concerns the identification of this most unfortunate group of people. Local government statistics and indeed health authority statistics have to be precise. They cover that group which has been identified as mentally ill. The difficulty with some of the figures from other authoritative sources in this area is that there is no means of telling whether or not they relate to people who are identifiably ill. I shall certainly bring the noble Lord's words to the attention of health authorities.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that this situation emphasises the importance of improved community care? Will he tell us when we are going to get a statement from the Government on the Griffiths Report?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, no, I cannot tell the noble Baroness when there will be a government statement on the Griffiths Report for the simple reason that I do not yet know. When I know I shall of course inform not only the noble Baroness but the House as a whole.
As far as concerns community care, in the mental health field the policy is that in every health district there should be a comprehensive range of accessible and easy-to-use services for all mentally ill people. However in many areas the numbers of mentally ill have been growing at a greater pace than that at which the services can be provided. The Government are very conscious of that fact and that is why they are consistently putting more resources into that area.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, does the Minister accept that I, like my noble friend Lord Murray, am amazed by the figures he quoted? Is he aware that I have seen a survey which indicated that of 51,000 homeless people 40 per cent. were identified as having psychiatric problems? Does he accept that there seems to be no evidence of an increase in the number of people who are mentally ill, except in the case of the very elderly, and that the problem lies in the increase in the number of psychiatric cases discharged from hospitals and arriving in the community? Is he further aware that in that connection there is an increase in homelessness because there is not a satisfactory response in terms of the community care needs in our local authorities?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the Government have researched this area fairly extensively, as the noble Lord will know from recent experience and also from past experience. From time to time our attention is drawn to the cases of people who have been discharged from long stay hospitals and are—if the noble Lord will pardon the expression—floating in the community. We have always tracked down those cases and found that that is not the case. The problem arises with people who have had short-term treatment in acute psychiatric hospitals from which it is not unnatural to suppose that they should go back to the kind of living standards from which they came.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, the Minister gave some figures concerning the mentally ill. Does he have comparable figures for the mentally handicapped?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I do not have those figures with me at the moment but I shall write to the noble Lord if I may.
Lord Carter: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the recent report by Shelter which indicates that the increase in the number of disabled people—with all disabilities, not just mental illness—recorded as homeless is increasing at twice the percentage rate for able bodied people? Can he say what are the Government's plans to deal with that very serious situation?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I know of the report but I have to confess that I have not yet read it. I understand that it is very recent. I shall certainly be looking into it. I made the point earlier that there has been an increase and that the Government are aware of that. I said—I believe to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear—that resources have not yet caught up with that increase.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, is the Minister aware that one of the main difficulties in collating statistics is the fact that very often single homeless people cannot register with a GP and many of them have to use the hard-pressed emergency provisions in hospitals. As has been said, where they have been an in-patient they would be discharged into the same accommodation, which may even have been a cardboard box, with no after-care facilities at all. May I suggest to the Minister that he issues some
762
guidance to district health authorities and family practitioner committees with a view to their investigating means of improving after-care facilities as well as the registration difficulties of the single homeless?
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, my Lords, I should like to think further about the noble Lord's very valuable suggestion. It is a fact that central government and the health authorities are concentrating many of their resources into funding the voluntary bodies which are working so successfully in this area. Having said that, I shall certainly investigate the noble Lord's suggestion.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether his department works closely with the Home Office over the problem of the homeless who are mentally ill and who land up in police cells?
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, my Lords, in recent weeks there have been discussions on this very worrying subject.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the report from which I quoted in my first supplementary question showed that in the foreseeable future the number of people sleeping rough in London could be of the same order as in New York where it is estimated that at present 35,000 people sleep rough, an ever-increasing number of those people being found to be mentally ill in some way? I and those people involved with this problem welcome the recent announcement of increased financial resources from government to deal with it. But the Minister must be aware of the size of the problem with which we are dealing and realise that even those increased measures are only tilting at windmills in an attempt to fight a major war. Will he ask the Secretary of State as quickly as possible substantially further to increase resources—and I am speaking about providing housing for those people—in order to enable the people who are dealing with the problem to produce some improvement before it becomes too bad to deal with at all?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I shall of course pass on the remarks of the noble Lord to my right honourable friend. In so doing I shall have to tell him that from the remarks that the noble Lord has made it is likely that he will be a strong supporter of the Government's current Housing Bill, which has such an end in view.

Business
3.12 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Report stage of the Education Reform Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7 p.m. for approximately one hour and that during this adjournment the Report stage of the Protection of Animals (Amendment) Bill and the Committee stages

763
of the Horses, Ponies and Donkeys (No. 2) Bill and the Environment and Safety Information Bill will be taken.
Perhaps I may say a few words about the Report stage of the Education Reform Bill. In spite of a very late sitting indeed yesterday, progress was far short of what we had hoped. I realise that many noble Lords feel very strongly on some of the questions that were debated yesterday. However, I make a plea to the House to try to make up some of the ground that we lost yesterday and possibly get much further on today. In this regard perhaps I may draw the attention of your Lordships' House to the Companion to the Standing Orders and in particular to the directions that no noble Lord may speak more than once and that arguments fully deployed in Committee of the whole House should not be repeated at length on Report.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, I appreciate the remarks of the Government Chief Whip but I think that he underestimates the feeling about this Bill on all sides of the House. Surely the Government should have provided more time for us to debate this Bill; surely it is not difficult for the Government Chief Whip to talk over this matter with his colleagues, rearrange tomorrow's business and give us an extra day.
Lord Denham: My Lords, the noble Lord has been a Member of this House for a long time and he knows very well that it is up to the House to get through the business of the Government, whether it is a Conservative or a Labour Government who are in power. That has always been thought to be right. If an extra day is produced for one Bill, it means that that day must come off another Bill. It is the job of the usual channels to try to arrange that the time available, which is a finite commodity, is distributed fairly among Bills.
I do not protest about noble Lords speaking with passion when the House debates matters on which they feel very strongly, but time is limited and if noble Lords will speak in shorter compass we shall get through the business more easily.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I must say to the noble Lord the Chief Whip that the Government have very considerable responsibility for this situation. The House has to consider two huge Bills—the poll tax Bill and the education Bill. They are quite abnormally outsize Bills which we are expected to get through. They are highly controversial and a great many of their provisions are very badly drafted. It is not good enough for the noble Lord to put the blame on the opposition parties. A great deal of it rests with the Government.
Lord Denham: My Lords, if the noble Baroness who is the Deputy Leader of the Social and Liberal Democratic Party thinks that it is the duty of this House to hold up government business which has come through another place, then the motives of the Liberal Party have changed dramatically over the years.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I did not say anything of the sort and the Chief Whip knows perfectly well that I did not say any such thing. I said that the Government had presented this House with two absolutely outsize bills to run concurrently and it is quite unreasonable for them to complain when there is delay that the fault lies with the opposition parties.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I do not think I said what the noble Baroness suggests. It is clearly understood that in this House we get through the Government's business. This may be a fairly fraught Session. There have been other fraught Sessions in the past. As the noble Baroness knows full well, the difficulty is that should one take more time on one Bill it means that there is less time available for other Bills. It is an appeal that I make. I am not asking that this House should deal less fully with any subject that it wishes to discuss but that valuable time should be used as effectively as possible so that the business of the House can be carried through.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, the noble Lord has indicated what he believes to be the duty of the Opposition. I believe that the opposition parties in this House have behaved in exemplary fashion in recent weeks, especially in view of the burden laid on them by the Government's legislative programme which in my view is out of all proportion to the length of the Session. One must also bear in mind that this is the first Session of what may possibly be a five-year Parliament. In my opinion the Government have placed an intolerable burden upon this House.
Against that background I think it is quite wrong for the noble Lord to say that the Opposition are in any way failing in their duty. The fact of the matter is that noble Lords on the government side of the House have taken an equal if not greater part in many debates on the Education Reform Bill and the Local Government Finance Bill. That is perfectly right and proper. I believe that this House is conducting itself in an exemplary fashion and is acting very much in the public interest. It is therefore quite wrong for the noble Lord to give the impression of chiding the Opposition—or indeed his own colleagues, because I noted that when he was making his speech he looked back at them.
I plead with the noble Lord and the Leader of the House to consider once again what might be done about this situation. My noble friend said that there was a case for allowing an additional day for this Bill. It may well be that a case can be made out for spending more days on it.
I want to say to the noble Lord that I believe it would be quite wrong for him to expect this House to sit into August. This House should rise at the end of July. It has worked extremely hard for 12 months now, since the last election, and it would be quite wrong for there to be a long overlap period. We have the experience of sitting far longer than the other place and, given the nature of this Chamber, that again is to place a burden which is far too great upon it, especially in view of what noble Lords on all sides of the House do to facilitate the progress of business. It would be very much against the public interest and the interest of this House for dicussion about very

765
important and contentious Bills to be squeezed into a short space of time in order to suit the Government's convenience. It is wrong for the noble Lord to expect that.
The duty of this House is to scrutinise Bills properly. That is what it is doing. I do not expect the noble Lord to reply immediately but I ask him to consider with his noble friend the Leader of the House what might be done to hear the interests of this House in mind.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I do not dissent for one moment from what the noble Lord says about the way in which the opposition parties have behaved during this Session. In that regard I have no fault to find at all, and on occasion I have expressed my gratitude for it.
I was answering the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, who suggested that more time should be found. The difficulty is that if we find more time it has to come from somewhere. That is the point I was trying to make. The answer is for the usual channels to get together for discussions. I know that my noble friend the Leader of the House will take a very close interest. If I gave the impression that I was in any way detracting from the function of the opposition parties in the House, I apologise.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I am much obliged for what the noble Lord has said. All of us appreciate that in ordinary circumstances the noble Lord is a nice man. But we want him to transfer that niceness to his office as Government Chief Whip. Perhaps he will be good enough to bear in mind that there have been additions to the programme that was outlined in the gracious Speech last June. For example, we have had the steel privatisation Bill. We have had the addition of the abolition of ILEA to the education Bill. Many other things have been done to increase the burden of work.
The question is whether the noble Lord and other noble Lords expect the gracious Speech to be made in the ordinary way on 5th November. If he is expecting that, then he is expecting this House to do too much. If he is expecting that the House should come back, for example, during the conference period early in October, he is again expecting too much. It is up to the government management to make sure that this House is treated in a proper fashion. I plead with him therefore once again to discuss the matter with his noble friend and his right honourable friends to make sure that business is arranged in a proper fashion.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition has, in his normal charming and skilful way, managed to widen discussion about the Companion to the Standing Orders, and its relevance to today's business, to what the House will do over the coming weeks. The noble Lord has every right to do that. As the noble Lord and I very often meet each other outside the Chamber to discuss the House, I suggest that in addition to the usual channels the noble Lord and I have a word about the future.
766
In the meantime, perhaps I may suggest that we now turn to the business in hand within the confines of the rules of orders set out in your Lordships' Companion.

Education Reform Bill
3.22 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Education and Science (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(Baroness Hooper.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 41:
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause:
("Implementation of National Curriculum.
.—(1) It shall be the duty of the National Curriculum Council, and the Curriculum Council for Wales, so to exercise the powers conferred by section 4(2) below as to propose to Parliament the establishment of programmes of study and attainment targets for a complete National Curriculum as soon as is reasonably practicable and desirable, having regard to—

(a) the availability of teachers, books, equipment and other resources;

(b) the orderly development of educational opportunities for pupils of all aptitudes; and

(c) the views of parents, local education authorities and other persons or bodies who appear to it to be concerned.

(2) It shall be the duty of the School Examinations and Assessment Council so to exercise the powers conferred by section 9(4), in co-operation with the National Curriculum Council and the Curriculum Council for Wales, as to propose to Parliament assessment arrangements appropriate to the implementation of the National Curriculum.
(3) The establishment of a National Curriculum under this section shall commence with the core subjects, followed by any other subjects specified in section 3 above.
(4) Where any of the above councils wishes to propose the making of an Order by the Secretary of State under section 4(2) below, (whether or not on the basis of recommendations from any subject working party established by the Secretary of State), it shall give notice of the proposal and undertake consultation in accordance with section 15(3) below;
(5) Where any Council recommends to the Secretary of State, after the carrying out of the consultation referred to in subsection (4) above, the making of an Order to implement a part of the National Curriculum, he may accept it, or reject it, and in the latter case, he shall refer the matter back to the Council with his reasons.
(6) Where the Secretary of State accepts a recommendation of a Council, he shall, subject to subsections (7) and (8) below, make an interim Order, and any such Order made under this subsection shall be

(a) subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament; and

(b) brought into effect by a final order made in accordance with subsection (8) below.

(7) Interim Orders under subsection (6) above may be made in any sequence, but final orders under subsection (8) below shall be made so as to secure that—

(a) programmes of study, attainment targets and assessment arrangements are introduced at the same date for any subject in relation to pupils in any of the key stages specified in section 3(3); and

(b) the implementation of the National Curriculum and assessment in relation to any subject shall be cumulative in relation to an individual pupil, such that no pupil to whom it applies in relation to a particular subject in one key stage shall cease to be subject to it (in relation to that subject) at any later key stage.

(8) The Secretary of State may, in any year after Royal Assent, make one or more final Orders for the purpose of setting out the timetable for the implementation of any interim Orders which he intends to bring into effect in a subsequent year, together with any modifications to any such Order that he considers reasonably necessary, and no order shall be made under this subsection unless a draft of it has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.
(9) The National Curriculum and assessment arrangements shall be implemented under this section during the period from the beginning of the academic years 1989–90 to 1994–95, or such later dates as may be specified by the Secretary of State in regulations.").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 41, with the leave of the House I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 42,53,55,93 and 97. This is a comprehensive amendment, and therefore rather long and complicated. It is designed to secure a proper process for implementation of the national curriculum. In the light of the discussion that we have just had I shall try to be as brief as possible, but I hope that your Lordships' House will bear with me for a moment because this is quite a complicated additional clause. Perhaps I may briefly explain what it will do and then give the reasons why it is needed.
The National Curriculum Council, and the equivalent body for Wales, will be charged with making proposals to Parliament for the introduction of the curriculum subject to the agreement of the Secretary of State. The curriculum will be introduced as teachers and other resources are available and not before, and after discussion with parents, local education authorities and other bodies. The responsibility for proposing to Parliament arrangements for the new national assessments will be passed to the School Examinations and Assessment Council. The core subjects will be introduced first. There will be a consultation process before orders are made as in the Bill at present on attainment targets and programmes, and the amendment extends this to assessment.
The Secretary of State will retain the power to reject recommendations for councils and to refer them back for further consideration. Interim orders will be made as areas of the curriculum become available for implementation thereby allowing Parliament to review the content of the curriculum stage by stage as recommendations are brought forward.
A final order subject to affirmative resolution will be made each year containing the elements of the curriculum to be implemented in the subsequent and following years. In this way Parliament, before giving final approval to any particular part of the curriculum, will be able to see how it fits within the overall timetable for the following years. Whenever a part of the curriculum is introduced—for example, French for 14 year-olds to 16 year-olds—the amendment states that the programmes of study, the attainment targets and the assessment arrangements should all be introduced at the same date. Without this provision pupils could start on examination courses in the early years without knowing what form of assessment arrangements they will have to undergo at the end of the course.
The amendment provides that curriculum and assessment should be cumulative in relation to an individual pupil in respect of a particular subject.
768
This means that once a pupil has entered the curriculum in respect of, let us say, English, he or she should not leave the national curriculum at a later stage in his or her career. Under the Government's present plans there appears to be a possible danger that parts of the curriculum for some of the later school years might not be in place in time for the earliest entrants to the curriculum in that subject to continue to study it within the national framework. The amendment sets down a minimum of five years for the implementation of the curriculum subject to a longer period being set by the Secretary of State. That accords with the Secretary of State's own statements and the recommendations in the TGAT report on testing.
The essential point of the amendment is the remarkably scant detail available, even at this very late stage, on the precise timetable and the processes involved in implementing the national curriculum. Perhaps I may develop this a little further.
The curriculum is at present being developed, even while the Bill is being discussed in Parliament, by the first of a series of informal working groups which the Secretary of State has already set up. At first glance it may appear from the Bill that the National Curriculum Council will be the body which is entrusted with introducing and then monitoring the national curriculum. However, that is not really so. The council will be handed parts of the national curriculum as they come forward from the subject working groups and is then required to undertake consultation on them. It will have the opportunity to comment but it will not have initiated the content of the curriculum. In practice the pressure for implementation at the earliest date will mean that the National Curriculum Council has very little role in determining the precise content of the curriculum. Its real role will be to advise the Secretary of State on possible modifications and changes in later years. Even in that situation its role is secondary and the curriculum will remain subject to the direct control of the Secretary of State.
The same applies to the School Examinations and Assessment Council which will have a quite limited role in reviewing assessment arrangements in future years, subject again to the control of the Secretary of State. The amendment proposes that the fashioning of the curriculum should be restored to the educational bodies appointed for reasons of their experience. The Government are adopting precisely this process in Scotland. We had some discussion about the advantages of the Scottish system yesterday. I should like to repeat the advantages in relation to this aspect of the Bill.
Curriculum guidelines have been issued within the last 12 months in Scotland, endorsed by the Secretary of State, by the consultative committee on the curriculum there. This is being done without notification; the initiative in fashioning the guidelines, which are not prescriptive, is with the educational specialists represented on the councils. The Secretary of State for Scotland is taking no direct role in prescribing the curriculum. The responsibility for implementing the curriculum in Scotland will be that of the council in terms of shaping a national framework for local education authorities in

769
determining the local curriculum and for schools, principally head teachers, to select the individual curriculum applicable to their own pupils. No reason whatsoever has been advanced by the Government for abandoning what seems to me a common-sense approach in relation to England and Wales. I wonder whether the Minister will give the House some reasons for the difference in approach.
The amendment also proposes that the national curriculum should be cumulative in respect of individual pupils. Information now emerging from the DES explains why we consider that this is needed. In maths, for example, five year-olds will start the national curriculum in September 1989, but potentially at least they will leave it in September 1991. Similarly five year-olds starting science subjects in September 1989 will need to have the national curriculum of the seven to 11 year-old key stage in place by September 1991 if they too do not leave it at that date only to re-enter it when they are 11, four years later. Primary school children attempting technology from September 1989 may have only two years of the national curriculum before they cease to be subject to it.
To avoid these pitfalls, can we have a clear commitment from the Government that all the gaps will be filled before any individual child encounters them in going through the school system? The amendment seeks to achieve this.
Parliament will find it very difficult to keep track under the present proposals of the national curriculum as it emerges. It will be asked for each individual order on a negative procedure without knowing how it relates to other orders on other parts of the curriculum. That is clearly unsatisfactory. The amendment proposes that orders should be rolled up in each year under an affirmative procedure to enable Parliament to debate the timetable for forthcoming years. Without this process it will be virtually impossible to exercise proper scrutiny over the introduction of the curriculum and fears as to the effective level of power being handed over to the Secretary of State will be further exacerbated.
The amendment seeks to introduce the national curriculum only when teachers with appropriate qualifications and training are available. Without that very fundamental requirement being met, the whole enterprise will be open to considerable risk. The amendment also seeks to introduce the national curriculum in a way that will be seen as fair and which makes the maximum amount of information available both to Parliament and to the public, including, of course, parents. Without this form of open process parents are likely to be extremely bewildered as to the way in which the curriculum will affect their own children.
Haste to introduce the curriculum on a piecemeal basis means that the Government might fail in their duty to introduce an important educational reform with the interests of children in mind. If on the other hand the Government accept the amendment, that would demonstrate their commitment to an orderly introduction of the curriculum within the timetable
770
that they set down for themselves. Without it, proper planning cannot take place and children will suffer. I beg to move.
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, as instructed, I shall be brief; but I want to emphasise two matters in particular. One is the total irrationallity and unfairness of asking the teaching profession to teach a curriculum if there is not adequate provision of teachers, equipment and resources generally. There should be no compulsion on the schools to deliver unless the materials are there to make it possible so to do. It cannot be right to ask the education world to make bricks without straw.
The second point I want to underline is the importance of parliamentary scrutiny. As the noble Baroness will be aware, we have all along been extremely anxious about the centralising tendencies of this legislation. We have been told again and again that the Government are decentralising because they are giving power to parents; but Parliament also wants to come in on this, otherwise the details in the hands of the Secretary of State will in reality be dictated by the school service in the DES. It is right and proper that Parliament should play a role in examining how the curriculum is being set and should have the opportunity to have its say. I very much hope that the amendment will be supported.
Lord Somers: My Lords, I believe that I understand the meaning of the amendment—at least I hope I do—although it was a little difficult to take it all in. I wonder whether it would not make matters a little too rigid. In some parts of the country there may be schools to which the national curriculum may not he very suited. In that case surely the head master should be the person to decide what alterations should be made. If I were a head master I should be very angry indeed at having all power to run my school taken away from me and put in the hands of a national curriculum council. While such a scheme might work very well over a large percentage of the country, it is a pity to lay down the law too hard so that no variations can be made.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the Minister—whom I should like to thank for her sympathy when she observed me yawning on the.Bench at 2 o'clock this morning—knows that I am aware of the need to husband time. I make no apology for speaking to the amendment because it has a considerable claim to be regarded as the most important on the Marshalled List. One cannot do a job without tools. One cannot teach without teachers. One cannot read without books. When my own department interviews entrance candidates, it regularly asks them about the contents of their school libraries. We are well aware that standards of provision are falling rapidly, seriously and drastically—indeed to the point where many candidates arrive quite ill-prepared for what they are supposed to be doing.
In these circumstances, laying a major new obligation on teachers (themselves in a steadily diminishing supply), even more obligations on head teachers (themselves in even more rapidly

771
diminishing supply) seems to be an unnecessary determination to cause problems.
I listened with a great deal of care to many speeches on the other side of the House on the Local Government Finance Bill as well as on this Bill. There seems to me to be an undue tendency to assume that spending is profligate, to assume that the imposition of financial limits may be met simply by the elimination of waste. If there was any quantity of that it was eliminated some time ago. I do not believe that it is known how hard rate capping, for example, has been and quite how difficult it will be to undertake major new obligations without the tools to do it. It used to be a legal maxim that the law does not compel one to do the impossible. I should like to know when it ceased to be one.
Baroness Young: My Lords, we have all listened with great interest to the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, introducing this very comprehensive new clause covering two major aspects of the Bill. There are two comments that I should like to make on it. The first concerns the first part of the proposed new clause which seems to be a kind of declaratory statement about what should happen. It is extremely difficult to define what the circumstances are that would be required to be met before anything started at all.
I can see that only too easily almost any local authority or school could say that a part of the statements, (a), (b) or (c), was missing and that they were unable to carry out part of the national curriculum. Were time to allow, which it does not, we could have an interesting debate about the availability of teachers. We could debate the way in which local authorities manage the teachers that they have and whether they make the best use of them. It has always struck me as being a major weakness that they look after the married women who leave to have a baby but then lose track of them and do not reemploy them. What happens to them when there is a shortage of teachers in subjects such as maths or science?
This is not the moment for a debate on the supply of teachers but I should like to make the serious point that one could argue for a long time about the availability of teachers. To write such a provision as that into the Bill appears to give an opportunity for those who do not with to implement the national curriculum not to do so on grounds which are not sustainable. I believe that the same argument applies to books, equipment, other resources and so forth. As we are being pressed not to speak at length I shall not pursue that argument further.
My second point relates to the subject of parliamentary scrutiny to which the House has always attached great importance. There will he opportunities to scrutinise on the delegated legislation. However, Parliament has never scrutinised the precise curriculum within schools, although for the first time it will have an opportunity to see what is being taught in a more public way than has ever been possible. A criticism today is of the difficulty of finding out what is being taught in schools and there is a great deal of contradictory information. This is an interesting discussion and I
772
do not know what line my noble friend will take on the matter. I do not believe that it helps the development of what the Government are trying to achieve in the Bill. I oppose the amendment.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, the amendment contains a number of extremely important points. I believe that none is more important than the matter to which the noble Baroness, Lady Young, has referred—the availability of teachers. I should like to speak briefly and ask what the Government mean by the word "teachers" as regards the implementation of the national curriculum. I should like to go further and ask what they mean by the words "qualified teachers".
I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I repeat what I said in the House last week. We should be concerned about trained teachers. Defining a teacher as "qualified" and as "trained" can be two different things. The Secretary of State has recently announced a proposal to licence teachers and I hope that he does not implement that. The issue has arisen because of the shortage of teachers in certain subjects: physics, mathematics, certain modern foreign languages and so forth. Before anything such as the national curriculum is implemented I hope that the Government will make quite sure that we shall have qualified and trained teachers, however long that may take.
I believe that the time is long overdue for the establishment of what some people would choose to call a general teaching council. Its remit would include the supply of teachers, about which many noble Lords are most concerned. It would also deal with the question of training. I hasten to say that had such a council been in existence for the past few years we might not have had the present serious shortage of teachers in certain subjects, which I believe will hamper the national curriculum. I hope that in her reply the Minister will comment on that subject which I believe to be crucial.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, one of the reasons that the amendment has been put forward is the uncertainty surrounding the national curriculum. We do not yet know exactly what will happen and when, although the Bill is at Report stage in the House of Lords. The responses of the Government to the various reports are very late. The TGAT report was published at the end of last year and the Government did not make a firm response for some time. The supplementary reports which were requested have only this month been responded to by the Government. There is a great deal of uncertainty everywhere as to what will happen and when. It exists among local authorities, teachers and parents. The amendment attempts to lay down an orderly process for discovering that.
Of course there is anxiety about the availability of teachers, as the noble Baroness, Lady Young, said. I obtained figures from Cambridgeshire which show that 69 additional teachers will be needed in secondary schools to implement the national curriculum; 43 laboratories will be needed in 45

773
secondary schools; there will be 2 million children for assessment and testing. All those matters do not appear to have been taken fully into consideration in proposing the national curriculum. We should like to know something about the timescale and how the Government see the introduction of the national curriculum.
I agree with my noble friend that to have the national curriculum implemented for five to seven year-olds, not for seven to 11 year-olds but then again for 11 to 14 year-olds is a totally unsatisfactory way of carrying on. The point of the amendment is to obtain some idea of what will happen and to know that Parliament will be informed of what is happening during the course of the next few years. We understand that it will be at least five years before it is in operation. We should like to know a little more and to make certain that Parliament will be kept informed as matters go ahead.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we are faced in these amendments with a number of issues, many of which were dealt with in Committee. Before turning to the detailed amendments I should like to respond to a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, in introducing them. She asked why the Government's proposals for the national curriculum in England and Wales will be established in a different way from Scotland. The process of creating a common curriculum in Scotland has been continuing for a number of years and considerable progress has been achieved there. It is therefore possible for the Government's policy on the school curriculum to build on what exists and on the activities of its existing curriculum and examinations council. Progress in England and Wales has been neither as fast nor as well developed as in Scotland. Therefore the Government's proposals for the national curriculum set out to achieve the more rapid progress now required if all the children in the country are to have the opportunity to benefit as fully as possible from their years in compulsory education and with the benefit of a broad and balanced curriculum.
Turning to the specific amendments I should like to deal with the points raised by Amendment No. 41 and then those which are consequential to it. There have been many attempts to have us put into the Bill declaratory provisions to the effect that the national curriculum will be introduced sensibly, taking into account all relevant factors, particularly the availability of resources, and with full consultation. We have resisted such declaratory additions because we feel that they are unnecessary and could even be unhelpful.
What is needed is a framework which ensures that the national curriculum orders, including the speed of their implementation, are fully debated, widely consulted upon and subject where appropriate to the final test of parliamentary approval. That is the framework which we have established in the Bill—and it is a framework Bill after all—with the two-stage consultation process and the publication of a summary of representations and of the NCC's advice, with the requirement for the Secretary of
774
State to publish his reasons if he goes against that advice.
The second is another old favourite, the case for making the orders specifying assessment arrangements subject to the same processes as the orders for attainment targets and programmes of study. I repeat that that would not be the right approach. We have already had the main consultation on the shape of the assessment arrangements, following the publication of the TGAT report, and have agreed to its main recommendations as those which should underpin more detailed provisions. We shall come to TGAT in more detail on later amendments, as the noble Baroness has said, and I shall not make any further comment at this stage.
The assessment arrangements will be set out in orders, subject by subject. They will be the combination of the TGAT framework and the targets set out by the individual subject working groups, on which there will be full consultation. It would not be right to have an independent round of consultation, under the auspices of a different council, on arrangements whch flow from and are designed to serve the national curriculum and will be largely administrative. There will be piloting of tests and other assessment instruments, and we shall be seeking the best professional advice in developing them and ensuring that they meet the objectives we are agreed upon. In practical terms the orders will need to be regularly updated with the details of assessment arrangements year by year. And SEAC will have an important role to play. Under Clause 9(4) (a) its first functions are already to keep all aspects of assessment under review, and to advise the Secretary of State on such matters as he may refer to it or as it sees fit. The Secretary of State is able to ask the council's advice on how the arrangements are operating, and the council can exercise its right to give advice even when no explicit request has been made. For all these reasons, we believe that this aspect of the amendment is misconceived.
Thirdly, we return to the notion that the statutory councils rather than the Secretary of State should be in the driving seat in proposing the national curriculum subject by subject. I believe that in this the noble Baroness Lady Blackstone, has failed to justify how she feels able to give this important duty to a non-elected body, rather than to the Secretary of State who is clearly answerable to Parliament and the country. For this reason Amendment No. 41, which brings in the new clause, is an uneasy compromise—the NCC is required to make proposals "to Parliament" in subsection (1), but it is clear from subsections (5) and (6) that they would only be able to make proposals to the Secretary of State which he may accept or reject. It is obviously right that the main and central duty to establish the national curriculum should rest with the Secretary of State, required as he is to consult the NCC and take full account of its advice, and available as he will be to answer for his decisions.
We now come to a couple of new points raised by the amendment. The idea of two sets of orders, one with and one without a timetable attached, does not appear to add anything to the Bill. Rather it

775
introduces great possibilities for confusion, with "inoperative" orders on the statute book, and two separate rounds of consultation where one could suffice and deal with the interrelated issues raised by any order. In practice I believe that this would be a recipe for muddle, duplication, and worse. All the relevant issues will be debated when orders are made, as they will have to set out the timetable for implementation in relation to the key stages to which each relates.
The second new thought is the proposed provision that national curriculum requirements should only be introduced in a way which allows a pupil to continue through all key stages once embarked on a national curriculum programme in any subject. The noble Baroness took pains to explain exactly what she meant in this respect. Of course, in an ideal world, this would be the best way to proceed as long as it did not require undue delay in any subject. But to avoid the possibility of such delay, we do not wish at this stage to rule out the possibility of introducing the national curriculum in a particular subject for pupils in most school years while delaying its introduction in the later secondary years, which might be necessary to make sure that adequate teaching or other resources would be available. I am sure that the House would confirm that that would be in the best interests of the children. We should not prevent younger pupils having the benefit of a coherent national system as soon as possible, and the degree of consistency already required in years four and five by the national criteria for the GCSE will ensure that they are not at that stage met with wildly different demands which they are unable to cope with. We do not believe that children will suffer.
Finally, perhaps I may deal with Amendment No. 55. The amendment is concerned with the availability of teachers. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, all emphasise that aspect. It seeks to make sure that the speed of implementation of the national curriculum takes account of this factor. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has already made it clear that before introducing any part of the national curriculum he will want to be fully satisfied about the availability of suitably qualified teachers and other resources However, in the unlikely event that some future Secretary of State did not make such consideration, then this would emerge in the consultation processes required by Clauses 15 and 16. The statutory orders defining attainment targets and programmes of study, and detailing the timetable for their introduction, will also be subject to parliamentary scrutiny, and this will give a further opportunity to explore the question of teacher availability.
I must emphasise that the ratio of pupils to teachers is at its lowest ever level. The Government's expenditure plans allow for it to fall still further to 17:1, which will provide LEAs collectively with scope to redeploy teachers to prepare and implement the national curriculum. It should be borne in mind that, in secondary schools, pupil numbers are still declining. In England secondary school numbers will fall by 280,000 between now and 1991—a drop of
776
over 9 per cent. The recovery in secondary school numbers will be much slower than the fall and will not reach the level of this year again until the year 2000. That allows LEAs and schools the chance to redeploy teachers effectively and to make the most of the collective skills and expertise of the teaching force as they prepare for and deliver the national curriculum.
The total provision required for all subjects in secondary schools in the 1990s will be less because of the drop in the pupil population. We have not yet made firm estimates of the need for specialist teachers of maths and science because we have not yet seen the working groups' final reports which are due shortly but we must remember that virtually all pupils up to age 14 now study these subjects. We shall certainly look at the national picture in setting out a timetable for implementing the requirements stage by stage; but of course it will be, as now, for local authorities and schools to ensure that they have the right staff for their needs.
We intend to build on the existing support for in-service training in maths and science to help prepare teachers, over the course of the next year, for the new demands of the national curriculum from September 1989. But again I remind your Lordships that we shall be building on existing practice in the core areas, not asking teachers to throw out all they know and start from scratch.
Indeed, without dwelling too long on the subject, we are also making provision for in-service training through education support grants and we believe that that should cover the needs of the teachers in preparing them. There has been considerable interest and discussion on the proposals, and most teachers are at least alerted, if not already embarked, upon consideration of what is involved.
Therefore, I hope that the proposers of these amendments will feel able to withdraw this and other amendments in the group. If not, I ask your Lordships to join me in rejecting them.
Earl Russell: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may ask her to address the question of availability of teachers in particular subjects. That is something which the teacher-pupil ratio does not altogether address. That creates a need for teachers in particular subjects. Can that need be met?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I believe that addressed the subject of maths and science teachers in particular. Of course, in terms of the national curriculum, there will also be particular needs in terms of language teachers and possibly others. The Government are certainly addressing those needs; but I believe that my general remarks about the decline of the pupil population over the foreseeable period applies in general to this and to the fact that there will be scope for redeployment and in-service training of teachers to meet the needs. We are certainly regarding this matter seriously. Nobody is suggesting that it is a perfect picture, but we are working hard on it.
4 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her long and considered reply. But it leaves a number of unresolved problems. I should first like to comment on what the Minister said about Scotland. I accept that a form of national curriculum has been under development in Scotland for some time. However, would it not be much more sensible to build slowly but successfully here in England and Wales, just as has been happening in Scotland, securing a consensus from all those who will participate in running the national curriculum—the local authorities, teachers, and so on? Would not that be better than rushing to impose it on people who are extremely reluctant to take it on hoard? To do that would be a recipe for failure when, instead, we could be proceeding on the same basis that we have seen in Scotland.
The framework for the national curriculum should he built on an underlying assumption which ought to be made explicit about the availability of resources. I should also say something about teachers. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, said she thought we would never get the national curriculum off the ground because there would always be arguments about the availability of teachers. I can assure your Lordships that there is absolutely no intention that the amendment should delay the implementation of the national curriculum. The sole intention is that the national curriculum should be introduced in an orderly way that will make it a success.
It would be dangerous—would it not?—to seek to introduce, for example, a modern language for all pupils in our secondary schools (which does not exist at present) without enough teachers of modern languages. If we are to use teachers of modern languages who do not have the appropriate qualifications I am afraid pupils will turn against learning a modern language rather than benefit from it. A similar situation will arise if we endeavour to introduce science to all pupils in secondary schools. I am very much in favour of both developments in the national curriculum for the reasons put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Young—the failure in our system to get girls to study science and boys to study modern languages.
Once again, however, we must recognise that there is already a desperate shortage of physics teachers in our system. If we seek to impose on secondary schools science for all pupils without having enough teachers, then I do not believe that we shall have even one extra girl taking such subjects because they will be put off by the incompetence of the teachers. Already in the university sector we are facing the worrying phenomenon of an enormous decline in applications for degrees in physics. I suspect that the position will get worse if we introduce subjects into the curriculum without good teachers. Further, if ordinary classrooms rather than laboratories are used to teach science, what will pupils make of that?
In spite of what the Minister said, the teacher shortage is acute in some parts of the country, especially at the primary stage. I should not like to see primary school children being taught technology by primary teachers who have never had training in the
778
teaching of technology. We need proper in-service courses off the ground before we go ahead.
I now refer to assessment arrangements. The Minister said that she did not think it right to have independent consultation because professional advice will be sought. I am extremely glad that professional advice will be sought but this is such an important new part of the whole education system—assessment on this scale—that I believe it requires the widest possible consultation.
As regards the role of the statutory councils replacing the role of the Secretary of State—the Secretary of State is elected while the councils are not—the purpose of the amendment is to involve Parliament which at least in the other place is elected in scrutinising what is proposed. Moreover, the Secretary of State will continue to have the opportunity to reject proposals that are put forward by the experts on the statutory councils.
Finally, the Minister said that in an ideal world we would have the entire curriculum in place in time for children to work through it rather than entering it and then leaving it. We are told that that ideal world does not exist. I believe that we should wait for something closer to an ideal world rather than almost certainly produce a system where muddle and confusion will predominate as pupils move in and out of the national curriculum, uncertain as to why that is happening.
In the light of all those difficulties and uncertainties to which the Minister has not, in my view, given an adequate reply, I must divide the House.
4.6 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 41) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 99; Not-Contents, 137.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Adrian, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Amherst, E.

Flowers, L.

Ardwick, L.

Foot, L.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Gallacher, L.

Banks, L.

Galpern, L.

Birk, B.

Gladwyn, L.

Blackstone, B.

Glenamara, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Grey, E.

Bottomley, L.

Grimond, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Hampton, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Hanworth, V.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Carter, L.

Hooson, L.

Chitnis, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Hughes, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Jacques, L.

David, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Kagan, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Kearton, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Kennet, L.

Ennals, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Kilmarnock, L.

Ezra, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Falkland, V.

Leatherland, L.

779

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Sainsbury, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Scanlon, L.

Longford, E.

Seear, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Serota, B.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Stallard, L.

McNair, L. [Teller.]

Stedman, B.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Mishcon, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Nicol, B.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Northfield, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Oram, L.

Underhill, L.

Peston, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Walston, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Raglan, L.

Whaddon, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

White, B.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Rochester, L.

Willis, L.

Rugby, L.

Winstanley, L.

Russell, E.

Young of Darlington, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Headfort, M.

Arran, E.

Henley, L.

Auckland, L.

Hesketh, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Hives, L.

Belstead, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Bessborough, E.

Hood, V.

Blake, L.

Hooper, B.

Blatch, B.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Ilchester, E.

Brookeborough, V.

Ironside, L.

Broxbourne, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Butterworth, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Caccia, L.

Joseph, L.

Caithness, E.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Killearn, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

King of Wartnaby, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Knutsford, V.

Carnock, L.

Layton, L.

Cawley, L.

Lindsay, E.

Cayzer, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Chelwood, L.

London, Bp.

Clitheroe, L.

Long, V.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Cottesloe, L.

McFadzean, L.

Cowley, E.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Cox, B.

Manchester, D.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Manton, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Marley, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Merrivale, L.

Dormer, L.

Mersey, V.

Dundee, E.

Middleton, L.

Eccles, V.

Milverton, L.

Effingham, E.

Monk Bretton, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Mottistone, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Faithfull, B.

Moyne, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Ferrier, L.

Nelson, E.

Fortescue, E.

Northbourne, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Gainford, L.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Orkney, E.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Oxfuird, V.

Gibson, L.

Pender, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Porritt, L.

Gridley, L.

Pym, L.

Halsbury, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Renton, L.

Harris of High Cross, L.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Harvington, L.

St. Davids, V.

Hastings, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Havers, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

780

Sandford, L

Teviot, L.

Seebohm, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Selborne, E.

Thorneycroft, L.

Selkirk, E.

Thurlow, L.

Shannon, E.

Trafford, L.

Sharples, B.

Trefgarne, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Truro, Bp.

Somers, L.

Ullswater, V.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Swansea, L.

Wise, L.

Swinfen, L.

Wolfson, L.

Swinton, E.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Terrington, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.15 p.m.
Clause 4 [Duty to establish the National Order]:
[Amendments Nos. 42 to 44 not moved.]
Lord Ritchie of Dundee Lord Ritchie of Dundee moved Amendment No.45:
Page 3, line 38, after ("the") insert ("core and other").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 45, with the leave of the House I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 47 to 50 and No. 54. The object of this series of amendments is, first, to clarify the confusion that seemed to reign when we were discussing at Committee stage the difference between the core and the foundation subjects. The other object of the amendments is to try to soften to some extent the prescriptive powers of the Secretary of State.
In connection with that second object, I have a third concern which is the question of compatibility with existing legislation. To begin with the first point—namely, clarification—I believe it will be clearer to your Lordships if I read out how the subsection will now read. I am referring to Clause 4(2):
"The Secretary of State may by order specify in relation to each of the core and other foundation subjects as the case may be—

(a) such attainment targets:

(b) such overall programmes of study in respect of the core subjects; and

(c) such guidelines of study in respect of the foundation subjects;

(d) such assessment arrangements,

as he considers appropriate to provide broad guidelines in relation to that subject."
That is how the subsection will read.
When the meaning of core and foundation subjects was discussed in Committee, in the end it seemed that foundation subjects included the core subjects; that all the subjects named are foundation subjects, but that some are more foundation than others and they are called core subjects. It is to be hoped that there will be as little prescription from Elizabeth House as possible as to precisely what is taught in our classrooms. One hopes that the programmes of study proposed for the core subjects will allow the latitude that is needed for creative teaching and will be based upon the reports of the task groups for each subject; the English to be based on the Kingman Report and the maths and science programmes to be based on the reports of the task groups in those subjects.
It is hoped that for the other foundation subjects the term "guidelines" will be more appropriate than "programmes". Napoleonic prescription from on high has never been our way, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, said yesterday, do not let us have it now. Genuine enlightenment is wanted by me, at any rate, and I am sure by your Lordships, as regards the question of compatibility with previous legislation.
Two years ago we had the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 and we had a great deal of difficulty in deciding who was to do what as regards the curriculum. I remember it well because I played a part in it. I believe that ultimately we straightened it out to some extent. However, perhaps I may briefly remind noble Lords how the law now reads. Section 17 of the 1986 Act states:
"It shall be the duty of every local education authority—

(a) to determine, and keep under review, their policy in relation to the secular curriculum for the county, voluntary and special schools maintained by them".

That is the function of the local education authority. Section 18 states:
"The articles of government for every county, controlled and maintained special school shall provide for it to be the duty of the governing body to consider —

(a) the policy of the local education authority as to the secular curriculum for the authority's schools, as expressed in the statement made by the authority under section 17 of this Act".

Section 18(6) states:
"The articles of government for every such school shall provide for it to be the duty of the head teacher, in discharging his duties in relation to the secular curriculum for the school—

(a) to consider the statement of the local education authority … and those of the governing body"—

I shall leave out parts that are not relevant to the argument—
(c) to ensure that that curriculum—
(ii) so far as it relates to other matters"—
matters other than sex education which is now the responsibility of the governing body—
is compatible with the authority's policy (as expressed in their statement) or, to the extent to which it is incompatible, is compatible with that policy as modified by the governing body's statement under subsection (1) above".
That is the law as it stands. Over and above all that we shall have the Secretary of State's programmes of study and attainment targets. How will they fit in? This is what worries me. What is the difference between all these things? What is the difference between the local education authority determining a policy, as in the Education (No. 2) Act 1986, and the present Bill specifying "programmes of study"? I might add that on 3rd May the noble Earl, Lord Arran, referred to establishing guidelines and laying down syllabi. What is the difference between all these things? Do we really know what we are talking about?
In all the oceans of words and mountains of paper I do not believe that this issue has been properly debated, though I believe it was touched on yesterday. It seems to me possible that it is another example of the Government overlegislating and disregarding what is already there. It is as though the patient is given a large pill but before the effect of the pill can be discovered a huge bottle of medicine is
782
added to it. Before the result of that is discovered a hypodermic syringe is produced and an injection administered. One cannot discover what, if anything, is doing any good. Confusion is likely to follow. Can the Minister enlighten me? If she cannot, will she be kind enough to write to me on the question of who does what and how the provisions of the Bill tie in with the existing provisions of the 1986 Act?
Baroness Seear: My Lords, as we are in the business of clarification and definition, I should like briefly to ask the Minister about something which has never been made clear. We have these two words "core" and "foundation". If there are two different words they must mean two different things. However, they are nowhere defined in the Bill, nor are we clear what differentiates a core from a foundation. It may be an academic point, but given two different terms any court of law will say that Parliament must have intended a difference—I think I am right in saying that—otherwise it would not have used two different terms. By what criteria does a core become a core and by what criteria does a foundation become a foundation? Will the Minister please tell us?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I should like to pursue the point just made by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. At the Committee stage we were in some confusion about the differences between core and foundation subjects and about the differences between a syllabus, a programme of study and guidelines. I hope that we can have clarification on that second matter as well as on the first matter raised by the noble Baroness.
Why are we to have programmes for the core subjects and guidelines for the other foundation subjects? As the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, has already said, would it not he very much simpler to have guidelines for all the subjects, whether core or foundation? There is no doubt that the acceptance by the Government of guidelines across the board would do a great deal to allay the extreme anxieties about the prescriptive nature of the national curriculum. Teachers fear that programmes of study will prevent them from responding to changing social and economic needs. It will stop them working on new approaches to teaching and it will prevent them from developing new materials. In short, there is a danger that it will squeeze the term "innovation" out of their vocabularies.
Flexibility with respect to both local and regional factors will be very much more difficult to accommodate. In putting forward the amendments there is absolutely no intention to sabotage the national curriculum. The Secretary of State will still have a great deal of power to influence the curriculum through guidelines. The Bill involves guidelines only, with respect to the foundation subjects of art, music and physical education. Perhaps the Minister will confirm this and indicate the position regarding the other foundation subjects. I have no doubt that head teachers would respond to guidelines and that the Government would have a great deal of impact on what is taught through their use.
The amendments would restore the notion of partnership between government, local authorities and the teaching profession while at the same time

783
giving the Secretary of State a very much bigger role than he has had in the past in what is taught in our schools. I support the amendments, which I believe will clarify the position between the core and foundation subjects and allow for greater flexibility in the teaching of the foundation subjects.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, perhaps I may throw in a point on core and foundation subjects which I suggested at Committee stage. I thought that the Government would look at it and come back sympathetically. It relates to the interpretation clause, Clause 20. Whatever is decided on the present amendments I feel that a word there would help to clarify the matter.
Clause 20(1) states:
" 'core subjects', 'foundation subjects' and 'key stages' have the meanings given by section 3 of this Act".
I do not see that they are given any meanings in Clause 3. One can infer the meanings and I think it is possibly true that they can have no other meanings than that foundation embraces core. However, as it is a definition clause, it would help if at Third Reading something came forward to make clear exactly what is core and what is foundation under Clause 20.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I appreciate the concern expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, and others over the definition of core and other foundation subjects. We have considered the points raised in the earlier debates—and indeed the points raised as a result of the amendment before us today—about the need for such clarification, but we remain of the view that the Bill as drafted allows only one interpretation.
In saying that, I take on board what the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, has said. The reference back in the definition clause to the main clauses is, we believe, adequate. After all, Clause 2 of the Bill says that the national curriculum,
"shall comprise the core and other foundation subjects".
Clause 3(1) specifies the core subjects and Clause 3(2) specifies the other foundation subjects. The same formulation is used in Clause 4(1)(a), taking first the core subjects and then the other foundation subjects. Again, the important word here is "other". It makes clear that the national curriculum, in England for example, consists of 10 foundation subjects for secondary school pupils. It means that where the Bill refers only to foundation subjects, as it does in Clause 4(2), it is referring to all 10 subjects. Therefore I am sure that noble Lords will recognise that the amendment is not necessary, and I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw it on that basis.
Let me now turn to the rest of the amendments in this group. Clause 4(2) allows the Secretary of State by order to specify for each of the foundation subjects such attainment targets, programmes of study and assessment arrangements as he considers appropriate for that subject. These amendments, as the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, has explained, seek to enable the Secretary of State to distinguish between the core and other foundation subjects by allowing him to set guidelines only for the other foundation subjects.
784
However, we have already made clear that we expect the programmes of study and attainment targets to apply to the other foundation subjects, as well as to the core subjects, although in the case of the core subjects they will be more detailed; so that it is only in the case of art, music and PE, where detailed attainment targets and programmes of study would be more difficult, that it is proposed to issue general guidelines. The level of prescription appropriate for any subject—I appreciate that this was a special concern of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear—will be a matter for consultation when orders are being made and subject finally to Parliament's approval.
The amendments have served a useful purpose in allowing me to clarify the position regarding core and other foundation subjects, but, as I have explained, they add nothing to the provisions of the Bill. I must therefore ask the noble Lord not to press the amendments. However, I shall take up his invitation to write to him in more detail on the other questions which he raised.
Baroness David: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister, before she sits down, whether it would be helpful—as I am sure there will be confusion among the general public, and those who will subsequently read the clause—to include in the Bill some phrase which would show that the term "foundation subjects" embraces the core subjects. If we have all misunderstood the issue, I am quite sure that many other people will find the same difficulty. Therefore, would it not help to further clarify the position?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I was not aware of any confusion in this respect until an apparent confusion arose in this House on a previous occasion. Therefore I do not think that it is widely creating a problem. Further, I believe that my statement today must have helped to clarify the position.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: My Lords, I must say I do not think that the present situation is very satisfactory. So far as I remember, we had a 20-minute discussion on the matter in Committee. Further, without wishing to flatter the Members of this House, I do not think that we are short of brains in this place. If it is possible to debate the matter for 20 minutes surely there must be some lack of clarity. As the Minister has finished her reply, I do not think that I can ask her to reconsider the matter. However, I shall be most grateful to hear anything she has to say about the compatability with existing legislation, which seems to me to make confusion worst confounded. With those words, I feel that I must withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdraw.
[Amendments Nos. 46 to 50 not moved.]
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 51:
Page 3, line 41, at end insert ("based on the system of assessment set out in the reports of the Task Group on Assessment and Testing").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendment is intended to ensure that any orders in respect of assessment under the national curriculum are made in line with the various reports of the task group on assessment and testing; that is, the TGAT

785
report. It is important both in the context of question marks left after debate in Committee and in respect of the parliamentary Written Answer issued by the Secretary of State earlier this month. The Answer constitutes the Government's response to the TGAT report, which we have been waiting for since January. However, it stills leaves many points unanswered. Further details are necessary if Parliament is not to be treated in a wholly cavalier fashion on one of the central proposals of the Bill.
At the same time, I welcome the fact that the Government accept many of the main recommendations of the TGAT report. However, there are many other important recommendations which were not covered in the Secretary of State's Written Answer, issued on 7th June. The first point concerns the publication of statements by the school as to its curriculum policy, and by the local education authority as to the social composition of the school, to accompany any examination or assessment results which will be published. The report stated that the only form in which the results of national assessment for, and identifying, a given school should be published should be part of a broader report by that school of its work as a whole. The latter has been ignored by the Government in their response, despite statements made by the Minister in Committee that,
"the Government fully accept the need for any published assessment results to be set in context".
Secondly, as regards attainment profiles and records of achievement, these were also omitted from the statement, again despite government commitments made in Committee that examination and assessment results would be produced as part of them. In Committee the Minister said:
"the Government still intend that records of achievement at age 16 should be introduced. We feel that such records can be used to record the results of assessment".
Thirdly, the TGAT report stated:
"final reports on individual pupils to their parents should be the responsibility of the teacher, supported by standardised assessment tasks and group moderations".
The latter statement was notably absent from the Government's response, as is any indication of the precise balance between classroom assessment on the one hand and external tests on the other. The reply simply says that assessments,
"should be a combination of national external tests and assessment by teacher".
The TGAT report stated that the primary curriculum would need further development before comprehensive assessment arrangements could be produced for it. It proposed the establishment of a working group to undertake the task. However, there has been no comment on that proposal in the Secretary of State's response.
The TGAT report also implied that the GCSE would need to be changed after a period of time to bring it into line with other aspects of the national assessment. I think we shall be faced with some confusion regarding pupils of the age of 16 when national assessment is introduced. The Secretary of State's reply simply stated that at the age of 16 the GCSE will be,
"the main form of assessment".
786
without any indication of any possible changes in the future either to the GCSE or to national testing at 16.
The TGAT report also recommended that assessment tasks should be reviewed regularly to ascertain any evidence of bias, especially in relation to gender and race. Again, there was no comment on that recommendation in the response. I am sure that all Members of this House will agree that it is easy when testing children and young people for such bias to unwittingly occur. Indeed, there have been many studies which have demonstrated the incidence of bias when certain forms of assessment and testing are used; that is, both in respect to girls and ethnic minority children.
If the Government can accept the amendment. many teachers will be most reassured that the important recommendations contained in the TGAT report will actually be implemented. There are some parts even of that report which teachers find somewhat difficult to accept. But I think the vast majority of them and others who have expertise in the field of assessment of pupils in both primary and secondary schools consider the proposals to be much more desirable than some of the alternatives that have been discussed, some of which seem to have emerged from No. 10 Downing Street.
If, on the other hand, the Government cannot accept this amendment it would greatly help if the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, could tell the House what are the Government's intentions on these important matters that I have just indicated. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I wonder if I may, in speaking to Amendment No. 51, suggest to the House that since many of the considerations involved apply also to the following Amendment, No. 52, this should be taken into account. Both amendments seek to ensure that the national assessment system associated with the national curriculum follows the key recommendations of the report of the Task Group on Assessment and Testing. In fact, the principles which should govern the national assessment system were clearly stated by the Secretary of State in the Parliamentary Answer he gave on 7th June, when he published the supplementary reports which he had received from TGAT. Those of you who have read his statement will know that the principles now adopted by the Government reflect all the elements which TGAT regarded as essential to such a system.
We have made considerable progress in answer to some of the preoccupations which were raised at the previous stage. These principles will include prescribed national assessment tasks or tests and also moderated teacher assessment. Assessment will be used both formatively, to help better teaching and to inform decisions about the next steps for a pupil, and summatively at seven, 11, 14 and 16 to inform parents about their child's progress. At age 16 the GCSE will be the main form of assessment, especially in the core subjects of English, mathematics and science.
The information requirements will ensure that the assessments of individual pupils are always made available in full to parents in a way they can readily understand. Individual's results will not be

787
published, but the aggregated results at the ages of 11, 14 and 16 will be, so that the wider public can make informed judgments about attainment in a school or local education authority. There will be no legal requirement for schools to publish such results for 7 year-olds, although we intend to recommend them strongly to do so.
Pupils' performance in relation to attainment targets will therefore be assessed and reported on at ages 7, 11, 14 and 16; but the attainment targets will be grouped for this purpose, as TGAT suggested, to make the assessment and reporting manageable. Different levels of achievement and overall pupil progress demonstrated by the tests and assessments will be registered on the 10-point scale—again recommended by TGAT—covering all the years of compulsory schooling. Each number on the scale will represent a level of achievement roughly corresponding to the average educational progress of a child over about two years.
Level 1 will therefore be the first level in a profile component, at whatever age that profile component is introduced. The scale will be used to register different levels of ability within each age group—and TGAT made the point that at all ages except seven we can expect pupils' attainment to be spread across half a dozen or more levels. The advantage of the scale, therefore, is that children will have a real sense of progress as they move from one level to the next, whatever their ability, and parents also will have a clearer idea—through the attainment targets associated with each level—of what that progress actually means.
The process of moderating the results of teacher assessment by comparison with the external test results will ensure that internal assessments are related to the standards which are applied across the country as a whole. It will also provide a valuable opportunity for teachers to discuss with their colleagues the basis for their own judgments, and the validity and reliability of the external tests.
Also as TGAT recommended, we intend to have a wide variety of tests developed and trialled, so as to take into account the different experiences of children, especially in the primary phase of education, and their different abilities and capacities—for instance, the circumstances of children whose first language is not English, or who have physical but not mental handicaps. There will be a place for the traditional pencil and paper tests, but we shall be taking advantage of the latest developments in oral and practical testing to ensure that so far as possible the test instrument used is the most valid for the task in hand. At ages seven and 11 in particular, test developers will be commissioned to develop and trial standard assessment tasks of the kind envisaged by TGAT, which will take the form of the kind of topic work ordinarily encountered in the primary classrooms. The whole process of assessment will be monitored for evidence of ethnic and gender bias, so that this can so far as practicable be eliminated.
This assessment framework will inform the consultations which will take place later this year on the recommendations of the mathematics and science working groups, and will also inform the thinking of
788
the working groups on English, and on design and technology, which were announced last month.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, raised a number of particular questions, some of which I think I have already answered in the course of my remarks. However, I should say that, perhaps in particular regarding the balance between assessment and tests for working groups, her suggestion that they should advise on this balance has to depend on what their recommendations actually are.
As for the primary curriculum working group, a sub-group was set up by the different working groups already established for maths, science, technology and English. It has been advising these groups and its work will now be taken forward by the shadow (as it still is) National Curriculum Council.
In the light of my explanation and the clarification I hope I have been able to give of the Government's position in relation to the report of the task group, and indeed in relation to our intentions on testing and assessment, I hope it will be felt that there is no need for these amendments.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, can the noble Baroness perhaps give me an answer to a question? I think I understood her to say that the testing will be given weighting for the physically handicapped but not for the mentally handicapped. I may have been quite wrong in taking that point up, but I am concerned that those children who are in the integrated groups going through the primary schools will have some kind of consideration given to them because they have special needs which are not physical needs.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I am sorry if I have misled the noble Baroness in that respect. Of course there will be certain children with mental handicaps who are totally exempted from the provisions of the national curriculum, but there are others with a lesser disability who will be fitted into one of the 10 levels.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Baroness for her response but to say that it leaves me a little puzzled. I think what she was saying was that the Government have decided to follow the recommendations of the TGAT report in almost every respect. Nothing in anything that she said indicated that the Government would be rejecting the TGAT proposals. If that is so it would surely be very easy to accept the amendment, yet the Minister appears not to be doing so.
I raised a number of specific questions that the Minister has not answered. Much of what she said seemed tangential to the issues that I raised. There was no response on the question of dealing with the social composition of schools when test results are to be published. There was no response to the points on attainment profiles and records of achievement and how this will fit with the new national assessment system. Similarly I think that the Minister did not respond on the primary curriculum although there was some reference to test developers involved in topic work in primary schools. I am grateful for the

789
Minister's response that there will be monitoring on ethnic and gender bias. In the light of what the Minister has said, I should have thought that it would not be too difficult for the Government to accept the amendment. Am I right about that?
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, before my noble friend replies, perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, whether she really suggests that my noble friend ought to agree to legislate that assessment arrangements should be,
"based on the system of assessment set out in the reports of the Task Group".
I quite see that the amendment is worded to probe what the Government are doing. The noble Baroness has done that successfully, and it was very interesting. However, she surely cannot ask the Minister to accept an amendment worded in this way. I am no expert on legislation, but I should have thought that that was not possible.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may be forgiven for interrupting at this point.
Once again, I think that we are somewhat straying away from the rules as laid down in Standing Orders which say that only the mover of an amendment should speak after the Minister on Report. I think that it would be best if we were all to observe that in the interests of time and regularity.
Baroness David: My Lords, is it not a fact that one can ask questions that have arisen out of a reply?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I understand that that is correct, but only the mover of the amendment can do so.
Baroness David: My Lords, I should like to challenge that.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, may I have a reply to my questions, since I moved the amendment?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, with the leave of the House, if I am correct, the noble Baroness asked whether in the light of what she said the Government could accept the amendment. My answer is no.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, in that case, I feel that I must divide the House.
4.53 p.m.
On Question, whether the said amendment (No. 51) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 97; Not-Contents, 130.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Adrian, L.

Banks, L.

Airedale, L.

Barnett, L.

Ardwick, L.

Birk, B.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Blackstone, B.

790

Blease, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Leatherland, L

Boston of Faversham, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Bottomley, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Longford, E.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

McNair, L.

Carter, L.

Meston, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Mishcon, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Molloy, L.

David, B.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Nicol, B.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Northfield, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Oram, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Peston, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Ezra, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Falkland, V.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Flowers, L.

Rochester, L.

Foot, L.

Russell, E.

Gallacher, L. [Teller.]

Sainsbury, L.

Galpern, L.

Scanlon, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Seear, B.

Glenamara, L.

Serota, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Stallard, L.

Grey, E.

Stedman, B.

Grimond, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Hampton, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L. [Teller.]

Hanworth, V.

Hart of South Lanark, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Hughes, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Underhill, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Jacques, L.

Walston, L.

Jeger, B.

White, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Willis, L.

Kagan, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Kearton, L.

Winstanley, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Dilhorne, V.

Arran, E.

Dormer, L.

Auckland, L.

Dundee, E.

Bellwin, L.

Eccles, V.

Belstead, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Bessborough, E.

Elibank, L.

Blake, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Blatch, B.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Blyth, L.

Faithfull, B

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Ferrier, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Fortescue, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Broxbourne, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Butterworth, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Caccia, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Caithness, E.

Halsbury, E.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Harris of High Cross, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Harvington, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Hastings, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Havers, L.

Carnock, L.

Hayter, L.

Cawley, L.

Henley, L.

Chelwood, L.

Hesketh, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Hives, L.

Colwyn, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Hooper, B.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Cottesloe, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Cowley, E.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Cox, B.

Joseph, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Killearn, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Kimball, L.

791

King of Wartnaby, L.

Renton, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Knutsford, V.

Rugby, L.

Layton, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Lindsay, E.

St. Davids, V.

Long, V.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

McFadzean, L.

Sandford, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Seebohm, L.

Manton, L.

Selborne, E.

Marley, L.

Selkirk, E.

Marsh, L.

Shannon, E.

Merrivale, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Middleton, L.

Somers, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Stevens of Ludgate, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Morris, L.

Mottistone, L.

Swansea, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Swinfen, L.

Moyne, L.

Swinton, E.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Teviot, L.

Nelson, E.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Orkney, E.

Trafford, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Trefgarne, L.

Pender, L.

Trumpington, B.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Ullswater, V.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Windlesham, L.

Porritt, L.

Wise, L.

Pytn, L.

Wolfson, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Reay, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5 p.m.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, before the next amendment is called, I wonder whether the Government Chief Whip wishes to make a statement.
Lord Denham: My Lords, yes, I do. I expect to make a statement very shortly and I must apologise for interrupting the House in this way.
It may be for the convenience of the House to know that following discussions through the usual channels it has been decided to defer tomorrow's Report stage of the Housing (Scotland) Bill to 6th July. The Report stage of the Education Reform Bill will be continued tomorrow in its place. This extra provision of time has been made necessary because of the interest shown on all sides of' the House in yesterday's debates on religious education. I very much hope that this will enable us to get back on course and conclude the Report stage next Tuesday, as planned.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, perhaps I may thank the noble Lord for making that statement. I am sure that it is a wise decision that we should devote tomorrow to a further day's consideration of the Education Reform Bill.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I thank the Chief Whip for making that timely statement and also for the acceptance of the fact that there was a very long debate on religious education which was largely conducted between the Bishops' Bench and the Back Bench of the Conservative Party which made us all go to bed so very late last night, or rather early this morning.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, perhaps I may also thank the noble Lord for the statement. I should like to make one comment. Noble Lords who travel to this House from Scotland to discuss Scottish legislation find it extremely difficult to make their plans and complete their travel arrangements when announcements are made on a Wednesday afternoon concerning Scottish legislation on a Thursday.
Lord Denham: My Lords, if I may say so, the noble Lord is absolutely justified in his remark. I am extremely sorry for it and I believe that my colleagues on the usual channels will be extremely sorry too. The difficulty is that it is almost impossible to be absolutely certain about business. I apologise on behalf of the Government to any noble Lords who were interested in the original business for tomorrow. I hope that the inconvenience will not be too great. I wish to thank the noble Lord the Opposition Chief Whip and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, for their generous acceptance of the change of plan.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down perhaps I may ask what date has been fixed for the Housing (Scotland) Bill, if one has been fixed?
Lord Denham: Yes, my Lords, it is 6th July.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Chief Whip this. If we are meeting on Friday morning at 11 o'clock, does it mean that on Thursday 23rd June we shall finish at 11 p.m.?
Lord Denham: My Lords, when the House sits on a Friday, it is usually hoped by all sides of the House that the House will not sit too late the preceding Thursday. I should not like to be too positive about whether it is exactly 11 o'clock or whether there is a marginal variation.
Baroness Seear Baroness Seear had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 52.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in view of the statement about the acceptance of certain aspects of the TGAT report made before the vote by the Minister, there is now no longer any need to move these amendments. As the Minister said, they are incorporated in what the noble Baroness said.
However perhaps I may briefly point out—and I do not wish to be venomous about this—that the TGAT report has been out since Christmas Eve. If the Government had been able to study it and come to the conclusions which they have now reached, it would have saved those of us on the Opposition Benches a great deal of time in preparing amendments. It would have saved the House a great deal of time in discussing those amendments.
[Amendment No. 52 not moved.]
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I am very grateful to the House. There was a great deal of discussion at earlier stages of this Bill about testing and in particular about diagnostic testing. I am not sure—
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord to which amendment he refers.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, Amendment No. 52.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I did not move the amendment in view of what the Minister said in regard to the acceptance of the TGAT report. The Minister made it quite clear that the report incorporates teachers' assessments.
[Amendments Nos. 53 to 55 not moved.]
Lord Young of Dartington Lord Young of Dartington moved Amendment No. 55A:
Page 3, line 42, at end insert—
("Provided that if the parent of any pupil requests in writing that the pupil should not be tested for attainment at any of the key stages, that pupil shall not be so tested.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment was only taken to the Table at one o'clock last night. I must apologise for having put it down so late. It was only because I was trying to keep myself awake last night that I was reading through the amendments which were going to delight us in the future, or what was then the future, and in particular the amendments on the supplementary list. I think we received it only yesterday, certainly I only received it then. I noticed that there was a new amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, which put me in mind of the amendment which I am now putting before your Lordships.
The amendment in question was to insert after Clause 109 Amendment No. 352C, which appears on page 74 of the Marshalled List that we now have. As I read it, the amendment provides that parents can, if they wish, withdraw their children from examinations. It suggested to me that if there is a case for this then there could be an equally good case, which I hope the Government will be able to accept, for allowing parents who, for one reason or another, object to their children being tested, to withdraw their children from the test.
There are a number of arguments in favour of this amendment which I shall try to express as succinctly as possible. First, there is the argument of general principle about parental choice. Parental choice should be enlarged if at all possible. Indeed, the Bill rests on that principle to quite a large extent. But it follows, as I see it, that if parents choose not to have their children tested, and that is the choice they make, then the right to exercise that choice should be honoured.
There are then a number of arguments by analogy. It is in the first place fully accepted that parents should be entitled to withdraw their children from religious education, and has been for many years. If that is the case with religious education, why is it not the case for testing? Secondly, it has always been accepted that parents should be able to withdraw their children from school altogether provided that they could supply adequate instruction at home. Thirdly, parents have some latitude about whether their children should attend classes for sex education. Finally, there is the case that I have already mentioned, which is from this very Bill itself, where if
794
the later amendment is passed parents are to be given the right to withdraw their children from examinations if they so wish.
I do not think that it is far-fetched to think that some parents may object to testing. It may be only a small minority, but we are here to protect the interests of the minorities as well as those of the majorities. It could be the case that particular children have test nerves just as some children have examination nerves. Tests could make them so anxious, particularly at the age of seven, that their parents would rather they were not submitted to the tests.
A further case could be where children repeatedly do badly in the tests and parents feel that to submit them once again to tests at a later age would only further demoralise them. It could be that parents do not believe that the particular tests chosen are reliable and the kind of tests that should be used. There could be parents—we have heard of such parents in this Chamber during debates on the Bill—who do not believe that any children should be tested, at least at the periodic ages which are being proposed. I think myself that testing has been much overdone in the way it has been presented in the Bill.
I do not think I am exaggerating in saying that this is a matter of civil liberties as well as educational policy. In this it is somewhat like the issue which has been very much debated as regards whether testing for the AIDS virus should be made compulsory. It could be the kind of matter which, if it is not given attention in the Bill, could end in the Government being taken to the European Court. I hope that it will be possible to accept the amendment because it is very closely in line with what is proposed about examinations.
I quite appreciate that it may not be possible to say anything very firm today because of the short time that has elapsed since the amendment was put down. Marvellous as the DES is, there may not have been time to consider fully the implications of the amendment that I am proposing. However, I hope that the Minister will be able to say that an issue of importance has been raised here and that consideration will be given to it before this Bill leaves the House on Report. I further hope that at some later stage, perhaps in Clause 109, an amendment similar to the one I am proposing (if not the exact amendment) will be accepted in order to make it quite clear to this House, and through this House to the world in general, that the right of parental choice should extend to the withdrawing of children from testing if the parents think it would be in the overwhelming interests of their children to do so. I beg to move.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, if this amendment were accepted and if a large number of parents took advantage of it, it would destroy or remove the element of comparability from any tests. That may be a very good thing. In earlier stages of the Bill many noble Lords argued for diagnostic testing only. On that point I should like to quote very briefly a few lines sent to me by Somerset County Council. The letter stated:

795
"It is important that testing for the National Curriculum is used for diagnostic purposes only. There is concern that if it is used for comparative purposes, teachers will find themselves restricted by the tests and will endeavour only to take children to the level of the test and not beyond it, and those children not likely to reach the standard of the test may be neglected".
Those are very serious words coming from a major education authority. The Minister, in replying to the previous amendment, said that results would be grouped and that there would be different kinds of tests for different kinds of children. She said that, furthermore, efforts would be made to eliminate any bias resulting from gender or ethnic background. If those kinds of things are done, how is there to be general comparability? Would it not be much simpler and better to go for diagnostic purposes only?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I wish merely to say something which I know that my noble friend Lady Hooper is too kind and gentle to say but which, having served in her capacity or something like it, I know she must be burning to say. Her job entails being on the Front Bench for perhaps 12 hours at a stretch with only a short break for dinner during which she is pestered by your Lordships, including myself, for advice and other things. She has an avalanche of amendments to be briefed on every night and every morning.
With the best will in the world, I think it is unreasonable to expect her to respond in any constructive way, on top of all that, to amendments tabled after midnight the night before, however important. I hope that your Lordships will have a little sympathy for the noble Baroness, who is carrying the heat of the day for a great length of time with extreme restraint and great lucidity and not place the last straw on the camel's back.
Lord Somers: My Lords, I wish to support the noble Baroness. I cannot understand this widespread horror of testing of children. These tests are not intended to be of the nature of examinations. They are not tests which a child either fails or passes. They are merely indications to show to what degree a child has taken in what he has been taught. They are for the information of teachers and parents. I cannot see that there is anything of which either the child, the parents or the teacher should be afraid.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I am sorry if it is felt that the Minister is unable to comment on this amendment. I am somewhat surprised because the Minister has usually coped extremely well on this and all other matters. I certainly wish to comment on the amendment because everything that the noble Lord, Lord Young of Dartington, does is extremely interesting. It would be a pity to let it go without responding.
However, I am bound to say that I think the noble Lord has got somewhat the wrong end of the stick. I do not see the equivalent between the parental view that they would like to be able to opt out of examinations and the view that they would like to be able to opt out of diagnostic testing. I concentrate on the latter because, as I understand the matter—those of us on this side of the House are not opposed to diagnostic testing—it would be regarded as an
796
integral part of the education process. It is meant to be constructive and helpful. I certainly take the view that it would be very strange for anybody interested in education to say that a parent could opt out of this form of testing.
If I may just for a moment delay the proceedings, I should say that the noble Lord, Lord Young of Dartington, draws our attention to two matters. I should not regard it as unreasonable that a parent should want his child to opt out of a specific subject. Indeed, in a system of genuine freedom of choice—which this system is not; and it is absurd ever to portray it as such—a parent could say, "I do not want my child to do that subject". It would therefore follow that there was no testing on that subject. The freedom of choice issue relates to a choice of subject rather than a choice of diagnostic testing.
I wish to go further because I am still puzzled by all the other variations of testing which the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, has raised. I might well say, if my child were being used as material, as it were, in order to test a school, that I had a conscientious objection and that I did not want my child to be used for that purpose. However, that is not the diagnostic testing we are discussing.
The noble Lord, Lord Young, has recognised that raising a fundamental matter such as this at a late stage makes it difficult to respond. He put his finger on the freedom of choice question. However, I believe we must accept that we have been through that matter on several earlier occasions as regards the Bill. It is an interesting and important area; it is a pity that we do not have more time to deal with it.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I have a point regarding the drafting of the amendment which I think is probably fatal to it in any case. The noble Lord, Lord Young of Dartington, seems to assume that all children are the children of one-parent families. He refers in the amendment to "the parent of any pupil". Surely, if he is trying to legislate, he should either say "parents" or "a parent". It is not to be assumed even nowadays that there are no children who are the children of married couples.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, it may be that the noble Lord, Lord Young of Dartington, was thinking of the Interpretation Act which says that the singular includes the plural.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, there is no reason why the amendment should not be correctly drafted rather than relying on the Interpretation Act. The noble Lord should rely on accurate drafting. He should have said "parents" if that was what he meant, or "a parent" if that was what he meant. The Interpretation Act, however, ingeniously deployed by the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, does not let him off that hook.
Viscount Eccles: My Lords, if children are not to be tested, how can we test the teachers? Surely that is part of the whole process. Secondly, what happens if a little rascal organises a gang of boys to go to their parents and say, "Let's get out of this"? Very serious disciplinary problems might result.
Lord Young of Dartington: My Lords, might I say—
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: No.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: This is a point of order.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, perhaps I may thank my noble friend Lord Elton for his kind-hearted intervention since it gives me the opportunity to say that the burden that I carry, such as it is, is shared by the officials who support me. I wish these remarks to be conveyed to them. Nevertheless, I shall attempt to answer the amendment.
I believe that the amendment does much more than remove the comparability which the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, suggested. However, like the noble Lord, Lord Peston, I believe that it may derive from a basic misunderstanding of the assessment arrangements which are proposed. The system which I described in my response to Amendment No. 51 will be founded on the fundamental principles stated by the Task Group on Assessment and Testing; namely, that assessment should be an integral part of the education process, continually providing both feedback and feedforward for teachers. In other words, the assessment which we envisage will be primarily formative in nature, especially at the first three key stages, and is therefore intended to help pupils, teachers and parents alike by identifying both the positive achievements and the weaknesses of pupils—what they know and can do—so that teachers can plan the next steps in their education. That is as important to teachers as it is to all of us to know how well teachers are doing. That relates to the point made by my noble friend Lord Eccles.
Testing associated with that kind of assessment will not only take the form of nationally prescribed external tests but will also take the form, as it does now, of classroom tests devised by teachers to check week by week on the progress of each pupil. In that sense, parents have never had the right to withdraw their children from procedures which have always been a fundamental part of the education process in our schools. It is clear that such assessment is an integral part of teaching.
The national external tests will be designed as an extension of that process, not to categorise pupils on a pass-fail basis but to provide useful information both for them and for those with their educational interests at heart. I am sure that when parents understand that they will realise that it would actually harm the educational prospects of their child if he or she were not allowed to participate fully in the national assessment process. It is worth adding—I know that many people are worried by the intention to publish aggregated national asessment results—that the results of individual pupils will be kept confidential in all cases.
The noble Lord also referred to specific cases of test nerves. The Bill contains provisions in Clauses 12 and 14 that enable exceptions to be made in certain circumstances for particular children. Therefore, the amendment is unnecessary in that type of situation. Given that explanation, I trust that the noble Lord will understand that I cannot accept the amendment.
Lord Young of Dartington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that reply, particularly given the shortage of time. Perhaps I may say a brief word about some of the points made in the debate. In referring to "the parent", which the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, objected to, I am following the precedent of the later amendment which refers to "the parent". I believe that what is implied is that either of the parents could object by requesting in writing that the child should not be submitted to testing. I do not believe that it is implied that we are only speaking of single-parent families but rather that the right attaches to both parents.
The important issue, as was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, and by the noble Baroness, is to what extent individual interests and choices should be given weight. The arguments for having diagnostic testing and for making it general are very strong. However, where there is a conflict between the general interest and the individual interest, the individual interest ought always—or almost always—to prevail. If the parents, after they have heard the arguments presented to them by teachers in favour of their children participating in testing, still think that it would be wrong for their children to be submitted to testing, the parents' decision should be the final one. I agree that this is too important a matter to expect a decision at this stage of the Bill. While expressing the hope that it will be discussed on Clause 109, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 56:
Page 3, line 42, at end insert—
("( ) No Order made under subsection (2) above shall apply to any pupil to the extent that it is incompatible with any work which he is undertaking under the Technical and Vocational Education Initiative.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is a probing amendment which seeks clarification. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that attainment targets, programmes of study and assessment arrangements do not prevent pupils from following a TVEI curriculum. I think that we have all been rather at a loss to know what exactly was to happen under the new arrangements about those children undergoing TVEI at their schools. TVEI was given very little attention at Committee stage. There was a reference on 3rd May by the Minister to the implementation of the national curriculum:
"We amended the Bill in another place to state that orders to be laid before Parliament to implement the national curriculum cannot themselves determine the time to be allocated to any one subject, nor the way in which it is to be timetabled; for example, whether in combination with other subjects, as a distinct module in a TVEI course, or as an individual examination subject—again leaving a lot to the professional judgment of teachers".—[Official Report, 3/5/88; col. 484].
Of course it was a relief to know that there would not be a detailed prescription of time. However, the Minister's statement still did not make it quite clear how the subjects which were to be the foundation and core subjects in the national curriculum were to be taught if a young person was following the very different TVEI course. The Minister's comment seemed to imply that TVEI is compatible with the national curriculum.
Later in the debate my noble friend Lady Blackstone raised the issue of how TVEI would fit into the national curriculum. She said:
"I should like to ask what will happen to important initiatives such as TVEI in a prescribed curriculum of this kind. I believe there is a real danger that such initiatives will be pushed out. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, when he was chairman of the MSC, along with the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, spent a great deal of time and effort getting TVEI off the ground. Indeed, we have spent £1 billion on the initiative since it was first introduced. I am sure that both will be somewhat concerned that heads, in their efforts to meet the new directives of the Secretary of State for Education, will have extreme difficulty in finding both resources and space for initiatives such as TVEI".—[Official Report, 3/5/88; col. 529.]
I am delighted to see that the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, is here and I hope that perhaps he may be able to comment during the debate on the amendment. There was no ministerial response to my noble friend's question other than a reference to the design and technology working party which had just been set up and that that is due to report next year.
The director of education programmes of the Training Commission, Anne Jones, who has overall responsibility for TVEI within her directorate, takes the view that TVEI will fit into the national curriculum. However, there is no clear evidence that that is the case. Indeed the evidence tends to point in the opposite direction.
The TVEI initiative launched in 1982 can be seen as having originated in the great debate speech by the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, in the 1970s when he made his Ruskin speech. The demand was made for a curriculum more relevant to the needs of industry. The TVEI initiative was born out of the need to create a more relevant curriculum for certain young people. It was designed to be pre-vocational. It was explicitly designed for the final years of secondary education, namely the 14 to 18 age range. As far as I can see the task group plans take us up to 16 only. How does the 14 to 16 part of the key stage fit in with the 14 to 18 TVEI?
The national curriculum offers a much more academic curriculum. As I say, it is intended to cover the five to 16 age range although it certainly gives the impression of being more of a secondary than a primary curriculum structure. TVEI curricula, I understand, vary considerably but they tend to concentrate on technical subjects and take up a very considerable proportion of the curriculum. Certainly in those schools in which I have seen it in operation it seems to occupy a vast proportion of the time. The curricula provide pupils with various options which fit in with the normal system of option choices at 14. Since the national curriculum will presumably alter the way in which option systems work at 14, it is again not clear how TVEI will fit in. Without having a clear idea about the nature of the programmes of study in particular it is difficult to say whether TVEI will present problems. We want to press the Government further on precisely how that will all be fitted in.
One further point which I think that it is worth making is the relationship between the TVEI initiative and the city technology colleges. When TVEI was first proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Young, the idea was to set up separate schools. They would have been similar to the CTCs which were
800
proposed several years later by Mr. Baker. At the time there was a great deal of opposition to TVEI so that the schools idea was dropped. Now the CTC proposals have developed out of the TVEI scheme. It is worth noting that CTCs will not be expected to follow the national curriculum.
In its booklet on the Bill Education Reform (The Government's Proposals for Schools) the DES explains that:
"It will be a condition of grant paid to City Technology Colleges that they follow the substance of the National Curriculum",
whatever "the substance" may mean. Perhaps we can have clarification of that point. What the Bill actually says in Clause 98 in relation to the curriculum of CTCs is that such schools must have:
"a broad curriculum with an emphasis on science and technology".
It is clear that CTCs are not to be expected to follow the curriculum, presumably because the Government do not consider that it would be appropriate for them to do so. How then is the TVEI curriculum different, and why do the Government seem to take the view that TVEI will fit effectively with the national curriculum? I hope that we shall have a very clear explanation from the Minister because I think that everyone wishes to be enlightened on that point. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I agree at least with the concern of the noble Baroness that it is absolutely essential that whatever comes out of this Bill should be compatible with that very successful innovation in our schools, TVEI.
I should like to revert to the numerous statements now being made not only by my noble friend the Minister in this House but also by her colleagues in the other place about two aspects of the Bill. One aspect is the emphasis on flexibility. There will be flexibility in the approach to teaching the national curriculum to our children. The second, which of course is very important, is a cross-curricular approach, which again has been reiterated time and time again. Looking across the subjects it is easy to find examples—maths, science, English and communication skills and art are just four examples of subjects which will impact on TVEI or on which TVEI will impact. I think that so long as the Government stick with both the cross-curricular and flexibility of approach in teaching those subjects nothing is incompatible. While I sympathise with this amendment, I regard it as entirely superfluous. That view is confirmed by what has been said so far and what I am sure my noble friend the Minister will say in her reply.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, this amendment seeks to lay upon the Secretary of State the duty to ensure that no orders issued to define the national curriculum conflict with the demands that may be made upon a pupil by TVEI.
I believe that to attempt to lay such a requirement upon the Secretary of State reveals a misunderstanding of the nature of TVEI. It cannot conflict directly with the national curriculum because, unlike the constituent part of the national curriculum, it represents not an area of the

801
curriculum to be studied but a means of approach to that curriculum. It will be the national curriculum that defines the framework within which TVEI operates, as the new TVEI criteria make clear in stipulating that each pupil's programme from 14 to 16 should, once the Bill receives Royal Assent, be designed to cover all the core and other foundation subjects, as well as a number of other desirable topics and themes. To make the national curriculum wait upon TVEI, the content upon the means of delivery, would be to put the cart before the horse. It would also put statutory provisions, subject to Parliament's scrutiny and approval, at the mercy of a non-statutory initiative whose criteria are determined by government without such formal checks and balances.
It is not envisaged that the national curriculum will cause major changes to TVEI, as I assured the House yesterday and indeed as my noble friend Lady Blatch has reiterated today. The Education Reform Bill requires the curriculum to prepare pupils,
"for the opportunities, responsibilities and experiences of adult life",
and fostering economic awareness and preparation for employment have an important role to play. Within the framework of the national curriculum, the funding and expertise that TVEI provides should help to ensure that many practical, vocational and technical elements are properly represented in every student's education. The aims both of the national curriculum and of TVEI are to ensure that pupils are properly prepared for adult life, including work and the wider responsibilities of citizenship; to this end the Department of Education and Science and the Manpower Services Commission—the Training Commission as it is now called—liaise closely on the TVEI programme and will continue to do so.
Until we have the reports and recommendations of the working groups we cannot of course tell the noble Baroness precisely how TVEI will fit in, as she asked, but, as again I said yesterday, it is anticipated that there should be no difficulty in combining TVEI with the proposals on the national curriculum in view of the flexibility that has been built in.
So far as concerns CTCs, which again were the subject of a specific question raised by the noble Baroness, they will be expected to follow the substance of the national curriculum as a condition of grant. There is of course a distinction, in that CTCs are independent schools and we believe that it would be wrong to place a stautory requirement on them which is similar to that imposed on the county voluntary and grant-maintained schools, since they are in the independent sector.
In the light of that explanation of the approach of TVEI, which is fully compatible with the proposals of the national curriculum, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I believe that I am permitted to ask a question for clarification after the Minister has spoken. When we discussed this previously, I understood that all testing of all subjects in the national curriculum was to continue until the age of 16. If that is so, will the testing be at the same
802
standard for all subjects? As I understand it, TVEI puts a great deal more emphasis on certain subjects than it does on others. That is the point of it being TVEI.
Therefore if pupils are specialising in one subject more than another it would be unreasonable to expect them to reach a common standard in all those subjects. Is the examination to be adjusted? if not, I do not see how what the Minister says can be achieved and that TVEI can in fact be accommodated within the framework of the national curriculum. Can she explain?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I believe that this point was raised yesterday in the course of the debate. If the noble Baroness is speaking specifically about the school-leaving age of 16, I said then that we anticipated that the core subjects would be followed in most cases to GCSE level; the other foundation subjects would not necessarily all be taken to that level but would be to various levels of attainment within the spectrum permitted under the TGAT arrangements, so that it would be possible for additional flexibility to be built in in the fourth and fifth years. I believe that this covers the point on TVEI that was raised by the noble Baroness.
Baroness David: My Lords, I was rather mystified by one comment that the Minister made at the end of her remarks to the effect that CTCs would only have to follow the substance of the national curriculum—I am not quite sure what the substance may be—because they were independent schools. Well, grant-maintained schools will be independent schools but they also have to follow the national curriculum.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I must correct that impression. Grant-maintained schools will not be independent schools. They will still he part of the maintained sector. Funding will simply come from central government rather than local government.
Baroness David: My Lords, the funding will come from the same source. The CTCs will have to be funded by the DES just as the grant-maintained schools are funded. There will not be enough coming from private industry to do the funding as well as the initial setting up and there does not even seem to be enough for the initial setting up anyway.
I thank the Minister for her reply. I shall need to read it carefully in order to ensure that I have understood all of it. I still find it extremely hard to believe that with the concentration on technological subjects that TVEI demands, there can possibly be time for all the 10 core and foundation subjects. However, as I said, this amendment was a probing amendment and so, having probed, I shall read the response very carefully and hope that I shall be a little more enlightened than I am at the moment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 57:
Page 3, line 42, at end insert—
("(2A) No Order shall be made in respect of any subject in relation to the third or fourth key stage under subsection (2)(c) above unless a working group, established by the Secretary of State to advise him on the implementation of the National Curriculum, in respect of that subject, has reported with recommendations as to the relationship of the proposed assessment arrangements in that subject during the fourth key stage and the General Certificate of Secondary Education.
(2B) Before making any Order to which subsection (2A) above applies, the Secretary of State shall refer the recommendations of consultation to the National Curriculum Council, the School Examinations and Assessment Council, the local authority associations and such other bodies and organisations as he considers appropriate.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is a very similar amendment which again is probing in order to try to discover how exactly the national curriculum will fit in with the GCSE. At moments we have come across this matter already and we understand that it will be expected to fit in. However, we are still not quite sure how there will be time. We know that to do six subjects at GCSE is very time consuming and we have heard a good deal about that in the course of this summer. However, if the standards will be different for those subjects and the subjects which are not being taken but which are in the national curriculum, of course that may give some explanation. I still think that it will lead to a very crowded programme for those two years.
The first part of the amendment specifically prevents an overlap between existing areas of the GCSE and the incoming national curriculum in any particular subject. That is important for a number of reasons: to avoid further upheaval in the GCSE, which has been so recently established at considerable cost in terms of resources and teacher time. That point was stressed particularly by the TGAT report, which stated in Recommendation 24 that the GCSE should be retained at the moment in its present form. Paragraph 107 of the report described the GCSE as a:
"major educational innovation which has led to considerable upheaval in the secondary school system: teachers need a period of stability to come to terms with these changes".
The recommendations of the report did not go beyond the medium term in respect of the future of the GCSE, although the group's concern at the need to bring the national curriculum into line with aspects of the GCSE system from the earlier stages onwards is clear from the terms of the report.
Pupils who will be studying for the GCSE in the early years of the implementation of the national curriculum at the fourth key stage need to know at the outset of their course what they will be expected to do, and by when. The rather ragged process of introduction of the national curriculum planned by the Government may leave considerable areas of uncertainty, both for legislators and in the public mind generally. It would be grossly unfair if a student who was studying French at GCSE level discovered at age 15 that different requirements were to be imposed in relation to the course which he was half way through completing.
There is a further argument in respect of those pupils who may wish to study for a substantial
804
number of GCSE subjects which some pupils do—perhaps six, seven or eight subjects—for whom certain aspects of the national curriculum may simply be too great a burden to bear. This would apply both in respect of the subjects for which they were studying for GCSE and also potentially in other subjects falling within the foundation list. Although the amendment does not specifically exempt pupils studying GCSE at a substantial level from other areas of the curriculum, this point could be usefully commented upon by Ministers. A pupil talented, for example, in languages or literature may find the need also to study geography or history a positive disincentive to undertaking serious work to public examination standards.
At the very least it seems plain that a pupil studying the GCSE in a particular subject should not have to take on board additional areas of the subject which may be specified by the national curriculum but not covered by the present GCSE. The argument relates not merely to 14 to 16 year-olds but also the 11 to 14 year-old age group which may be set upon courses of study under the national curriculum which will not be continued under the GCSE or, conversely, arrive at the age of 14 ill-prepared for the GCSE.
Much of this difficulty could be resolved if the Government were far more specific than they have been to date about the precise timetable and approach to be adopted in introducing the various stages of the curriculum. The little that they have said to date removes the fear that the curriculum will be introduced gradually up to the age of 14, although not in any sequential order by age, and that the curriculum for the 14 to 16 year-old age group will need to be changed at a later date to meet the demands of the earlier years.
A considerable political debate about the nature and the standard of the GCSE underlines the basic equivocation in the Government's position; namely is the national curriculum for secondary pupils to be modelled largely on the pattern of the GCSE which the pupils will do later in their years or will the GCSE be altered to fit in with the new pattern of the national curriculum? The Government have sought to avoid this question for fear of promoting criticism from their own supporters about the nature of the GCSE. From the limited comments of Ministers the fears of educationists would appear to have some foundation that the national curriculum will be used as a covert means of altering GCSE in an unwelcome direction.
The second part of the amendment exempts the brighter child who has completed GCSE at an early age from having to return to national curriculum-dictated study in that subject in his or her last year at school. The amendment would appear to be extremely reasonable and indeed operate as an incentive to high flyers to achieve success in public examinations early. It may be thought to fit in with the Government's overall approach in offering opportunities to the brighter pupil. It would be interesting to hear whether the Government believe that there is any good reason why this part at least of the amendment should not be accepted. I beg to move.
Lord Somers: My Lords, I feel that this is a necessary amendment. When reading the Bill as it stands, it states:
"The Secretary of State may by order specify in relation to each of the foundation subjects (a) such attainment targets; (b) such programmes of study; and (c) such assessment arrangements, as he considers appropriate for that subject".
How can he know what is appropriate for every single individual child in the country? He cannot possibly. No one single human being could possibly know that. The amendment recommends that a working group be established by the Secretary of State to advise him. Although I believe that the recommendation in the amendment does not go very far, it at least puts some brake on the absolute power that the Secretary of State has given to himself. I said during Committee stage that the Secretary of State has given himself individually far too much power in this Bill. I feel that this is an amendment which should be accepted.
Lord Peston: My Lords, perhaps I may add a few points on the first half of the amendment to indicate some worries. One accepts that assessment is different from examination. I do not think that we need argue about that. If I was a parent with children at school I should be worried at the enormous burden that seems to be building up for young people with assessments of various kinds and GCSE. In due course I shall comment about A-level also. Perhaps the Minister will go to some trouble to reassure us, and those outside who are parents, that they can be confident that the different arrangements which are being introduced will not interact in a detrimental way and that the concentration on assessment and preparation for GCSE and other matters cannot do any harm.
This amendment enlarges the range of advice and says that the Secretary of State ought to act with a modicum of care. I am aware that the noble Baroness will say that we can always assume that he will. Having some experience of Secretaries of State, I do not find that a wholly compelling argument. However, that is en passant. There are genuine worries about this matter. The least we can do in your Lordships' House is to place on record our fears in these matters so that as these matters emerge, people who occasionally look at our debates can take these fears into account as the position is developing. It is an important amendment. I hope for some reassurance from the Minister.
Baroness Young: My Lords, perhaps I may comment on the amendment. There is a complete chapter in the publication of the Task Group on Assessment and Testing devoted to the relationship between the GCSE examination and assessments. Clearly this needs to be worked out. However, I do not agree altogether with the argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, about this being a lot for children to undertake. Although the assumption has been throughout the discussion on this Bill that children will suffer a great deal from all this, in my experience children rather like to feel that they have accomplished something. Quite clearly, as there will be 10 levels at each grade of assessment, they will accomplish the level at which they should accomplish it. This could be a great incentive to children to go on
806
to the next stage. We do not need to feel that this is an enormous burden on children.
I take the point that there is a limit to the numbers of tests and examinations in one year. My understanding is that this matter is being very carefully considered so that there is no conflict between the two.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I echo the last remark of my noble friend Lady Young and emphasise what she said about the careful consideration that has been given in this matter and the intention that there should be no conflict.
We expect that GCSE will be the main vehicle of assessment at 16, especially in the core subjects. However, where pupils take national assessment tests instead of GCSE in some of the other foundation subjects, we generally expect these to be simpler and less demanding in nature than GCSE. There will obviously need to be a basis of comparison with GCSE gradings, but the Task Group on Assessment and Testing advise that it would not be possible for the subject working groups to make recommendations on this since there is too little evidence as yet about the distribution of performance at age 16 in GCSE. We shall therefore look to the Secondary Education Advisory Council (SEAC) to advise on this on the basis of further experience with GCSE. In fact TGAT advised us to make no changes to GCSE at the moment—that is for the next four to five years. That of course fits with government intentions. SEAC will advise, review and revise syllabuses.
We regard this as a technical matter, to be dealt with by those with the appropriate expertise. I am sure that that will be welcomed by noble Lords on the Benches opposite. I see no advantage in including a reference to it in orders governing the assessment arrangements, nor in submitting proposals for grading equivalence to consultation. On that basis. I trust that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw what I believe she said was essentially a probing amendment.
6 p.m.
Baroness David: Yes, indeed, my Lords. I thank the Minister for her explanation, which I shall read with interest. I hope that I am fully enlightened when I have done so. I believe I understand what she was saying—that it is a matter that has caused a good deal of anxiety in a great many quarters. I am glad that we now have in Hansard something which we and other people can read and study. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 58:
Page 3, line 42, at end insert—
("(2A) In making any order under subsection (2) above in relation to pupils in the final key stage, the Secretary of State shall have regard to the major recommendations of the Report "Advancing A Levels".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is about A-levels, which we have not said a great deal about. I want to make some remarks of an educational nature. I hope I may be forgiven for

807
doing so occasionally on a Bill that is called the Education Reform Bill! I shall concentrate on the subjects that I know about. I believe that A-levels are of an extraordinarily high academic standard. In my own subject of economics I would imagine, broad brush, that an A-level student with a grade B probably knows as much economics as I knew by the end of the second year when I was in university some 30 years ago. The standard is astonishingly high.
The point I make and the points that Professor Higginson and his committee seem to be making I hesitate to say it because I know of the kind of knee jerk reactions that people have, especially those who know nothing about education—is that the standard is not only extraordinarily high but that it is too high. My students come to me knowing far too much economics and far too little of lots of other subjects. In other words, the basic issue here is breadth versus excessive depth. I know why school teachers achieve these standards. It is because they too are very ambitious. Speaking of my own subject which I know about, and of my students and other people's students, I find they are keen to set very high levels of academic achievement. The problem is that they are too keen.
It seems to me that in this major Bill, which is our only opportunity to talk about fundamentals in education for quite a long time, it would be a mistake not to remark on the A-level question. I have chosen this opportunity to draw it to your Lordships' attention.
It seems to me that most of our interest ends at the final key stage when we were discussing GCE and all that and the students then go on to A-level. Many of us want more students to go on to A-level and on to higher education. I believe it would be a pity if that kind of expansion took place within the narrow confines of the two Bs at A-level approach that we have, or at the most three. That is a great pity. It is a wasted opportunity. I am not too happy to say what I am saying here, but I was genuinely surprised by the response of the Secretary of State to the Higginson Committee. I am asking the noble Baroness to draw the attention of the Secretary of State to at least one person's opinion—perhaps others with academic experience will speak.
The Secretary of State commissioned the Higginson report. To my reading of it that report was really very sensible, based on experience and a deep understanding on the nature of the problem. I hope that what we seem to read in the papers—which I believe is a rather premature response of a more negative kind to that report—was a misunderstanding, not to put too fine a point on it, and that the Secretary of State will be fully apprised of the need for a broader A-level curriculum.
I shall not delay your Lordships by arguing at length about what I regard as the enormous economic benefits from our students having a broader range and knowing more subjects than the present narrow range. There are benefits, and if we had more time I should enlarge on them.
My main point is to probe. I shall not divide the House on an issue of this kind but I wish to draw the noble Baroness out on this matter. I hope that it is a
808
matter that the Department will take a little more seriously and positively than it seems to have done in the past week. In due course perhaps we can return to this subject when we are not discussing the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Trafford: My Lords, it is unusual for me to be able to agree with so much of what has been said from the other side of the House, but on this occasion I really do. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, is absolutely correct in saying that the breadth of A-levels should be expanded and that the very high concentration that is now put into what we call the two Bs and an A result is incorrect. If I may use a metaphor, one now sees the almost hot-house product, brilliant in two fields and virtually ignorant in many others. I hope that as a result of the other changes in the Bill this will tend to change and that there will be a much broader base from which to develop A-levels and the breadth of the A-level syllabus.
We all speak about those parts of the education system that we know most about, but I have been particularly struck over the past two years with the very high but very narrow quality of all those entering medicine. When we come to teach these students we find that they are brilliant. As the noble Lord said, his students today know more economics than he did when he was in the second year at university. I do not think I ever knew as much physics as the average medical student knows when he arrives today.
What worries me is that he knows nothing else. I should like to see a much broader field at the A-level stage, but the risk is that we might then press the children that much harder to try to produce five results at the same level at which we now produce three. I do not wish to detain the House, but I merely suggest to the noble Lord that there is support elsewhere for some of the educational remarks he made.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I should like briefly to support what has already been said on this amendment. It is now at least 20 years since we first heard criticisms about the narrowness of our sixth-form education in this country. I should like to point out particularly how narrow it is compared with that of all our neighbours and competitors. There is no other country which educates its able 16 to 19 year-olds in such an extraordinarily narrow and overspecialised way.
I should also like to point out that for some time the universities dragged their feet in this respect. If we go back to the late 1960s and early 1970s, there were a number of different proposals for reform that came from the schools council and other bodies, university science departments in particular, which were sometimes heard to say that they wanted people who had already been educated to a very high level in their own specialised fields.
That is never said now. There has been a major change of view. It is true that the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, and indeed those who are involved in the CNAA—everybody at the higher education end who is receiving these young people—would much prefer them to come with a broader base than is the case at present.
Lord Joseph: My Lords, before my noble friend replies, I suggest that one of the ways the Government could meet the requirement of the universities and broaden A-levels would be to expand the number of hours per week or weeks per year in which schools operate their studies. We have far fewer hours per year as a requirement in education than our main European competitors and I hope that my noble friend will take that possibility into account.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, for introducing the amendment and also for the fact that we have his indirect support for the broad and balanced approach to the national curriculum. That applies also to other noble Lords who have contributed. In saying that what he wants is a statement from the Government as to their intentions the noble Lord will not be disappointed. We do not believe that the amendment is necessary because, in making orders under Clause 4, we shall need to take account of many things. However, we do not intend to specify them all now.
The Government are in full agreement with the Higginson Committee on the key principle of broadening the sixth-form curriculum, and have taken practical steps already to bring this about through the introduction of AS-levels. We are firmly committed to this development, and want to see many more young people having the opportunity to take some AS-levels in addition to A-levels. We are pleased that about half of schools and colleges will be offering courses at AS-level next year.
Where the Government disagree with the Higginson Committee is on the proposal to achieve breadth by a substantial streamlining of A-level syllabuses. The Government do not believe that it is desirable or practicable to streamline all A-level syllabuses by reducing the amount of time for teaching them and their factual content. We do not believe that this can be achieved without loss of standards. A-levels are a tried and tested system which has the confidence of higher education, employers, schools, parents and the pupils themselves. We cannot afford to put at risk the very high standards which A-levels at present guarantee and to which the Government are committed,as they made clear when they set up the committee.
Higher education and industry want broadening, and AS-levels will give them that. Young people can put together a four or even five-subject programme combining A- and AS-levels. More usually, they will take one or two AS-levels in addition to, or in place of, one A-level. So young scientists will be able to take a modern language, or a humanities student may take mathematics or statistics at the different level. Young people in schools and colleges are doing so now and have told us that they enjoy the opportunity to broaden their study in this way. It is now up to higher education to show its commitment to broadening by accepting candidates with AS-levels on to their courses without discrimination. The challenge is there. Schools and colleges will welcome the clear lead they have now been given to provide the courses.
810
I have seen some comment to the effect that Higginson's five-subject programme would lead to an increase in the number of candidates going on to higher education. This is a misconception: Higginson is quite clear on the point. A-levels, even streamlined A-levels, are for pupils of the highest ability. The proposals were not intended to change the nature of the A-level cohort as some have suggested. The Government agree that A-levels must continue to stretch those of the highest ability.
The committee has, as it was asked, produced general principles for A-levels in Chapter 2 of the report, and we have broadly welcomed these. The ongoing process of developing and revising new syllabuses will take account of these, but we do not consider it necessary or desirable to engage in an overhaul of all syllabuses at the present time. To do so would place too great a burden on the examination system and the schools at a time when they are coping with other fundamental changes as a result of our policies for GCSE and national curriculum assessment, as we are often reminded.
I know that concern has been expressed that young people who have become used to the teaching and learning approaches of GCSE may find it difficult to cope with the co-called "old-fashioned" A-levels. This is to misunderstand the nature of A-levels and GCSE. Despite what we hear, A-levels are developing all the time. Some well-tried syllabuses already incorporate an active approach to learning. Her Majesty's Inspectorate tell us that some of the best quality A-level teaching lays stress on developing oral and practical skills and on the understanding and application of knowledge and that it reaches very high standards of achievement. So the ongoing process of developing and revising syllabuses will take account of best practice, and will have the Higginson principles as a guide.
It has been useful to hear the views advanced in this short debate, not least the suggestion made by my noble friend Lord Joseph. However, I have stated the Government's case.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her answer. It is a trifle controversial but I can save my response for a later occasion when we have finished with the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee Lord Ritchie of Dundee moved Amendment No. 59:
Page 3, line 42, at end insert—
("(2A) An order under subsection (2)(c) above relating to pupils in the final key stage shall include provision for the introduction of pupil profiles covering all aspects of the performance at school of a pupil, including the results in respect of that pupil of any assessment carried out in accordance with the order.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords I was rather nervous about speaking to this amendment. I am no longer because the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, who was Secretary of State during some of these events, is not present. I see however that the noble Lord has re-entered the Chamber; so I am nervous once again.
I should like to give the following quotation:
"Boys and girls who stay at school until they are 16 may reasonably look for some record of achievement when they leave".
It comes from the Newsome Report published in 1963. As a result, it was, I believe, in 1984 that the Government set up a steering committee to oversee the development of the idea by providing every school boy and girl with such a record on leaving school. The steering committee is to report finally in the autumn of 1988.
The purposes of a record of achievement are four-fold. I shall read a few brief excerpts. The first is that it is a recognition of achievement,
"not just in terms of public examinations but in other ways as well".
It was to show the,
"all-round potential of…pupils".
The document of record,
"should provide a more rounded picture of candidates for jobs or courses than can be provided by a list of examination results, thus helping potential users to decide how candidates could best be employed, or for which jobs, training schemes or courses they are likely to be suitable".
A further excerpt states:
"At central government level it will be important that a clear and continued commitment be given to records of achievement and to their integration with other intitiatives such as GCSE, other examinations pre- and post-16, and the national curriculum. The national priorities selected for in-service training provide a means of demonstrating this commitment".
There is no reference in the Bill to that excellent initiative; it appears to have been forgotten. It is rather like the conflicting aims and claims of the national curriculum assessments and the GCSE assessments about which we have been talking this afternoon, and with regard to the curriculum, of the responsibilities of local authorities, governing bodies and head teachers as laid down in the Education Act 1986 and those of the Secretary of State in the current Bill. I wonder whether in drafting the present Bill the Government have sufficiently thought about the matter.
The amendment seeks to state that national curriculum assessments should form part of a record of achievement. As I have shown by my quotations it is an overall estimate of a young person's achievement at school, not confined to examination results but an all-round picture of that person. That would be a useful document for employers. It would be a fairer and more just and civilised estimate than a bare, bold account of the examinations that the person had passed or failed. I beg to move.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I should like to say a few brief words in support of this amendment. I assume that in a well-run school material for a profile would be there anyway. The idea of a profile seems to be intrinsic to education and to helping the pupil. There are two questions which arise. The first is whether it requires formalising; in other words that there should not just be a few pieces of paper stuck together but there should be a proper profile worked out. The second is whether it should be universal and, if universal, whether this is the time to introduce it.
I belong to the school of thought which believes that a well rounded pupil is what we want and that a profile is closer to the assessment of a well rounded
812
pupil than a simple assessment test. There is a very good intellectual case to be made for the profile and, indeed, noble Lords on all sides of the House have made that case. In supporting the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, I hope that to some extent we are pushing at an open door.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the introduction of records of achievement for all pupils in secondary education is already government policy. We have set the objective of introducing by 1990 arrangements under which all school-leavers will have such records or profiles. Pilot work has been under way in nine schemes, involving 22 local education authorities throughout England and Wales, over the past three years and a national steering committee has been asked to report to the Secretary of State this autumn. It will offer draft national guidelines in the light of the experience gained in the pilot schemes under which all school-leavers will have records of achievement. This report will be published.
One of the issues on which the committee will be offering advice is the scope and coverage of records of achievement. It would be quite unacceptable, and in practice unworkable, to lay a duty on schools to report on all aspects of pupil's performance. This is altogether too general and sweeping a requirement. We shall be looking very carefully at the committee's advice on this and all other aspects of recording pupils' achievements before we take decisions on the national introduction of records of achievement.
The noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, asked me specifically about records of achievement and reporting on assessment. TGAT recommended that records of achievement should be used to report the results of national curriculum assessment as well as other matters. Subject to advice from the steering committee on records of achievement, the Government endorse that. Regulations made under Clause 17 of the Bill can be used to ensure the use of records. Provisions have deliberately been drafted widely enough to cover such records of an all round picture of a pupil's achievements at school. Therefore, I believe that this amendment is somewhat premature and unnecessary and I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her reply, which is to some extent reassuring and encouraging. I am glad that we have talked briefly about this because records of achievement are not mentioned in the Bill. One has the feeling that what happened two, three of five years ago has a tendency to be forgotten. However, it obviously has not been forgotten. The initiative is proceeding and I hope that we shall see good results in due course. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee Lord Ritchie of Dundee moved Amendment No. 60:
Page 3, line 42, at end insert—
("(2A) No order made under subsection (2) above shall apply to any pupil during the key stage in which he is preparing for a public examination, if in the opinion of the head teacher, compliance therewith might diminish his chances of success in that examination.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am afraid that your Lordships will have to listen to me again, but I shall be brief because a great deal of this has already been discussed.
I am very concerned about the stress that young people may undergo as a result of the conflicting pressures of the national curriculum, GCSE, TVEI and all these other demands which are being made on them. Of course the noble Baroness, Lady Young, is right when she says that young people must be challenged and that they appreciate and respond to that challenge.
However, it is the business of teachers to see to it that the challenge is right. If the challenge is too little then one receives nothing from the pupil; if it is too great it breaks him. It has to be right. I feel that if a young person is taking six or seven subjects at GCSE and still being, as he or she may call it, bugged by tests in the national curriculum in subjects which they are not taking, it is rather like fighting a war on two fronts. That sort of conflict can be extremely damaging. I cannot believe that that is in their best interests.
Perhaps I may give two concrete examples to make the matter seem a little more alive. There might be a boy of 14 who is a little dyslexic. He is not greatly so and it has not been a great handicap. However, he suffers a little in that way but he has a gift for art, which is very often the case. He is all set for graphic design, which is what he wants to do when he leaves school. He needs much extra English because his English is weak. Therefore, when he arrives at the age to take his GCSE exams he will be taking art and design, English language, English literature, maths, history, geography and CDT. Does he really also have to satisfy teachers on attainment targets on programmes of study in science and a second language? If so, the demands may well be damaging to his GCSE results.
There might be a girl aged 16 who wants to be a doctor. In GCSE she is taking maths, biology, physics, chemistry, English language, English literature, music, for which she has a talent, and French; that is eight subjects. Does she really have to continue to be tested in history and geography as well as continuing to take art and PE even though those subjects will not be assessed?
On paper that can be fitted into the time available on the timetable, but that is not the only consideration. I should like to feel that each case of this sort could be individually considered. That is a matter which can only be decided at school level by the head teacher who knows the child concerned. It cannot be done by the governing body. How can the governing body know every child in the school? Still less can it be done at county hall or by the Secretary of State, who might as well be on the moon. That sort of decison has to be made by the child's teachers represented by the head teacher; namely, somebody who is on the spot who knows the children and their capacity and who can correctly gauge the demands which are to be made on them.
I hope that the Minister will give sympathy to this cri de coeur from an ex-teacher. I hope that she will
814
give us something more than an assurance that the Government have thought about this. One wonders whether they really have. With much feeling, I beg to move.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I once had a pupil who had been an officer in the US army. He told me that one of the principles that he had been taught in that capacity was never to give an order which would not be obeyed. That struck me as a very sensible principle. It is also an illustration of the central point of this amendment.
The risks of stress to which my noble friend Lord Ritchie has drawn attention are real. However, I am rather more worried about the risks of contempt and that people will simply not co-operate with the requirements placed upon them. A great many people take the GCSE fairly seriously. It is a demanding course. The course work tends to be due all at the same time, and as course work it is hard to fix the maximum amount required.
There is a Morton's Fork in this area. Either the tests are on something which is being studied for GCSE, in which case they are redundant, or they are on something which is not required for GCSE, in which case they do not command interest.
I have discussed this with my son, who finished his GCSE yesterday. In spite of revising, which he has taken seriously, being a person who, as the noble Baroness, Lady Young, said, has a desire to accomplish something, nevertheless he found time to read the section of the TGAT report on the GCSE and testing. Having read it with care he told me in. I regret to say, language which I would not dream of repeating to your Lordships that this is an order which is not going to be obeyed.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the Government's intention in introducing the national curriculum is to ensure that, as in other European countries, all pupils are guaranteed a broad, balanced education throughout their years of compulsory schooling. The purpose of the assessment arrangements is to ensure that all aspects of that basic curriculum are being taught and studied to a reasonable standard. That is the safeguard for the problem put forward by the noble Earl, Lord Russell.
At age 16, we expect GCSE to be the main means of assessment, especially in the core subjects, but we do not expect pupils to take GCSE in all the foundation subjects. We expect the national assessment arrangements to be simpler than the GCSE process, but still to allow pupils to demonstrate a range of attainment up to and including GCSE standard. It will, as now, be for the schools to decide in consultation with pupils and their parents what will be an appropriate mix of GCSE and national assessment study for each individual pupil; and, in relation to the national assessment tests, to decide on the appropriate level for the pupil to attempt in each subject, as they do now for the GCE.
In these circumstances I do not think there is any danger of pupils being overtaxed by the new

815
arrangements. The results of assessments in non-GCSE, as well as GCSE subjects, will form part of each pupil's overall record of achievement which they will carry forward to further study or employment.
We have said all along that we are aiming for a broader curriculum, with higher standards being reached, covering all the years of compulsory schooling. This amendment seems designed to let pupils abandon this concept of a broad curriculum, at the head teacher's discretion, simply to gain good results in fewer subjects at GCSE level, directly contrary to the debate we had about A-levels. It would strike at the heart of our proposals and I must urge the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment for that reason. I am sure that he shares with us the general aim of breadth and balance for all, as set out in Clause 1, and would not really wish to press an amendment which would have the reverse effect.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. I am reminded of something which someone said to me a day or so ago—that whenever one offers criticism of this Bill or points out some of the difficulties involved, the aims of the Bill are always given as the answer. One might ask how a particular aspect will work and the answer is always, "Our aim is such and such" and that it is broad and balanced. That still does not get over the difficulties which some children will meet.
The Minister also said that the final record of achievement of pupils will show their GCSE passes and also what they have achieved in other subjects in which they have not taken the GCSE. That is a laudable aim. I appreciate that it might lead to a broad and balanced curriculum, but I can tell the noble Baroness what will happen, It will be very much in line with what my noble friend Lord Russell had to say; that is, nobody will care a four letter word for anything other than the GCSE.
We are living in a very competitive society and the vast majority of young people only care for the exams they are going to take. The subjects other than those they are taking in the exams will be ignored. There will be a strong tendency for those subjects to be ignored and for the teachers to collude with the pupils. That is what worries me. It sounds much better in theory than in practice.
I revert to what I said in moving the amendment that the only people who can decide what subjects a child should or should not be taking are those on the spot. The demands laid down in statute law as to what a child should be taking are so unrealistic that I can hardly believe it is happening. In the circumstances, I feel inclined to take the amendment to a Division.
6.36 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 60) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 71; Not-Contents, 100.

DIVISION NO. 3

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Ardwick, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Longford, E.

Birk, B.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Blackstone, B.

McNair, L. [Teller.]

Blease, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Meston, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Molloy, L.

Chitnis, L.

Monson, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Nicol, B.

Craigavon, V.

Northfield, L.

David, B.

Oram, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Peston, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Rea, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Flowers, L.

Rochester, L.

Foot, L.

Russell, E.

Gallacher, L.

Seear, B. [Teller.]

Glenamara, L.

Serota, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Shepherd, L.

Grey, E.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Grimond, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hampton, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Hart of South Lanark, B.

Thurlow, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Tordoff, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Underhill, L.

Hughes, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Jeger, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Kagan, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Kearton, L.

Winstanley, L.

Kilbracken, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Arran, E.

Gray of Contin, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Greenway, L.

Beloff, L.

Halsbury, E.

Belstead, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Bessborough, E.

Harvington, L.

Blake, L.

Havers, L.

Borthwick, L.

Henley, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Hesketh, L.

Brantford, V.

Hives, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Hooper, B.

Broxbourne, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Butterworth, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Joseph, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Kenilworth, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Kimball, L.

Carnock, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Chelwood, L.

Lindsay, E.

Coleraine, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Colnbrook, L.

London, Bp.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Long, V.

Cottesloe, L.

Lothian, M.

Cox, B.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Crickhowell, L.

McFadzean, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Macleod of Borve, B.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Mersey, V.

Dilhorne, V.

Milverton, L.

Dundee, E.

Monk Bretton, L.

Eccles, V.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Eden of Winton, L.

Morris, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Faithfull, B.

Nelson, E.

Ferrier, L.

Orkney, E.

817

Rankeillour, L.

Swinton, E.

Reay, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Renton, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Trafford, L.

St. Davids, V.

Trefgarne, L.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Trumpington, B.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Ullswater, V.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Selborne, E.

Windlesham, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Wise, L.

Stevens of Ludgate, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal L.

Young, B.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Swinfen, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.44 p.m.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne): My Lords, the next two amendments have to be reversed because they are wrongly marshalled. Amendment No. 61 is first, followed by Amendment No. 61A.
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 61:
Page 3, line 42, at end insert—
("(2A) No order made under subsection (2) above shall apply to any pupil to the extent that it is incompatible with either the content of, or assessment arrangements under, any subject which he is studying for the General Certificate of Secondary Education.
(2B) No order made under subsection (2) above shall apply in respect of a particular subject to any pupil who has completed early a course in that subject under the General Certificate of Secondary Education.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope to speak very briefly on Amendment No. 61. In listening to the noble Baroness and her replies to other amendments, as regards the first part of the amendment on page 5 of the Marshalled List, I believe that she said that the Government expect best endeavours to be made to ensure that the orders made will not lead to detrimental effects on pupils studying for GCSE. I do not see any reason to pursue that further.
I am interested in the response of the noble Baroness to what is set out under subsection (2B). It is a matter that occurred to me only recently as a result of speaking to a young person who is currently taking these examinations. I had not thought about it before, but it dawned on me that it is not unusual for a pupil to take some GCSE examinations before the fifth year. The young person to whom I was speaking was at a fee-paying school where it is even less unusual than it is at schools in the maintained system, where, to use a slang expression, one knocks off one or two subjects in order to get them out of the way.
The problem I have in mind does not arise in the independent sector. I do not want to rehearse my arguments why the national curriculum does not apply to the independent sector because I have had my say on that matter and I have not changed my views at all. However, it does not have the problem. But in the maintained sector it seems that there is a genuine question of education here. As I understand the national curriculum, a pupil who is making very rapid progress and whose teachers feel that the time has come to take the GCSE after four years (a year early) and does not intend to take the subject any
818
vol. 498further on not unreasonable education grounds as viewed by the teacher, will still be obliged to pursue a course of study in the subject that he has dropped. As I understand it, and more to the point, he will be obliged to be assessed on it. Not to put too fine a point on it that seems to be absurd if that is the case. It cannot be a course of action that anyone would wish for. To reverse the question, it cannot be that anyone would want all the examinations to take place necessarily in the maintained sector at the end of five years.
It seems that there is here a genuine problem and I hope that the Government have addressed themselves to it and at an earlier stage than I did. I thought about it only in the last couple of weeks. I tabled the amendment simply with a view to probing, getting an answer or being told that the Government have taken the problem on board and that they will let us have an answer in due course. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, as the noble Lord anticipated, there is no need for either of the changes suggested in this amendment. First, there can be no question of the GCSE being incompatible with the requirements of the national curriculum. The latter will be a general requirement and no GCSE syllabus would be approved by the SEAC if it was not compatible with the law. There is also no question of our introducing the national curriculum in such a way as to change the rules for any pupil while he or she is in the middle of a GCSE course. There will be ample opportunity for GCSE syllabuses to adapt before the formal requirements are introduced for the fourth key stage in any subject.
As for the notion that the national curriculum requirements should not apply to a pupil who has completed a GCSE course, while accepting the intentions of the noble Lord, the amendment as drafted is clearly defective. If the course has been completed but very little achieved, I think we would all feel that the pupil should be required to study the national curriculum programmes for a year longer to improve his performance.
However, there is of course a real point here, with which we have every sympathy. We do not want any pupil who has demonstrated high achievement in the GCSE to be held back by the requirements of the national curriculum. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has made clear that we intend to use the flexibility already allowed under the Bill to ensure that such pupils can move on to further study in core areas and perhaps drop the study of some of the other foundation subjects if they wish to add others at that stage.
There are general questions to be resolved about how this is put into practice; for example, what levels of attainment are expected before subjects can be dropped completely. We shall want to consider carefully the NCC's advice on this matter. The regulations under Clause 12 of the Bill allowing for these exceptions will be subject to full consultation and the final test of parliamentary approval. This is the right way to proceed in this complicated area rather than by attempting to write specific exemptions on the face of the Bill.

819
In the light of my assurance that both of the noble Lord's points are met, I hope that he will be content to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply. She will appreciate that I cannot get her to answer a question unless I put down an amendment, however defective it may be. I think I found her answer reassuring; I shall look at it carefully in tomorrow's Official Report. I am especially reassured to know that the DES and eventually the other relevant bodies will look at the matter carefully. It is an important matter, in particular for young people who are trying to achieve high standards. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee Lord Ritchie of Dundee moved Amendment No. 61A:
Page 4, line 7, at end insert—
("( ) An order under subsection (2) above shall, where it is at variance to any significant extent from the advice of the National Curriculum Council or the Schools Examination and Assessment Council as appropriate, shall not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament, and any dispute as to the extent of any such variance shall be determinable by judicial review.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, at the Committee stage the Minister said that she would take the issue away, give it further consideration and perhaps return to it at the next stage. That is an accurate paraphrase of what she said. Two amendments were moved at the Committee stage. The first was given no encouragement by the Minister and the second received the degree of encouragement I have set out. It is connected with the concern felt by many of us all along that, although the NCC and the SEAC will be set up by the Secretary of State to give him advice and assistance, he can ignore their advice. In the hands of the wrong kind of Secretary of State they could be just puppet bodies.
Under the Bill as it stands no affirmative resolution will be necessary at any stage in the introduction of the national curriculum. The process will either be the negative procedure in respect of attainment targets or programmes of study or no parliamentary order at all in respect of assessment arrangements. As a consequence, the level of parliamentary scrutiny over the introduction of the national curriculum will be minimal. After the attainment targets and programmes of study have been shaped by the working groups with the approval of the Secretary of State, they will be submitted to the National Curriculum Council for consultation. There is widespread concern that the role of the council and the consultation which arises from it will take place at too late a stage to be effective. It remains the case however that the council at least has the opportunity to give a view to the Secretary of State although he may ignore it.
This amendment merely states that an affirmative order should be introduced where the Secretary of State departs substantially from the NCC advice. This is intended as a minimum safeguard to enable Parliament to debate a matter on which the Secretary
820
of State departs from expert advice. It should be remembered that the NCC will, we hope, be a body of experts. They will know about education; they will not be outsiders merely fulfilling the political will of the Secretary of State. Without such a safeguard the Secretary of State will literally be able to ignore the advice of the National Curriculum Council. It would be down to Parliament to be informed of these circumstances and to call for a debate.
Many circumstances, including pressure of legislative time, might inhibit this process. The Secretary of State will be perfectly well aware when he is, or is not, accepting advice on the national curriculum in the spirit of the orders that he puts forward. The amendment simply states that he should make a judgment as to when an affirmative resolution is required. It is hardly an earnest of the good faith of the Government that they appear unable to accept even the basic thrust of this modest amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness David: My Lords, I should like to support the amendment. We hoped very much that the Government would put down an amendment to this effect. There was no absolute commitment but the noble Baroness did say that she would take the matter back and give it further consideration. We hoped for a positive response from the Government. There have been few positive responses but we hoped for one. Too much is being done by negative resolution. I hope that we shall have a full explanation from the Minister.
All we have asked is that an affirmative resolution should be introduced where the Secretary of State departs substantially from the NCC advice. It is a minimum safeguard, as the noble Lord said. There could be drafting issues as to whether any variance from the terms of advice was significant but amendments sought to cover this point by making it clear that any challenge to the judgment of the Secretary of State in not bringing forward an affirmative order would be made subject to judicial review. It is not credible to suppose that the parliamentary draftsman is unable to produce a form of words which meets the substance of the point, if that is what the Minister intends to say. If there is no way in which a distinction may be made as to the degree of variance from national curriculum advice, the only proper course for the Government to adopt is to make all such orders subject to affirmative resolution. I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment. We have had little accepted; and this would be quite a simple proposal to accept.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the Minister said earlier today that she wants to assure us on the subject of the Government's willingness to listen to professional advice. I was glad to hear that. This could be a good opportunity to offer precisely that reassurance and also to put the point in a nutshell. It might be in the Government's interests to remember that some day there may be a Secretary of State who is not of their political persuasion.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, I react against this amendment. It is the old story of not having confidence in the impartiality of the Secretary of State, whoever he may be. I cannot imagine anyone likely to hold that office who, in operating the statutes, would blithely ignore the advice of this group. To suggest that someone else should step in to see whether the Secretary of State has departed significantly from what was recommended to him undermines the whole purpose of Parliament saying that the Secretary of State shall be the final court of appeal. We should not undermine that. To say that the matter must go through both Houses of Parliament, with negative orders and so on, is using a sledgehammer against something that is hardly likely to arise.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, during our debates in Committee I did indeed express sympathy with some aspects of this amendment. However, I must point out to the proposers that as it stands the amendment is technically defective in that it refers to assessment orders which, as we have discussed, are not to be subject to Parliament's approval. The reference to judicial review is also inappropriate. However, the main point is that there should be adequate parliamentary scrutiny of orders establishing the attainment targets and programmes of study for the national curriculum. I believe that to be the noble Lord's real concern.
We are all conscious of the need for such orders to be given an appropriate degree of parliamentary scrutiny. It is clearly right that important and contentious orders should be fully debated. Further examination of the options suggests that we do not really need to make any change to the provisions of the Bill to ensure that this is the case. There is already provision in the Bill for the National Curriculum Council to publish a report containing its advice on any order and for the Secretary of State to publish and circulate a full statement of his reasons if he departs from that advice. This will give noble Lords and others good and clear warning of any case in which the NCC's advice is not followed and enable them to judge whether the departure is sufficient to justify parliamentary time and a full debate. If they, or Members of another place, reach that conclusion of course they can pray against the order.
To add a requirement that the order should be subject to the full affirmative procedure when there was any significant difference from the NCC's advice would add little to the process. However, it would require us to devote what we have all established is very precious parliamentary time to changes which were significant in a legal sense but perhaps minor in terms of the overall impact of the order. For that reason we decided on this occasion not to offer any amendment as a result of our further consideration of the matter.
I must point out to the noble Baroness, Lady David, that we have offered amendments in other areas and although there may not have been many this afternoon, or indeed any, nonetheless concessions have been made. Therefore, although I decline to make one on this occasion, the debate has nevertheless given me the opportunity to explain the
822
already considerable hurdles that we believe any Secretary of State would have to overcome if he wished to depart from the National Curriculum Council's advice.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: My Lords, I think that our unease on the issue arises from a fear of what might happen under a different government. The many franchises that have been given to the Secretary of State in the Bill form part of the cause of our unease. Therefore, as the Government seem unwilling to move on the amendment, I feel that this is an occasion when I must divide the House.
7.2 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 61A) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 57; Not-Contents, 92.

DIVISION NO. 4

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

McNair, L.

Ardwick, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Birk, B.

Meston, L.

Blackstone, B.

Monson, L.

Blease, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Nicol, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Oram, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Peston, L.

David, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Rea, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Ritchie of Dundee, L. [Teller.]

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Rochester, L.

Flowers, L.

Russell, E. [Teller.]

Foot, L.

Scear, B.

Gallacher, L.

Scrota, B.

Galpern, L.

Stedman, B.

Glenamara, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Grimond, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Hampton, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Underhill, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Jeger, B.

Walston, L.

Kearton, L.

Whaddon, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Listowel, E.

Winstanley, L.

Longford, E.

Young of Dartington, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Annan, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Arran, E.

Carnock, L.

Barber, L.

Coleraine, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Beloff, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Belstead, L.

Cox, B.

Bessborough, E.

Craigavon, V.

Blake, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Blyth, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Borthwick, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Dundee, E.

Broadbridge, L.

Eccles, V.

Brookeborough, V.

Eden of Winton, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Butterworth, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Caccia, L.

Elton, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Faithfull, B.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Ferrier, L.

823

Gainsborough, E.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Nelson, E.

Greenway, L.

Orkney, E.

Halsbury, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Reay, L.

Harvington, L.

Renton, L.

Hastings, L.

Renwick, L.

Havers, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Henley, L.

Selborne, E.

Hesketh, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hives, L.

Stevens of Ludgate, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Hooper, B.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Swinfen, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Swinton, E.

Joseph, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Kimball, L.

Thurlow, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Trafford, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Trefgarne, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Trumpington, B.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Ullswater, V.

McFadzean, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Windlesham, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Wise, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Morris, L.

Young, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
7.9 p.m.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I think that we have reached an appropriate moment at which to take a break in these proceedings. I therefore beg to move that further consideration on Report be adjourned until 8.10 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Protection of Animals (Amendment) Bill
Report received.

Horses, Ponies and Donkeys (No. 2) Bill
7.10 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Houghton of Sowerby.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD HAYTER in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Offence of cruel tethering]:
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No. 1:
Page line 6, at end insert (""or").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I have to report with some distress that my team of horses, ponies and donkeys has broken up and it is necessary to reassemble something in their place under good order and discipline. I suppose it is only
824
to be expected that any Bill that goes through another place without any discussion is bound to cause some trouble when it gets here. That is just what has happened because we find that, according to the conventions of the Chamber and the legislation, we have to be careful about our definitions. "Horses" includes "ponies" and therefore there is no need to mention ponies separately from horses.
The next problem is that donkeys apparently do not exist in animal protection law. Most of these laws were passed so long ago that the lovable donkey had not come into circulation; so there are asses. In a way, this Bill could relate to horses and asses. That in fact is what we are doing now. We have to convert this Bill from one dealing with horses, ponies and donkeys into one that deals with horses and asses.
However, as the Committee will see in a moment or two, a noble Lord may say to me, "What about mules?" I did not know about mules. Somebody else may say, "What about other animals which are tethered from time to time?" Mules present a problem, because they have not been mentioned in the principal Act of 1911 in quite the clear form that enables us to proceed without some consideration.
I therefore move Amendment No. 1 and I will link it with Amendment No. 2. We therefore start on our process of reformation and we will delete "pony or donkey" and insert "or ass". That will not be the end of our trouble because we still have "mule" to deal with later. But at the moment I think we should move one step at a time in this complex situation—much more complex, I may say, than religion in schools—and then go on from here.
I can only recommend that the Committee should accept this amendment. I am sorry about it. The romance has to some extent been taken out of this Bill. After all, the title we have been using has excited a good deal of interest. People have said to me, in all sorts of places and at all sorts of different times, "How are your horses, ponies and donkeys getting on?" Here am I, having to abandon them and having to be content with horses and asses, which are not anything like so romantic.
I may add that the reason this Bill is called a No. 2 Bill is that the earlier Bill was withdrawn and replaced by a second Bill in another place. That is another little hitch in the situation, because we shall come in a moment or two to the question as to whether the title of the Bill has to be altered. However, for the moment I will take the Committee on step at a time. I beg to move Amendment No. 1.
Lord Kilbracken: In spite of what my noble friend has said to the Committee, I think we have to consider my Amendment No. 3 at this stage because, on my reading of it, if Amendment No. 2 were agreed I would not be able to move my Amendment No. 3.
I agree entirely with what my noble friend has said about ponies and donkeys. There is no reason whatsoever for including a pony, because a pony is just a small horse. The great racehorse Hyperion, who won the Derby in the 1930s, being under 14.2 hands, was in fact a pony and therefore would have been covered by the definition. On donkeys and asses, my noble friend said that donkeys do not exist. I

825
believe that donkeys do exist, and indeed the dictionaries tell us that donkey and ass are synonymous; but because it is the word "ass" that is used in the 1911 Act my feeling is that we should conform with the usage in the Act, which means that I agree with my noble friend on those two points.
However, he has already raised the question of the mule. Why should mules, on which I have ridden many miles in the mountains of the Yeman and Kurdistan, be omitted from the benefits of the Act? The mule is a sterile hybrid between the horse and the donkey—an animal, it has been said, with no pride in the past or hope for the future. At present, not being either a horse or a donkey, it can be tethered as cruelly as anybody likes. I should like to remedy that.
Furthermore, my noble friend said that the mule did not feature in the 1911 Act, but I must say I did not find that to be the case. I found that each time equine animals were mentioned in the 1911 Act it specified horses, mules and donkeys. Therefore I suggest that in this Bill, which will amend Section 1 of the Act, we should again use the same language and include mules.
What, I hear your Lordships thinking, about hinnies? If any noble Lord does not know about hinnies, the answer is that if the sire is a donkey and the dam is a mare then the progeny is a mule, but if it is the other way round—which apparently happens less frequently—then the progeny is called a hinny. The only known progeny of that great steeple-chaser Cottage Rake was a hinny, because shortly before he was gelded a she-ass was left in the same field for company and she happened to come into season: Cottage Rake took advantage of this. That progeny is technically known as a hinny. Fortunately the dictionaries tell us that the word "mule" is popularly taken to include hinny. As they are not mentioned in the 1911 Act, I feel that it is perhaps unnecessary to include them here. Amendments Nos. 5 and 7 I see as being consequential on Amendment No. 3. As my noble friend suggested, I should prefer to wait until they are called to speak to them.
I should mention finally that there is a small misprint in the amendment. The first time that the word "or" appears it should not appear. It should read:
"and insert ('ass or mule')".
It still makes sense if that superfluous conjunction is left in, but I prefer that it should be deleted.
The only effect of my amendment is that, in addition to the inclusion of my noble friend's point, protection would be given to the humble mule. That is why I have tabled it, and I hope that it will be preferred to that of my noble friend.
The Earl of Arran: I crave the indulgence of the Committee because we are not aware of the existence of Amendments Nos. 5 and 7 as apparently tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken.
I can however speak to Amendment No. 1 moved by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, concerning "ass". The proposed amendment does not alter the scope of the Bill and its purpose is to
826
bring the Bill's terminology into line with that used in the Protection of Animals Act 1911, which the Bill seeks to amend. In the 1911 Act the term "horse" is defined as including pony so that reference to "pony" in Clause 1 of the Bill is superfluous. In the 1911 Act the term "ass" is used in place of the term "donkey". To be consistent with that Act, the Bill should do the same. That said, we support the amendment.
Lord Kilbracken: Is the noble Earl aware that, as I said, the humble mule is also included in all reference to equine species in the 1911 Act? It should therefore surely be included in any future amending legislation.
The Earl of Arran: I am not aware of that, and I apologise if I should be aware of it. Perhaps we may come back to the point on Report. We may be able to satisfy everybody concerned in writing before Report.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: We want to bring mules under the protection of the Bill without making ourselves look ridiculous. We can surely bring the mule into the Bill without a lot of palaver and without any substantial technical difficulty. If we cannot do that, it is time that we examined our procedures.
I suggest that my noble friend Lord Kilbracken should withdraw his amendments and that we allow mine to go forward. We can then try to get this sorted out—the title of the Bill and everything—before the next stage. My difficulty is that I have not had the opportunity to consult the sponsor of the Bill in another place, Mr. Amess, Member of Parliament for Basildon; indeed, I have had little time to consult anyone. I received advice from the Home Office yesterday suggesting that it would complicate matters unnecessarily if we tried to bring in the mule without contemplating other changes, including changes to the title. Unfortunately, some difficulties arise in the legislative procedure in altering long titles and short titles. The more the public see of how we have to cope with tradition, technical problems and legislative practice, the more I think they will feel sorry for us and say that it is about time we had some better procedure to do what we wish to do.
I can only suggest therefore that without further discussion we make progress in Committee and consider the mule on report. That is the best solution. If not, I shall have to go to the 1911 Act and show how the mule can be accommodated within the definitions of the various species therein. I shall not read them out, but the mules and the asses are there and it is clear that donkeys are not there. In that case, we can dispose of donkeys and get donkeys out of it. I am sorry about that because they are lovable and intelligent animals. They are a bit stubborn, but so be it. Let us get them out of it; we can then finish the Committee stage and, if time permits, we can probably take a little refreshment before the hordes come back to resume on education.
I hope that my noble friend will accede to this. If not, some difficulty may arise between the Minister and me as to what other changes might be made. I hope that I can be got out of this difficulty.
Lord Kilbracken: If my noble friend wants the Bill to embrace the mule, there is no palaver necessary at all. The Committee simply has to accept Amendment No. 3. When we reach Report, I expect to be somewhere in the wilds of the Middle East and unable to table an amendment. However, as it has been requested by my noble friend, I shall be happy to withdraw the amendment. This will make Amendments Nos. 5 and 7 superfluous, which I shall not move.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I have moved Amendment No. 1 and I suggest with great respect that we decide on that.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 7, leave out ("pony or donkey") and insert ("or ass").
The noble Lord said: The amendment does not cover the mule, but I feel that it should be included in the Bill so that the mule can be attended to at a subsequent stage. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 8, leave out ("or position").
The noble Lord said: I mentioned this on Second Reading. The Bill as it stands reads:
"shall tether any horse, pony or donkey under such conditions or in such manner or position as to cause that animal unnecessary suffering".
The point has been raised by horse trainers and breakers that there are certain procedures which are gone through in breaking in a horse. They might be regarded as an offence under this clause, so we agree that the word "position" should come out. Then I think there will be no doubt that we are talking about:
"in such manner as to cause that animal unnecessary suffering".
That ought to be good enough. I beg to move. On Question, amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 1, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
7.30 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: Perhaps I may add a couple of points here. I do not wish to enter into the discussion on terminology but to reiterate a point which I made on Second Reading. The great irony of this Bill is that it has caused great anxiety to travellers and gypsies—the very people who tether their horses and the very people against whom the RSPCA makes it quite clear that the Bill is not directed. They are the people who look after their horses best. The trouble is, as I said on Second Reading, that travellers are very often viewed with great suspicion by the local people. They feel that this Bill could give an extra stick to the local people with which to beat the travellers.
Therefore perhaps my noble friend would be so good as to confirm the two points which appear to
828
give the travellers anxiety. The first is very simple, that this Bill does not make tethering illegal. The second point is that the code of practice which has been issued by the RSPCA is merely a guidance and is not part of the Bill. In that case, if the travellers did not carry out every single point of this code of practice and the guidance which has come from the RSPCA, and if they deviated from any of those points, they would not be considered outside the law. I think it would give a lot of comfort to travellers—I know my noble friend did this on Second Reading so perhaps he would do it again—for him to confirm that the Bill has no adverse effect on those people who look after their animals.
I must admit that at the weekend I met some local people who had read a very lurid description of the Bill in Horse and Hound. One of them had sold two of the horses because they were so concerned about the effects which they suspected—wrongly I know—that the Bill would have. Therefore in order to put those anxieties at rest perhaps I may ask my noble friend briefly to confirm the two points I have mentioned.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I am aware of the angle on the Bill which my noble friend has raised. I am also aware that letters come to me asking why cruelty cannot be forestalled by a stipulation of certain tethering conditions. What would be a model tether and what steps could be taken to enforce its use are an entirely new subject. I promise my noble friend that on Third Reading I shall be prepared to make a statement on this. I think that some fears have to be allayed.
On the other hand, there are people who have horses, and plenty of them live by horses. It has been said that the British Empire was built up on the back of a horse. We are generally regarded as being kind to horses. The first protection of animals legislation had the horse and the dog in mind. That is where animal protection began. The poor old cow did not get much attention then nor the bull. After all, there are tethered bulls and we have not mentioned their tribulations. There was one in a field near me which pawed the ground until there was a big hole and I thought, "I don't know whether that is cruel but it certainly caused him great psychological distress". However we have not dealt with bulls. I think we must be content with going as far as the mule and see how we get on; that is the best we can do. I am sure that there is a moral in this Bill somewhere as regards the position.
I hope that we can now proceed to deal with Clause 2 and Amendment No. 6. There needs to be something in the Bill to say when the Bill as an Act of Parliament should begin. If we did not have a delay of two months it would begin on the day after it received its Royal Assent and then the courts would have all sorts of difficulties in each particular case.
Lord Kilbracken: On clause stand part, I want to say that I share the feelings of sympathy towards travelling people which have been expressed by my noble friend Lady Ewart-Biggs. But I cannot see how there can be any feelings of apprehension that under this legislation the tethering of any horse would

829
become illegal. The proposed paragraph states quite clearly that the illegality is in tethering any horse:
"in such manner as to cause that animal unnecessary suffering".
If it is not tethered in that manner, then of course it is not against the law.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 [Short title]:
[Amendment No. 5 not moved.]
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 1, line 10, at end insert—
("(2) This Act shall come into force at the end of the period of two months beginning with the day on which it is passed.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
In the Title:
[Amendment No. 7 not moved.]
Title agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Environment and Safety Information Bill
7.39 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Ewart-Biggs.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD HAYTER in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Maintaining of and access to registers]:
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee moved Amendment No. 1:
Page line 23, at end insert—
("(4) Any register under this section may be kept by means of a computer.").
The noble Earl said: Before addressing the substance of Amendment No. 1, I should just mention that in speaking to the Second Reading I said that the Government would bring forward some amendments, but of a detailed and legal sort which I believed would prove no impediment to the Bill's progress to the statute. We are now at that stage and I hope the Committee will find none of the amendments at all controversial. They are only intended to tidy up loose legal ends and clarify the text.
The Bill has moved quickly with some substantial amendments being introduced, and it is therefore right that officials and the parliamentary draftsmen should have stood back to check that it all fits together and is right in detail. From the minor nature of the changes we are proposing I think it now does fit together, and when these improvements are taken on board it will be a simple yet sensible Bill.
I now turn to the substance of Amendment No. 1. From its inception, the originator of the Bill has stated his wish not to overburden the Health and Safety Executive and other authorities who will have to maintain these registers. Accordingly, and to make the registers easier to maintain, Clause 1(2) requires only that sufficient particulars need be entered rather than a copy of the entire notice.
In Committee in another place it was said that this change should allow the use of a computer to keep the register and provide printouts. However, lawyers have now advised that it was not entirely clear whether that had been achieved, because in other Acts where computer printouts may be used they are referred to explicitly, and therefore the implication might be that they are not permitted by this Bill. The purpose of this amendment is to make the position absolutely clear—that computer printouts may be used. I beg to move.
7.45 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: I am very grateful to the Minister for having told me beforehand that he would be making a few changes to this Bill and that it would be mainly a tidying up process. He said, and I am grateful to him for having repeated it, that he did not think the amendments he would be putting down would cause any impediment to the passage of the Bill when it got back to another place.
I very much welcome the positive attitude that the Minister has taken towards this Bill. I am also grateful for his explanation of this amendment. I must say that the sponsors of this Bill and I had assumed that the material in question would be kept in a computer. Therefore, the amendment of the Minister frames into law what is really the practice anyway. We had wished to keep things as simple as possible and not put too much extra work into the hands of the authorities.
However, I understand the intention of the Minister. He wished to make the practice that we had presumed occurred more precise with this amendment. He wished to close any loopholes. I am grateful for the very constructive attitude that the Minister has taken in putting forward this amendment, to which I give my deep support.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 [Interpretation]:
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 1, at end insert ("is employed in his Ministry and").
The noble Earl said: With the leave of the Committee, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 6 together. These amendments relate to the responsibilities of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for keeping a register. He may, if he wishes, authorise other authorities such as local authorities to enforce the Food and Environment Protection Act on his behalf. In such cases these amendments provide that it is the delegated authorities rather than the Minister who should maintain a register of the notices which they have served.
It is of course more appropriate that the authority which knows at first hand about the notice should have the responsibility for providing information about it. It is then also more likely to be held at a location which is accessible to those with an interest. The Minister's responsibility is therefore confined through these amendments to maintaining a register of those notices which have been served by MAFF officials. I beg to move.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I wish to ask for clarification. I wondered at the use of the words:
"is employed in his Ministry and".
I wondered whether those words could relate to people who may be employed on contract work or are specialists. We hear about sections of government being contracted out. We hear about people who are employed on a specialist basis. Do I understand that we are talking here about employees of the Ministry or employees of a council; that is, the responsible bodies? I should he grateful if the Minister could clarify that point. If the Minister is ready to reply, I shall be happy to allow him to do so.
The Earl of Dundee: I think the noble Lord is asking about the position of the employees of the Ministry of Agriculture as distinct from other people and authorities to whom the Ministry of Agriculture, under the Bill, is empowered to delegate. If that is so, I can assure the noble Lord that the provision relates to the employees of the Ministry.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: In effect, then, it covers the employees of the Ministry. People who are not, as it were, employees of the Ministry but are employed by the Ministry will not be covered by this part of the amendment.
The Earl of Dundee: The noble Lord is correct. The latter implies the process of delegation, but the former implies, in contrast, direct employees. That is the case.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: I wish only to say that I am glad my noble friend has sought clarification on that point and that the Minister has been able to give his assurance. Again from my point of view and that of the sponsors of this Bill, we are grateful for the effort that has gone into clarifying these points. We see this as an improvement, and therefore we are grateful to the Government for having gone through it so carefully and for having made these technical changes which to our minds have improved the Bill. I give my support to the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 7, leave out from ("by") to ("or") in line 9 and insert ("that Minister or the Secretary of State").
The noble Earl said: This amendment has already been spoken to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 12, leave out ("that Schedule") and insert ("the Schedule to this Act").
The noble Earl said: The amendment seeks to make a very minor presentational change. At one stage, subsection (3) followed another subsection which referred to the schedule to the Bill. However, amendments in another place have caused the two subsections to be separated. To use the words proposed—"the Schedule to this Act"—is clearer than the words "that Schedule", which are currently in the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Protection of trade secrets etc.]:
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 3, line 48, after ("notices") insert ("served").
The noble Earl said: The verb "served" was missed out in the printing of the clause and needs to be added. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 3, line 49, leave out ("in its application in England") and insert ("by persons employed in his Ministry").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.10 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.53 to 8.10 p.m.]

Education Reform Bill
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
Clause 5 [Courses leading to external qualifications]:
Lord Kilmarnock Lord Kilmarnock moved Amendment No. 62:
Page 4, line 24, at end insert—
("( ) Where the Secretary of State allows for a choice of approved qualifications for pupils of compulsory school age, and where sufficient parental demand exists for an approved qualification, the school, the governing body, and where appropriate the local education authority shall have regard to parental demand, provided adequate resources are available. "Sufficient parental demand" shall be deemed as that which constitutes a viable teaching group.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment and Amendment No. 63 stem in part from the debate initiated by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, on 5th May, when we discussed the worries she and others have voiced about certain GCSE history syllabuses. The arguments revolve around the heavy emphasis laid on what is known as "empathy" which permeates the approach to the setting and examining of history, particularly by the Southern Examination

833
Group but also various criteria laid down across the five examination groups and throughout the system.
At the heart of the debate is a cause célébre in which four history teachers from the Priory Comprehensive School at Lewes have been disciplined and have probably not improved their career prospects on account of their strong opposition to features in these exams which they believed were a travesty of the true purpose of history as a discipline. They therefore encouraged a group of parents to enter their children privately for the traditional Scottish 0-level and taught the children for that purpose in their own time at no charge and off the school premises. This remains a matter of conflict between them and their school which I strongly hope will not lead to victimisation.
The case is also a symptom of a much wider unease which has subsequently, in the few weeks since we last discussed it, become the subject of a national debate in editorials, features and correspondence in the columns of the press.
In the historical context empathy is designed to lure into the fold of history those for whom history has hitherto had little or no meaning—an admirable aim one might think. What is in question is the method. Unless based on a rather profound knowledge of the complex circumstances and conflicting views involved it can be a dangerous game for untrained minds to be asked to play.
Candidates in most cases are not asked to empathise with historical actors but with imaginary people—for example, an active suffragette, a Jew under Hitler, a Cuban at the time of the Bay of Pigs or a PLO representative—and asked how they would feel in such circumstances. On the last topic one trial paper asked the candidate to draft a PLO speech justifying a number of terrorist acts, including the attack on the Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympic Games. It is hard to see how that could be answered without simulating murderous feelings against Jews or vice versa if the Israeli response was called for. If differentiated empathy—as it is called in the horrible jargon of educationists—is required by the question, this can only lead to empathetic advocacy of two violent and opposed positions.
Understanding of the past must surely be based largely on actual events and recorded thought of real historical actors. Even here, where a question is posed on, say, Joseph Chamberlain or Neville Chamberlain it is often not in the form of what they did or said but what they might have said in certain hypothetical circumstances. It is rather hard to see why a candidate should be asked to invent what a national figure might have said rather than answer a question on what he did say, which is the stuff of history. It might produce a sophisticated response from an able student but would completely flummox a mediocre candidate who could have coped adequately with a more traditional paper. That hardly seems to fulfil the purpose of opening up history to those who have little aptitude for it.
I do not want to go into any further exposure of those papers. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, is in his seat, and the noble Lord, Lord Annan, is coming in later and they are far better equipped to do
834
that than I. I do want to express my deep unease at the luring of students in these papers into role-playing almost as if it were a game to which a certain excitement attaches because of the strength of feeling or the violence which the issue attracted in its day. That day is often not very far removed from the present, because much of the material is closer to current affairs than to history. Immature students are thus encouraged into political attitudes at an earlier age and with less information than is usually considered adequate for the formation of a mature opinion.
Furthermore there is the question of fairness to the candidate, because not only does excessive emphasis on empathy force on children an almost intolerable level of moral involvement in or commitment to past events that they do not fully understand, but empathy is also extremely difficult to test. That was recognised in a letter from the DES to Mr. McGovern, one of the teachers concerned, on 24th April accepting that:
"it is widely recognised as difficult to assess".
To my knowledge there is only a very small background of research carried out by the old Schools Council on a sample of about 100 children. To the best of my belief no independent research has been done by any respected non-state education foundation, so much of the marking is bound to be subject to dubious criteria.
I was interested to note that in our last debate on this subject the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, who I am very glad to see in his seat this evening, said he was initially a strong supporter of empathy but:
"I now find that what appeared to me to be a broadening and deepening of empathy has been used to seek to associate pupils with concepts of terrorism, for instance. To my mind that is a straight abuse of the original idea".—[Official Report, 5/5188; col. 765.]
I hope very much that he will support these amendments. I agreed with him on that occasion when he said he did not believe that,
"GCSE would cause discontent on any great scale, but it should have the potential competition if it should fall below expectations".
That is precisely the point we are discussing and to which these amendments are addressed.
There is no reason why only Scottish 0-levels should be available as an alternative. There are other English examining groups which do not push empathy to such extremes and to which parents might like to turn. It might even be a good idea for a new examining board to come into existence to pace the development of GCSE. The GCSE system, as a whole, seems to have been captured by a particular view of what it is that pupils are expected to have attained in their subjects after two years of preparation. Would not the Government perhaps be prepared to consider recognising an examining group which represents other reputable professional opinions and which offers schools and parents a different view of required attainment and a countervailing pole of attraction? Where genuine agreement does not exist should not our motto be, "Let a hundred flowers bloom", or, more prosaically, "Let the market decide"?
If there are no takers for an examining group to deal with a different philosophy, that will decide the question. On the other hand, if teachers and parents

835
want to opt out of the present examination straitjacket—which I emphasise is not inherent in the conception of GCSE itself—should they not be allowed to do so? Is it not in harmony with the Government's own approach that they should be allowed to do so?
I turn briefly to the Government's response to this sometimes rather passionate debate. It has been on the whole cautious but not unfriendly. The noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, said on the last occasion when this was discussed that she had some sympathy with the amendment moved by her noble friend Lady Cox. On 10th May, Mrs. Rumbold wrote to Mr. Tim Rathbone saying:
I share the concern expressed that some syllabuses may he adopting an unbalanced approach to assessment in this area. The Secondary Examinations Council will be looking carefully at the summer examination papers and will consider in the light of practice whether changes are needed to the syllabuses or criteria".
The Secretary of State has said on a number of occasions that history syllabuses will be kept under review in the light of GCSE experience. The trouble with such assurances—genuine though I am sure they are—is that any review and subsequent changes are bound to be a matter not of months but of years. Therefore they are of little comfort to unhappy parents or bewildered children who will be sitting the exams next year and the year after that, and probably the year after that as well.
The main concern of the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, seemed to be that amendments along these lines would undermine the position of governors. She wrote on 13th June to Dr. Freeman, who is one of the four Lewes teachers to whom I referred, and said:
"We believe that the proper place for the voice of the parent to be heard on school curriculum policy is the govening body of the school".
That is certainly an important forum, but parents do not have anything like a majority on governing bodies and if their voice is to be effective surely it should be an informed voice. It should have some leverage for the expression of urgent concern. That is the main purpose of these amendments.
The first amendment, Amendment No. 62, is less prescriptive than the amendment that was originally moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, in that it simply requires the school, the governing body and where appopriate the local education authority to have regard to any parental demand for the syllabus and examinations of an alternative board, with the further proviso that there must be a viable group requiring the alternative course and sufficient resources to teach it. The latter provision was designed specifically to take account of anxiety expressed by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, on the last occasion about placing an additional demand on the teaching workforce and the availability of resources.
The second amendment, Amendment No. 63, is designed in the first place to prevent the recurrence of what happened at Lewes where the teachers concerned were forbidden by the headmaster on pain of severe discipline even to mention to parents on school premises the existence of any other legitimate examination. That is surely unwarrantable interference with a normal parent-teacher
836
relationship. In my own recollection discussions normally take place between parents and subject teachers before the child begins his or her fourth year studies. That would be a perfectly legitimate occasion for doubts about the local board's history syllabus to be aired and discussed in time for parents to seek support for an alternative or enlist the sympathy of the parent-governors or indeed of other governors as well. This amendment may be free-standing and should be approved on civil rights grounds alone, but it will be better in conjunction with Amendment No. 62, because parents, having sought and obtained professional advice, will then have a fall-back mechanism if their concerns and demands should fall on deaf ears.
I apologise to the House if I have spoken at some length but this is a complex issue. I can assure your Lordships that it is not our intention to knock GCSE but it is our contention that in view of the volume of objections, queries and general unease surrounding some history syllabuses in particular parents should have at least some safety valve written into the Bill.
All that may settle down and in the long run I am sure that it will do, but in the meantime, during what promises to be a rather lengthy transitional period, it is vital that something on these lines should be in place. After all, history will no longer be optional; it is a basic requirement of the curriculum, and in those circumstances parents must surely have a right to question whether it is being judiciously presented or fairly tested. If choice is to mean anything other than choice of one dish, these rather modest amendments will be a way of increasing it, which surely is a basic element in the Government's philosophy. Therefore, if the noble Baroness does not like the precise form of words that we have submitted, I very much hope to hear from her that she will come back at Third Reading with a more expertly worded government amendment or amendments to meet these widely shared concerns. I beg to move.
Lord Annan: My Lords, if Conan Doyle had been chronicling this amendment for the Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes, I suspect that he would have called it, The Singular Case of the Four Teachers from Lewes. It is a very peculiar case in which a history syllabus produces questions for an examination such as: "How would you feel if you were a Jew under Hitler, or a Cuban in the Bay of Pigs, or a PLO representative?" "Draft a speech justifying the terrorism of the PLO with particular reference to the assassination of the Israeli athletes at Munich."
What is also peculiar about this case is that when the children complained to their parents and the parents complained to the four teachers, the teachers were disciplined by the headmaster who said that it was totally unreasonable that they should talk to parents about this matter on the school premises. I do not think that that concerns us at the moment when we are considering this amendment except to draw it to the attention of the authorities. I do not want to begin a long disquisition about the fact that this is not history but current affairs—and I rather doubt whether it is even a question of current affairs.
However, I think that one must recognise that there are different philosophies in schools. I do not

837
want to suggest that this particular philosophy is totally ludicrous. Indeed, something of this kind was well known 60 years ago. Questions of that kind were set for scholarships to public schools. The reason that they were set was that the small boys in the prep schools were crammed with knowledge; they all knew the difference between malo I would rather be, and malo up an apple tree. They all knew the differences between zeugma and hysteron-proteron and the dates as well as the battles in the Wars of the Roses. But the public schools wanted to know whether a boy was somebody who had simply been stuffed like a tub with facts or whether he had some kind of originality and when faced with a question of that kind could show imagination.
I think that it would be wrong if we simply became philistines on this matter of examinations. However, I believe that it is a singularly bad examination because history is not what one feels; it is what people did or said. One then has to go further, as the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, did, and ask what can be done about this matter. I suggest that the amendment that is now before us tries to give something which is near to the Government's heart, and that is choice. This amendment seeks to provide that if parents do not like the syllabus being offered or are positively hostile to it, they can with consent move to another syllabus. I can hardly believe that the Government are hostile to that idea.
I shall say no more because the noble Lord introduced the amendment at length and said everything that needs to be said on its behalf.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, very briefly perhaps I may declare an interest in that I have sat for years as a Recorder in Lewes. I have been written to about this subject and I wish to support the spirit of this amendment on the basis of the information that I have received and of what I have heard this evening. I hope that the Government will regard it with sympathy.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I hope very much that the Government will take this occasion to accept something which comes from the House because, unlike possibly some other amendments against which the noble Baroness has been obdurate, this amendment is squarely in line with the Government's philosophy. They have said that one of the purposes of the Bill is to widen parental choice, to increase variety and to improve standards. I should have thought that the freedom to choose a better syllabus compared with a poorer syllabus would fit squarely with all three objectives.
I hope that this amendment will have the support of the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, because in brief it says: Scotland good, England bad. However, there is more to it than that. I join in welcoming the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, and reiterate that it is very important that the GCSE, which is bound to have teething troubles as is any new examination system, should be given the maximum possible chance to succeed. Where
838
weaknesses are found there must be opportunities given to remedy them. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, pointed out, when dealing with educational matters one is in a particular difficulty in that one has to do something for children who are there now even though one is looking forward to a change in the future.
I would hope that within three or five years—whatever it may he—the Southern Group would either appoint new examiners or the examiners would think again about what they are trying to do. I would hope that the paper would fall in the general line of historical teaching in schools, in universities even, and that this problem would disappear. We are not asking for a major change. We are asking the Government to give a little play while this matter settles down.
There is an additional argument that I should like to raise very briefly. The noble Lord, Lord Annan, quite justifiably pointed out that empathy questions—questions asking people to enter into the minds of others—are no new thing. The great R. G. Collingwood—whose greatness as a philosopher is in some dispute; but he was a great historian—argued that the purpose of historical study was largely to try to enter into the mind of historical figures but always through the evidence available. One has to try to know as much as Julius Caesar knew when he tried to cross the Rubicon and then imagine how he arrived at that decision.
However, there is a difference between now and 60 years ago. That difference is made very largely by television. One of the effects of television is that there is some inevitable confusion in the minds of the young between fact and fiction. I think that this is occasionally exploited, but that is another matter. Therefore it is very difficult if one is asking people, and children in particular, to imagine being the kind of characters that have been referred to (and there are others in other questions in these papers) and to distinguish that from the writing of fiction. The question is not asking, "What did Wellington feel when Blucher was late at the field of Waterloo?" At least they might know what the field of Waterloo was, and who Wellington and Blucher were. But if one were to imagine an Irish peasant or a PLO terrorist, whoever it may be, one is asking them to do something which for modern children is particularly difficult.
The merit of the Scottish examinations—and those papers have been published as well as the Southern Group's papers—was that it built on some structure. The child would at least have known the sequence of events and the kinds of things that people were trying to tackle, whereas the paper to which reference has been made, and which has been printed almost in full in newspapers, seems to me a marvellous way for teachers to ask pupils to repeat their own prejudices under the colour of historical argument. But it would leave a child with no idea as to what came first or second, or how important some aspects of history were compared with others.
For these reasons I very much hope that the Government will not reject this mild and temporary possibility for particular groups of parents to deal with the problems facing their children.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, perhaps I may deal very shortly with the Scottish challenge. It is delightful to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, has been converted to the prospect that everything Scottish is good. I do not think that I have ever said that. I certainly would not intend to say that. If I did say it the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, would probably disagree.
However, if we are going to discuss Scottish history, and history as tested in Scotland, it would be very interesting and I would certainly not be against it if somewhere in England—possibly in Lewes, certainly in Sussex, or anywhere—the history of Scotland were taught. That would be a new effort and I certainly would not want to be against that.
The noble Lord, Lord Annan, suggested something with which I must quarrel. I should have thought that history was not so much about what people did but why they did it.
Lord Annan: My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt. The whole point about the dispute that the teachers at Lewes had was this. One has first to know what people did before one can say why they did it. One must get the children to understand the facts.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I totally agree with that. But if one goes through a straightforward list of what Archbishop Laud, Lord Strafford, the Earl of Montrose, Cromwell, Pym and Hampden did, one is left in total confusion. One has to know something about the circumstances in which they lived and why in those circumstances they did what they did. That in my view is what history is about.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I am in favour of these amendments. I shall not speak at length because I spoke in Committee and shall not repeat the points I made then. I should like to emphasise that these amendments presented to your Lordships on Report are desirable and necessary on educational and philosophical grounds.
Educationally, the point has been well made that if there is general dissatisfaction with the standard or quality of examinations available, there must be the freedom for teachers to offer and for pupils to take more acceptable alternatives. There is ample reason at the moment to believe that there are good grounds for dissatisfaction not just with the history examinations, on which great emphasis has been placed, but also with some of the examinations and some other subjects in other places. Therefore choice is very important at this time.
The predicament of the teachers in Sussex gives particular urgency to these amendments. They have not been allowed the basic professional freedom to discuss with parents alternative provisions. They have had to meet on the pavements. They have been threatened with disciplinary procedures and their behaviour has been called something akin to mutiny. A phrase that one of them used was that it is more like living in East Germany than East Sussex.
These amendments give the basic right for teachers to give professional advice to parents. Current events
840
show that at the moment these professional rights need the protection of law. I hope the Minister will be prepared to take these amendments very sympathetically. They go against the spirit of the Bill. They are essentially dirigiste and this Bill, as my noble friend Lord Annan has said, is basically premised on freedom of choice. It seems that these amendments would be one way of bringing the Bill more in line with a basic philosophy than if the provisions are allowed to stand as they are at present.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, I should like to explain why I am less than enthusiastic about two amendments which on the face of it look quite reasonable and have attracted quite a wide measure of support. We have heard a lot about examination syllabuses but I wish to look at the wording of the amendments. There is a point of principle here which is in danger of being overlooked. In curricular matters, just as in disciplinary matters, the head is in charge of what goes on in his or her own school, answerable to the governors, and within the broad framework of educational law.
We heard some nautical metaphors at Committee stage. The head is indeed traditionally captain of his own ship. I have heard no convincing arguments during the course of this Bill from any side of the House that this position should be altered. However, in these amendments we see the thin end of a wedge. Parents will be able to come to the head of a school and demand to be heard as of right on a matter of professional curricular judgment. I am not too concerned with the fact that they will need to be in reasonable numbers to do so, nor with the fact that their demand will not be a mandatory one as it was in the draft amendment brought forward at Committee stage.
What concerns me is that we are seeing here an attempt at a radical departure from a principle which has underlain school practice in this country for a very long time. I do not believe that the professional authority of heads should come under attack, however mild the attack may appear in this fashion. What if a head acts unreasonably, though, supported by his governing body? That assumption is the genesis of these amendments. I do not believe that the answer is to legislate. Where there is any freedom there will always be loopholes. There will always be hard cases. However, hard cases do not make good law. I hope that we can resist the urge to legislate against every abuse that is brought before us, tempting though it may seem in the short term. If we do not, we shall contribute still further to the bureaucrats' and lawyers' dream that I referred to in Committee. We shall not improve the overall quality of education in so doing.
It was, I believe, the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, who said at an earlier stage, in proposing a national curriculum free from the restrictions which the Government are seeking to impose, that he preferred to live with the risk of the occasional abuse than to impose a straitjacket. I agree with that wholeheartedly.
The abuse at which we are aiming a sledgehammer in this case is a pretty occasional one. I cannot help feeling that it may perhaps spring as much from a

841
sense of grievance as from a desire to improve educational provision, though that may be unfair. The case has been admirably presented and most tenanciously pursued by its protagonists. There has been much publicity for it. I still believe however that we should be wrong to legislate. Parents should have rights, but not these kinds of rights. The proper route to a teacher or group of teachers is always through the head—good, bad or indifferent—who carries the can for all that goes on in the school.
Amendment No. 63 sets a bad precedent. In matters of school policy I agree with what the noble Baroness the Minister said in reply to the argument at Committee stage, in contrast to the view put by the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock. I quote again:
"Parents may have strong views, and in some cases considerable detailed knowledge, on how subjects should be taught. The proper place for those views to be expressed is through the governing body in contributing to the formulation of curriculum policy".—[Official Report, 5/5/88; col. 767.]
That must be right.
I hope your Lordships will not agree to amendments which would have the effect of conferring inappropriate rights on parents and of beginning to undermine the professional and constitutional authority of head teachers. That would be a radical new departure. I feel strongly that it should be resisted.
Lord Goodman: My Lords, my intervention will be very brief. Having heard the speeches I am in an even greater state of confusion than usual. I am not at all sure at what vice these amendments are directed. Are they directed to the examiners who set these rather ridiculous questions, or are they directed to the unfortunate headmaster at Lewes who is supposed to have proscribed discussion? Was it on the school premises that he caused the offence? It seems to me that one needs to be quite sure what was done before one administers historic reproof and parliamentary castigation to the headmaster at Lewes. There seems to me to be considerable doubt.
If his objection was that parents, as they came to see him, were intercepted by other teachers wishing to discuss matters with them, that would seem to me to be a legitimate objection. Any discussions they wanted with the parents should take place outside the school. It is by no means clear to what the amendment is directed. If it is directed to the general proposition that parents should not be deterred from discussion of matters with teachers at the school, that may be a valid reason for the amendment. On the other hand, we need to determine what the amendment is directed at.
Lord Monk Bretton: My Lords, I wish to say a very brief word. I come from Lewes and I am also an LEA appointed governor of a primary school in that area. I am afraid that I shall say what I think without fear or favour. I am very unhappy about what happened. The governing body of the school in Lewes, I believe, made a considerable mistake. I do not want to see that happen again if it can be helped.
I believe that headmasters are like prime ministers. In the end they are the servants of the public. We are
842
trying to see that the combined wisdom of teachers and parents is synthesised and somehow produces the best result that we can get. That is really what we want to achieve.
I believe that the amendment tries to steer a sensible course—more sensible than the proposal at Committee stage. I believe we need something of this kind to avoid recurrence of what happened. It may be necessary to adapt the amendment but we badly need something. That is why I tend to support it.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Joseph: My Lords, I doubt whether I shall want to support this pair of amendments, but I shall listen to the Minister with great care. On the immediate issue, I am sure that the Secretary of State will initiate a thorough review of how GCSE is working. I doubt whether it need take as long as the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, fears, at least in respect of this area of worry. I am puzzled why the governors apparently forbad the teachers recommending to parents a particular syllabus that was available from Scotland. I therefore share the anxiety about their decision expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman.
On empathy, I make no apology for seeing some value, provided that underlying the use of empathy there is a grasp of the basic facts. I thought, when I became seized of the concept of empathy in relation to examinations, that it was relevant that pupils should take into account for example the widespread belief in immortality and physical hell fire that dominated some previous centuries. I fully accept, as the noble Lord, Lord Annan, reminded us, that difficult questions involving empathy can be used to test the intelligence of a pupil, always bearing in mind the importance of the grasp of fact on which the judgment of empathy is based.
I wonder whether another part of the Bill is not brought into question by what we are now discussing; namely, the power of the Secretary of State to approve, or not to approve, different examining authorities. It seems to me that untidy perhaps though it would be, the full freedom of parents in the schools would better be served if there was more freedom for any group that wished—no doubt for a commercial purpose—to offer examination. They would be sanctioned in the exercise of that freedom by the knowledge that unless schools and employers, pupils and teachers, respected the examinations they offered there would be no survival for them and certainly no profit. But the rigid requirement of the Secretary of State's approval of the examining boards limits the freedom to offer different examinations to meet needs.
I hope that the Minister will explain that the review of the GCSE will not take too long and that the idea of limiting examinations to approved bodies might itself be reviewed though it is not contained in these amendments.
Lord Young of Dartington: My Lords, I should like to support the amendment although I have no particular views about Lewes. The debate has been rather strained. In large part it seems to have been a debate about the merits and demerits of the four

843
Lewes martyrs. If that were so and if the case for the amendment was purely based on what we thought had happened in Lewes, and the view we took about it, clearly there would be no case at all.
The case must be based on some general principle. Because the amendments are based, I believe, on a good general principle I give them my wholehearted support. I do not like the degree of centralised control the Bill vests in the Secretary of State. I welcome any latitude which allows parents to escape some of the rigidities that I fear. I welcome too any possible escape from those who might emulate the DES at the local level.
I believe that parents have a right to a voice in the exams that their children take, even if it takes them away from GCSE. On the whole it is an admirable new examination which should be given every possible chance. I say that partly because if the parents are against a particular examination it will prejudice their children's chances; their children will not be so keen if their parents are against it. If their parents are for the examination the children will have a better chance. Parents should have a right to the best advice that they can have from teachers about the best examination their children can take. I believe that to be undoubted. The second amendment which we are discussing, Amendment No. 63, appears in many ways to be more commendable than Amendment No. 62. In any event, I am happy to support both the amendments.
Baroness David: My Lords, we know that the noble Lord, Lord Young, is a splendid libertarian and that that would be the line he would be likely to take. I had a certain unease when I read the amendments and did not feel happy about them. The more that I listen to the debate the more it appears to be based on the Lewes case, and the more I dislike making arrangements for the general from the particular. That is what the House appears to be doing tonight. I believe that more noble Lords have spoken about the Lewes case than about anything else.
I hope that the Minister will not accept these amendments because it is a rather dangerous principle. The GCSE examination may have had its teething troubles early on. However, it should have a chance to run and I believe that we should wait for a while. I hope that she will not accept the amendments.
I should like to point out that my first reactions to the amendments were slightly hostile and I have been more convinced of that by what I have heard. I have been most convinced by what was said by the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin. His remarks convinced me that my instincts were right.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I have some sympathy with the proposed amendments to Clause 5 because they are directed at giving parents more influence. However, I also understand that these amendments have been prompted by a specific case which regrettably arose at a particular school. I recognise the genuine concerns that many noble Lords have about this matter but I am sure that they will also agree with the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin,
844
and the noble Baroness in saying that hard cases make bad law.
For the benefit of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, I should like to explain that in that particular case Mr. McGovern, the head of the history department, was dissatisfied with the approach taken in one of the GCSE history syllabuses. He hoped to bypass the GCSE examination by entering his pupils for a Scottish O-level in history. However, he was refused permission to do so by the headmaster and the governors. He was also refused permission to meet parents on school premises to discuss his proposal to teach the Scottish syllabus after normal school hours.
While much of that is regrettable it is important to say that in the volume of correspondence with Ministers and officials Mr. McGovern refuses to accept the fact that even if that particular GCSE history syllabus was unsuitable for his purposes there were over 30 others from which he could have chosen. Therefore the choice exists. It is also worth noting that not all GCSE history syllabuses are based on empathy. The GCSE does not equal empathy.
The Government agree that schools must be responsive to the wishes of parents in curricular and other matters. We encourage schools and LEAs to exercise the freedom they have in choosing from the range of syllabuses which will lead to an approved qualification. Proposals elsewhere in the Bill will require schools to publish information which we expect to include the courses, syllabuses and qualifications offered. There will be separately published lists of nationally approved syllabuses and qualifications. So parents will have ready access to relevant information.
It is worth pointing out that parents cannot choose examinations as such, only the syllabuses on which they are based. A perfectly innocent-looking syllabus is no proof against silly examination questions. The two are not always set by the same people.
The 1986 Education (No. 2) Act and the provisions of this Bill regarding school governing bodies will ensure that parents have much more influence over the school curriculum through the governing body. As I said previously, the governing body is the proper forum for parents' views to be expressed when contributing to the formulation of a school's policy and we want to encourage that. It would not be desirable to bypass this forum by placing the statutory requirement on schools which the first amendment proposes.
The second amendment concerns the giving of professional advice by teachers to parents about examinations approved by the Secretary of State.
The Teachers' Pay and Conditions Document, made under the Teachers' Pay and Conditions Act 1987, already provides that one of a teacher's duties is to consult and communicate with parents. This document also requires teachers to carry out their professional duties under the reasonable direction of the head teacher. So the law already allows for teachers to engage in all reasonable consultation with parents—about qualifications among other things. Therefore this amendment is not only unnecessary but overlaps existing legislation.

845
I should like to take the opportunity to assure my noble friend Lord Joseph that that review of the GCSE will take place quickly. The southern examining group has already revised its history syllabus.
While understanding the reasons so well expressed behind the amendments, I am not able to accept them. I urge your Lordships to reject them.
Lord Goodman: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to ask the Minister to resolve my confusion by telling me what the motivation of the headmaster was. Was it his objection that there was a rebel group meeting on the school premises or was it more general? If it was more general, I shall vote for the amendment, but if it was that he thought that it would be disorderly to try to arrange for a set of parents to meet and form an opposition group on the school premises I certainly shall not vote for the amendment.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I must tell the noble Lord that I am not privy to the headmaster's reasoning. Therefore I am not able to tell him of his reasoning for refusing to permit the meeting to take place.
Lord Goodman: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I apologise for continuing the discussion. Does any noble Lord know his reasoning? Is it right that we should pass a resolution that amounts to a severe criticism of the headmaster without knowing what motivated him?
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this important debate. I shall address myself most to the speeches in dissent from the proposed amendments. I fully take the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, about the authority of the headmaster. We all listen to the noble Earl on such matters with respect because we know of his previous involvement in that world. However, it must be pointed out that not only headmasters make choices of the syllabuses of examinations which are to be taken but the local education authority plays a predominant role in that.
The noble Earl says that hard cases do not make good law. He goes to to say that "occasional abuse"—I believe that that was the phrase he used—does not justify taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut. It must be said that all questions of rights are matters of occasional abuse. All pieces of legislation that are to preserve the rights of individuals as citizens are drawn up for and against their occasional abuse. Therefore, to argue that occasional abuse is something which can be brushed to one side does not, to my mind, hold up.
On the question of the confusion expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, in view of the sharpness of his mind I believe that I must have expressed myself very badly in introducing the amendments. However, I assure him that the general proposition of the second amendment is that parents should be able to discuss curricular matters with the subject teachers. It certainly cannot be the case that all
846
parents can have access at all times to discuss that with the headmaster. It is obvious that they will want to discuss curricular matters with the teachers concerned in the particular subjects. I propose that the parents and teachers should have the right on the school premises to do precisely that.
The noble Baroness tells me that there is already a duty on teachers to consult with parents. However, I am bound to say that that is not widely known. I am prepared to accept that the first of these two amendments is not perfectly drafted and to some extent trespasses on the ground of the governing body and existing channels. My inclination is not to press that amendment. However. I am firmly wedded to the second of those two amendments. That amendment states:
"Where parents wish to receive professional advice from teachers regarding examinations approved by the Secretary of State for pupils of compulsory school age, no impediment shall be put in the way of teachers offering such advice".
That is what that amendment says. If the noble Baroness tells me that that is already partly covered by regulations, I shall be delighted to hear it. However, I believe it is a point which should be a great deal more widely known.
Finally, before I come to a final decision on this I should like to ask the noble Baroness whether she will accept the suggestion of her noble friend Lord Joseph that the thorough review that the Secretary of State has promised, particularly in the history syllabuses, should be speedy. The point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, that that could drag on for three or five years, which is little comfort to children coming up to examinations in that period. I hope that she will undertake that it will be speedy. Perhaps she will say whether she is also prepared to undertake—and this is the second suggestion—a review of the policy as to widening the possibilities of syllabuses which might be available to parents. I should be grateful if she could answer that.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I have already said that the review of the GCSE will take place quickly. On the other point, there are already over 30 history syllabuses from which to choose. Therefore I am not sure whether the noble Lord is suggesting that there should be more.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I am partially satisfied with what the noble Baroness said on that point.
On the second point, when the amendment is put I shall be obliged to test the opinion of the House. It seems to me that the point about the right of consultation between parents and teachers on school premises is something which could be underwritten and underlined in the Bill.
Question, amendment negatived.
9.04 p.m.
Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 63) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 13; Not-Contents, 79.

DIVISION NO. 5

CONTENTS

Annan, L.

Monson, L.

Beloff, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Blatch, B.

Stedman, B.

Cox, B.

Walston, L.

Kilmarnock, L. [Teller.]

Wilson of Langside, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Young of Dartington, L. [Teller.]

London, Bp.

NOT-CONTENTS

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Hives, L.

Arran, E.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Hooper, B.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Hylton, L.

Barber, L.

Jeger, B.

Barnett, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Belstead, L.

Joseph, L.

Blackstone, B.

Kinloss, Ly.

Blease, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Borthwick, L.

Lawrence, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Long, V.

Caithness, E.

Lothian, M.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Carnock, L.

Lyell, L.

Coleraine, L.

Molloy, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Morris, L.

Cowley, E.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Craigavon, V.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Nicol, B.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Norfolk, D.

David, B.

Oram, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Peston, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Renton, L.

Dormand of Easington, L

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Dundee, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Eccles, V.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Swinfen, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Faithfull, B.

Thorneycroft, L.

Gainford, L.

Thurlow, L.

Galpern, L.

Trafford, L.

Glenamara, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Trumpington, B.

Greenway, L.

Ullswater, V.

Halsbury, E.

Underhill, L.

Harvington, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hastings, L.

Young, B.

Hesketh, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
9.12 p.m.
Clause 6 [Duties with respect to certain requirements]:
[Amendments Nos. 64 and 65 not moved.]
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 66:
Leave out Clause 6.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 67:
After Clause 6, insert the following new clause:
("Exceptions, special arrangements and supplementary and consequential provisions
. —(1). It shall not be required, as a condition of any pupil attending any maintained school, that he shall attend or abstain from attending any Sunday school or any place of religious worship.
(2) For the purposes of subsections (3) to (10) below "maintained school" does not include a maintained special school.
(3) If the parent of any pupil in attendance at any maintained school requests that he may be wholly or partly excused—

(a) from attendance at religious worship in the school;

(b) from receiving religious education given in the school in accordance with the school's basic curriculum; or

(c) both from such attendance and from receiving such education;

the pupil shall be so excused accordingly until the request is withdrawn.
(4) Where in accordance with subsection (3) above any pupil has been wholly or partly excused from attendance at religious worship or from receiving religious education in any school, and the responsible authority are satisfied—

(a) that the parent of the pupil desires him to receive religious education of a kind which is not provided in the school during the periods of time which he is so excused;

(h) that the pupil cannot with reasonable convenience be sent to another maintained school where religious education of the kind desired by the parent is provided; and

(c) that arrangements have been made for him to receive religious education of that kind during school hours elsewhere;

the pupil may be withdrawn from the school during such periods of time as are reasonably necessary for he purpose of enabling him to receive religious education in accordance with the arrangements.
(5) In this section "the responsible authority" means—

(a) in relation to a county or voluntary school, the local education authority; and

(b) in relation to a grant-maintained school, the governing body.

(6) A pupil may not be withdrawn from school under subsection (4) above unless the responsible authority are satisfied that the arrangements there mentioned are such as will not interfere with the attendance of the pupil at school on any day except at the beginning or end of the school session or, if there is more than one, of any school session on that day.
(7) Where the parent of any pupil who is a boarder at a maintained school requests that the pupil be permitted—

(a) to attend worship in accordance with the tenets of a particular religious denomination on Sundays or other days exclusively set apart for religious observance by the religious body to which his parent belongs; or

(b) to receive religious education in accordance with such tenets outside school hours;

the governing body of the school shall make arrangements for affording to the pupil reasonable opportunities for doing so.
(8) Arrangements made under subsection (7) above may provide for affording facilities for such worship or education on the school premises, but the arrangements shall not entail expenditure by the responsible authority.
(9) In this section—

(a) references to religious worship in a school include references to religious worship which under section (Collective worship) of this Act takes place otherwise than on the school premises; and

(b) references to religious education given in a school in accordance with the school's basic curriculum are references to such education given in accordance with the provision included in the school's basic curriculum by virtue of section 2(1)(a) of this Act.

(10) Schedule (Consequential amendments relating to religious education) to this Act shall have effect for making amendments of the enactments there mentioned consequential on the provisions of this Chapter relating to religious education.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 68:
After Clause 6, insert the following new clause:
Duties with respect to certain requirements.
("Duties with respect to certain requirements
.—(1) Subject to section (Exceptions, special arrangements and supplementary and consequential provisions) of this Act, in relation to any maintained school (other than a maintained special school) and any school year it shall be the duty of the local

849
education authority and the governing body to exercise their functions with a view to securing, and the duty of the head teacher to secure—

(a) that all pupils in attendance at the school take part in the daily collective worship required by section (Collective worship) of this Act; and

(b) that religious education is given in accordance with the provision for such education included in the school's basic curriculum by virtue of section 2(1)(a) of this Act.

(2) In relation to any maintained school and any school year it shall be the duty of the local education authority and the governing body to exercise their functions with a view to securing, and the duty of the head teacher to secure—

(a) that the National Curriculum as subsisting at the beginning of that year is implemented; and

(b) that section 5 of this Act is not contravened.

(3) In relation to any time before the beginning of the school year following the establishment of the National Curriculum so far as relating to a particular subject and a particular key stage, subsection (2)(a) above shall have effect as if that Curriculum required that subject to be taught for a reasonable time during that stage.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Bishop of London The Lord Bishop of London moved Amendment No. 69:
After Clause 6, insert the following new clause:
Collective worship.
("Religious education
.—(1) Subject to section (Exceptions, special arrangements and supplementary and consequential provisions) of this Act, all pupils in attendance at a maintained school shall on each school day take part in an act of collective worship.
(2) The arrangements for the collective worship in a school required by this section may, in respect of each school day, provide for a single act of worship for all pupils or for separate acts of worship for pupils in different age groups or in different school groups.
(3) In the case of a county school the collective worship so required—

(a) shall in the main reflect the broad traditions of Christian belief in ways appropriate to the age, aptitude and family background of the pupils involved; but

(b) shall not be distinctive of any particular Christian denomination.

(4) The arrangements for the collective worship in a county or voluntary school required by this section shall be made—

(a) in the case of a county school, by the head teacher after consultation with the governing body; and

(b) in the case of a voluntary school, by the governing body after consultation with the head teacher.

(5) Subject to subsection (6) below, the collective worship in every maintained school required by this section shall take place on the school premises.
(6) If the governing body of—

(a) an aided or special agreement school; or

(b) a grant-maintained school;

are of opinion that it is desirable that any act of collective worship in the school required by this section should, on a special occasion, take place elsewhere than on the school premises, they may make such arrangements for that purpose as they think appropriate.
(7) The powers of a governing body under subsection (6) above shall not be so exercised as to derogate from the rule that, in every such school as is there mentioned, the collective worship required by this section must normally take place on the school premises.
(8) For the purposes of this section—
"maintained school" does not include a maintained special school; and
"School group" means any group in which pupils are taught or take part in other school activities.").
The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord Thorneycroft Lord Thorneycroft moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 69, Amendment No. 69A:
In subsection (1), line 4, after ("collective") insert ("Christian").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we turn to the subject of religious worship. Here we are not talking about religious education. We move from the field of knowledge to the field of faith or, more accurately, the field of religious faiths.
Perhaps I may describe very simply the form and purpose of this amendment. It is to insert the word "Christian" after the word "collective" in the amendment moved by the right reverend Prelate. I can say quite simply that it is to do what I have no doubt the right reverend Prelate has every intention of doing, and that is to secure an act of Christian worship. Obviously one cannot have an act of Christian worship in every school for all the pupils. It is too rich and varied a pattern of people. Therefore the amendment is linked to all the exceptions in the Bill.
The exceptions I particularly wish to mention are those contained on page 67 of the Marshalled List and which are in the names of my noble friends Lady Cox, Lord Campbell of Alloway, and others. For example, they include the case of a denominational school for non-Christians. Plainly one does not have Christian worship there. They include the case where parents wish to contract out. In the case of our amendments, they include provision for worship by other faiths such as a number of Moslems in a school or a school with a large Jewish population or the like.
So far I believe that there can be no difference between us. The amendment which was moved by the right reverend Prelate describes the act of worship in terms that it is in the main broadly based upon the Christian faith and suited to the age, the attainments and the family background of the pupils. Perhaps I may say this about the latter point. I have a little doubt about the age, attainment and family background. When I attend church on Sundays at the Church of St. Mary the Virgin in Eastry in Kent, it is packed with children. As they crowd to the altar no one asks them about their age, their attainments or, above all, the background of their families.
I believe that simplicity is important in worship, particularly for children. Our Lord said:
"Suffer little children to come unto me".
In those simple words we have a clearer definition of what is wanted than in some of the tortuous efforts of the draftsmen of this Bill. I am a little nervous of this approach to children. It has been so grossly abused. The schools are full of documents which trivialise all religions. They trivialise the Jewish and the Moslem faiths; they include a page on Easter between a page on two other faiths. When one turns to the page it is merely a drawing of Easter eggs. I believe children deserve more than this. They have a more simple but clearer understanding about worship than many of their elders. They should be allowed to see it in all its beauty and simplicity.
The main problems are concerned with the word "Christian", with the words "in the main" and with the question of other faiths. The argument used for including the words "in the main" in religious

851
education is that we are after all mainly a Christian country. It is said that as there are other faiths in this country—quite a number of them—it is better to face the fact and say that in a mainly Christian country one should have mainly Christian education.
It is said that we should have mainly Christian worship. I ask the House to ponder carefully what on earth those words mean. Surely if Christians worship, they worship our Saviour. There is no room for worshipping anything else. One cannot say that one worships in the main our Saviour but that somehow something else is left over, unspecified and unidentified. The right reverend Prelate believes that we should worship our Saviour and that it should be a Christian act of worship—I have no doubt about that. I merely say that there is a wide gap between what the right reverend Prelate intends and what the draftsmen have put into the Bill, as one might say, on his behalf.
There is also the question of other faiths. The definition in the right reverend Prelate's amendment does not mention other faiths at all. The noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, has raised this question on a number of occasions. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, raised it the other day.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, as the noble Lord has brought me into it, perhaps I may say that I received a satisfactory answer from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London.
Lord Thorneycroft: My Lords, the last person I want to offend is the noble Baroness. I said that the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, asked this question and that it was raised—and perfectly rightly raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. It has been raised—by many people. What does one do about the other faiths? If an act of worship is mainly Christian, one can say—although it is not made very plain—that one has an act of worship broadly wide enough to permit almost anybody to attend it. That is an unhappy solution for Christians and it is an equally unhappy solution for other faiths. My noble friends and I have received a good number of approaches from people of other faiths to say how unhappy they are to see their beliefs trivialised or subsumed in some all-purpose act of worship. In their families and in their churches they practise very devout acts of worship.
I am not, I hope, a dogmatic Christian. I am an Anglican married to a Catholic, and my daughter is married to a Jew. If anyone wishes to hear about the problems of comparative religion within a family these days, they only have to join me for lunch. Indeed, I am far from being dogmatic on such issues because I know something of the problems involved. However, you cannot mix them all up together. A
852
Catholic person will want a Catholic ceremony and a Jewish person will certainly want a Jewish ceremony. Further, in the often cited case of a Moslem school—for example, in the middle of Bradford, or elsewhere where there are schools whose content is 80 per cent. Moslem—they will want a Moslem act of worship.
We believe that the right answer is to square our shoulders and have Christian collective worship so that anyone who wishes to attend can do so. However, we also believe that provision must be made for the other faiths so that, if they wish it and they are there in sufficient numbers and it can be conveniently arranged, then they can have their act of worship. We feel that that is preferable to a kind of broad "all purpose" provision.
I must say here that the noble Baroness from the Front Bench has been conducting the proceedings with great ability. We all admire her patience and the way in which she has carried on during these long hours. I listened to her speech the other day when she said that there are difficulties about using the word "Christian", because if it is put in to the legislation many other people will contract out and contracting out is not the answer. However, to degrade the act of Christian worship, and to degrade it to the point where you avoid any contracting out, is also a deplorable solution to the problem.
In those circumstances, what I seek is this. I very much hope that no one will say that all this is a package and therefore unamendable. In my view that is not a proper answer; it is not a good answer from this House and, indeed, it is not right. I hope that the right reverend Prelate will be prepared to say that he recognises that there is a problem in this connection. It is not only a problem for Christians; it is a problem for Jews and also a problem for Moslems. It is a real problem. If we are to have real acts of worship for such people then a different form of words to that presently in the Bill must be found. I believe that suitable words can be found which would meet the wishes and the intentions of the right reverend Prelate but which, at the same time, would not raise the same difficulties for Christians, Jews and Moslems alike.
I sincerely hope that in his reply the right reverend Prelate will say that he is prepared to meet some of us—for example, my noble friend Lady Cox who has done so much to advance matters to this stage, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, and others. Indeed, I hope above all else that he will say that he will have the closest discussion with the Chief Rabbi —who would be here if he were not suffering from flu, and we all wish him well—to ensure that not only our views about the needs of Christians, but also his views about the interests of the Jewish population, are brought into effect. I believe that such consultation will advance the causes which the right reverend Prelate has deeply at heart. I beg to move.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, as my noble friend referred to Amendment No. 340, standing in the names of myself, the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk, who is in his place, and the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, perhaps I may deal with the issue as it arises, because it is our amendment. I have had an informal word with the right reverend Prelate and we agree that this is—
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, will the noble Lord allow me to intervene?
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, of course.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, are we discussing a group that includes Nos. 337 to 340? If that is the case, then it is not in the grouping—or are we discussing only the amendment standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft, as is my understanding? It really would be much clearer, certainly for me and, I would hope, for other Members of this House, if we knew what we were discussing. I was not clear from what the noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft, said whether he was speaking to his Amendment No. 69A and some other amendments, of which I did not have prior notice, or to his own amendment only.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, as I understood the position—and this was clarified, I hope, by the intervention of the Government Chief Whip and the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, yesterday—we had an introduction and outline by virtue of the grouping. We, who were respectfully challenging the package in order to question what it offered and to seek assurances, were assured that we would be able to speak freely and fully on both religious education—which we have done and we have received assurances which have matched the two main principles of those who support our amendment—and on collective worship, which we are now in a position to consider. I propose, as my noble friend Lord Thorneycroft is dealing with—
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord would give way once more. This is a quite important amendment. I realise that I am fairly new to this House, but if we are going to have amendments in the 300s which come up and which are not in the groupings, it is very unfair if we are suddenly asked to discuss them without notice. The groupings are available outside this Chamber and we work, as I understand it, on the basis that these groupings are agreed to, unless we have some notice that they are not. It is very difficult if we are suddenly asked to discuss amendments that are not on the list of groupings and not expected to be discussed today at all. Some noble Lords who might have wished to discuss the amendments may not be here or, like myself, may not, even if they are present, have prepared themselves in regard to the amendments in question.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, the ruling of the Government Chief Whip—or at least the suggestion, if it was not a ruling—was supported by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. It was that we should be in a position to discuss these matters because we were challenging: we had on our first two principles received assurances of great value from the right reverend Prelate and we needed to ensure that the grouping would not prevent us from being heard on this issue also. It is an issue on which we wish, and indeed demand, to be heard.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, with the leave of the House, if I may attempt to help the House and at the same time help my noble friend in regard to the ruling, there is absolutely no objection to his participating in this discussion on this topic; but what we are discussing now is Amendment No. 69A. I understand that my noble friend the Chief Whip, when he made his statement yesterday, said that any Member of the House would be perfectly free to speak to his or her amendment when it came up in the order. We are not now speaking to a grouping.
Lord Thorneycroft: My Lords, may I perhaps just call the attention of the noble Lord to the particular amendment that we are discussing? If he will look at page 8 of the Marshalled List, in the amendment standing in the name of the right reverend Prelate, the subsection with which we are dealing is this:
"Subject to section (Exceptions, special arrangements and supplementary and consequential provisions) of this Act; all pupils in attendance at a maintained school shall on each school day take part in an act of collective worship".
The amendment proposes the insertion of "Christian" after "collective". It would be impossible to utter a few sentences without referring to the fact that there are exceptions, special arrangements and supplementary and consequential provisions. One could not debate it without mentioning that fact.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, if that is the position, my understanding is that one informs the Chief Whip's office of the amendments that one wishes to be taken in a group. That assists the House. I fully appreciate that I have little experience of this House or of the other place compared with the noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft, but it is a bouncer to deliver at one's head if I may use a cricketing term—suddenly to say that we are discussing Amendment No. 337 and certain amendments thereafter without prior notification that those may be discussed.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may continue with my speech and refer to Amendment No. 69. The amendment proposes a collective act of worship for all pupils, irrespective of the faith to which they adhere, which reflects the school itself. If one reads Hansard, it is plain that the right reverend Prelate

855
explains what is involved, which is much more than the gap, as my noble friend Lord Thorneycroft said, between what is written in the amendment and what in other contexts and in this context is said by the right reverend Prelate.
The right reverend Prelate said, at col. 666 of Hansard of 21st June, that this collective act will be Christian unless the nature of the school demands worship in another faith. This is not—I repeat "not"—what subsection (3) of the new clause proposed in Amendment No. 69 appears on the face of it to say to an ordinary common lawyer. An amendment for clarification on Third Reading would indeed be welcome.
A subsequent amendment—in deference to the sensitivities of the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, I shall not name it—makes further provision, as he well knows (and this comes as no surprise because it was spoken to yesterday) for a collective act of worship in a faith other than the Christian faith if the parents request it and if it is reasonable and practical to do so.
The dilemma that arises by having separate acts of collective worship was explained totally logically, as one would expect, by the right reverend Prelate at cols. 666 and 667 of Hansard of 21st June. He said that the problem cannot be met by withdrawal or by making separate provision, as proposed by the unmentionable amendment to which I have referred, without splitting the school. I understand this approach. However, I am afraid that I and those who support my amendment do not agree with it. Let us have no mincing of words, no misunderstanding; we do not agree. The problem is that we take the view that this is essentially a religious problem, a question of worship. At col. 665 of the Official Report the right reverend Prelate took the view that essentially this was an educational approach, not a purely religious one. So as regards worship we are already beginning to get to a divergent approach, which is of crucial consequence. How we start to consider a problem tends to drive us into the ultimate position.
We take the view that there can be no act of worship, collective or otherwise—and this is directly concerned with Amendment No. 69—without belief in a particular faith, creed or catechism. As regards worship, religious considerations are of prime, paramount consequence. The point was taken by the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham (at col. 650) and I am grateful to see him in his place. The point was also taken by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff (at col. 659) and by myself, maintaining that a confusing nonsense for the child would ensue.
It is now appreciated that this proposed multifaith collective act of worship is not to be a mish-mash of various faiths but a Christian act of worship unless the nature of the school demands worship in another faith. I have given great credence and care to what the right reverend Prelate has said, for which I am grateful to him as always. The point is that if the nature of the school demands separate acts of collective worship in other faiths, there is no provision whatever for this. The basic point remains that worship by a child who does not adhere to the
856
faith relevant to the act of worship can have no meaning, can make no sense and has no value as regards the behavioural position on which Archbishop William Temple set great store.
Perhaps the right reverend Prelate could offer this accommodation; it is a bridge. I wonder whether my noble friend the Minister could spare the right reverend Prelate for one second to attend to my proposals. Perhaps she could do that. I am asking the right reverend Prelate, with the greatest respect and humility, whether he could afford this accommodation, this compromise, to build a bridge between those who support my amendment and his proposals. In effect they come to this: that we amend Clause 69(2) to make it possible that a separate act of worship could be made for children of faiths other than the Christian faith, with consequential amendments quite simply drafted to other clauses in that amendment.
This would mean that it is within the discretion of the governors, in the circumstances that the right reverend Prelate explained, to decide whether there should be two separate acts of worship, not limited as under the present drafting of the amendment to age or school groups, but also extended to cover other faiths than the Christian faith. If the right reverend Prelate could give some indication of an accommodation along those lines, I am sure that this whole question could be resolved and there would be no need even to refer to, or move to, the subsequent amendments. I see that my noble friend the Chief Whip is worried about time. Much time would be saved in the result and a satisfactory result achieved. I hope that those who support my subsequent amendments agree.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, time being short I wish to make only one allusion to the speech of my noble friend Lord Thorneycroft. It is simply that he made a distinction between the intention of the amendments and their effect. His speech was addressed almost entirely to what he supposed the effects would be. It appears that his remarks were directed to the right reverend Prelate, and therefore to myself, because I signed up to Amendment No. 69.
I merely wish to repeat that the intended effect is precisely that which my noble friend espouses, that is to say, Christian worship and education for Christian children and proper education and worship in their faiths for children of other faiths. Of course there may be exceptional and difficult cases, but that in the main is what is intended. I use the phrase "in the main" because that is the sense in which it is used in the amendment. "In the main" is what is normal. It does not mean that a service or a course of instruction is partly Christian and partly something else. It means that it is usually Christian, but sometimes something else. That is a crucial difference. I have taken two minutes of your Lordships' time. I hope that it saves further questions.
The Lord Bishop of London: My Lords, I shall be as brief as I can. I wish to make a technical point as it were about the actual amendment before us, Amendment No. 69A. The noble Lord, Lord

857
Thorneycroft, said that he thought that our intentions were the same as regards this amendment. I am afraid that the nature of Amendment No. 69A makes it impossible for him to agree with me. It would make the new clause read,
"all pupils in attendance at a maintained school shall on each school day take part in an act of collective Christian worship".
The phrase "maintained school" includes county and voluntary schools, both aided and controlled. The effect of the amendment—I must put this quite bluntly—
Lord Thorneyeroft: My Lords, I think with great respect that the right reverend Prelate has got the amendment wrong. I think he has the word "Christian" in the wrong place. It occurs in the first subsection, not half way down.
The Lord Bishop of London: My Lords, with respect to the noble Lord, it is his amendment that I am talking to. That phrase occurs in line 4 and it is in the place which I have just described.
Lord Thorneyeroft: My Lords, it is in line 4 of subsection (1). The right reverend Prelate is looking at line 4 of the page.
The Lord Bishop of London: My Lords, I am looking at subsection (1) line 4 which is exactly as I have read it, if the Marshalled List is accurate. It has the effect of requiring an act of Christian worship in every Jewish aided school.
Lord Thorneyeroft: My Lords, if the right reverend Prelate will forgive me, I must say that the words in his own amendment make it absolutely plain that this provision is subject to all the exceptions, differences and matters that are cut out in the rest of the Bill. The right reverend Prelate cannot ignore the words of his own amendment. I think he is looking at the wrong clause.
The Lord Bishop of London: My Lords, I am not looking at the wrong clause. What I am saying is that this is totally inconsistent. If the amendment is passed, it will make absolute nonsense of everything else that follows in this part of the Bill. Having said that, I am not standing on a technicality.
We are, I believe, in great difficulties over this matter because there is clearly much misunderstanding. Some of the things that have been said make me wonder if any noble Lords heard my speech last night in this very Chamber. On the other hand, I want to be as constructive and sympathetic as possible. I want to see the matter discussed in a creative way without spending any more time on this aspect of the Bill than we have spent so far. Vitally important though it is, I do not believe that we will achieve the purpose on which we are all agreed by the way in which we are proceeding.
I appreciate that the noble Lords, Lord Thorneycroft and Lord Campbell of Alloway, are worried about some aspects or interpretations of the package which I presented yesterday, and which the House has agreed. Perhaps I may say that I have
858
given an undertaking to write to the noble Lords setting out as clearly as I can our intentions and the way in which we see them being achieved. Perhaps the noble Lord has not received my invitation; however, I have invited him and his noble friends to meet me between Report stage and Third Reading to discuss what I have suggested. They can read and analyse my proposals in the hope that by those means any misunderstandings can be resolved. I believe it is clear from our discussion this evening that misunderstandings exist. Some of the views which have been attributed to me are not those which I hold, as I have made clear to the House on more than one occasion.
I hope that by that means a proper and satisfactory outcome can be achieved. I do not dispute that this is a religious issue; that is why it is vital. However, it is a religious issue in an educational context. We are considering an education reform Bill and not a Bill about worship. Worship is to be considered in an educational context and must therefore be understood in the context of our schools and of our nation at large. I hope that what I have proposed will be acceptable to noble Lords who have spoken in our debate and that we shall be able to proceed on the understanding that we shall be meeting and discussing those problems together.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, we discussed religious education for several hours yesterday. The Bill deals with many other matters. The House made a clear decision yesterday in accepting the amendment put forward by the right reverend Prelate. He holds the view that further discussions may be helpful. There is a point at which the House must get on with the business of the Bill. There are Members of the House who are deeply concerned about other parts of the Bill. It would be utterly deplorable for the House to get into a discussion which involved a competition to see who was the better Christian on a basis of who spent the most time in this Chamber discussing the various arguments. We must have a sense of proportion. If we have a suggestion for further discussions, let us leave it at that and get on with the next stage of the Bill.
hurlowds, before we come to other issues perhaps I may briefly pursue the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft, in relation to the words "family background". In his very emotive picture of the service in his country church and the presence of children there—I may say that that corresponds to the picture in my own country church—he presented a picture which is not representative of the problems that confront the country and with which we are largely concerned in these amendments.
As teachers and local authorities are well aware, the problem in our schools is the difficulty of getting across to boys and girls, particularly in the big urban centres, the nature of the message which we are trying to present. That cannot be done in old-fashioned ways, if I may use that slightly pejorative term. The world we live in has moved on. In contrast to country villages the general cultural background, as Clifford Longley has said, is largely agnostic materialism. One

859
cannot force a particular presentation of values and traditions down the throats of boys and girls who do not want it.
It has to be left to the teachers, the governors and the local authorities among them to work out, in relation to the particular conditions in each school, the way in which this difficult matter of collective worship is to be handled. So I hope very much that your Lordships will continue to back the way in which the right reverend Prelate has solved this problem in his discussions so far.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that the opting out arrangements that my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway wanted are already covered in Amendment No. 67 which the House passed some 40 minutes ago? I think that subsections (3)(a) and (4) cover the opting out of Christian worship and the right for children to participate in worship of a proper nature of another religion, also organised by the school or elsewhere. I should be grateful if my noble friend the Minister would answer that point in due course.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I am not concerned with opting out.
Noble Lords: Order! This is Report stage.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I shall not detain the House long. I should like to say to the movers of these amendments what I think the right reverend Prelate, after a process of consultation which was a model of its kind, knows perfectly well. The trouble arises from the fact that in trying to provide worship in schools in a state system we are trying to provide something which will affect everyone.
The right reverend Prelate and I may differ on many things, but I think that we agree on two things. One is that we believe in liberty of conscience and the other is that we believe that politics is the art of the possible. It is because I think we have those two things in common that I spent a considerable amount of time yesterday trying to persuade my fellow unbelievers not to divide against the right reverend Prelate's amendment. I should like to ask the movers of these amendments not to press ahead and unscramble those agreements.
I can understand very well and I can respect what they say about mish-mash, but I think the trouble arises from the fact that they are providing worship in schools for a mish-mash of different sorts of believers and unbelievers. I think that what they ought to accept, if they want their worship to be pure, is the proposition of John Locke that a Church is a voluntary society and that Christian worship is for professing Christians.
Lord Morris: My Lords, the problem that arises is that the right reverend Prelate, with great sincerity, has offered something that cannot be delivered. This House is barred at Third Reading from making any substantive alterations to a Bill other than drafting amendments. This is the problem. Amendments were brought forward so late in the Bill.
860
If I may before my noble friend the Minister answers, I should like to ask whether it is technically possible to bring through amendments at Third Reading along the lines of those of my noble friends, having consulted the right reverend Prelate, which would meet their common interests.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, I must say a few words but I shall not keep the House more than a minute. Perhaps I may just say, please remember what we went through yesterday. A lot of discussion took place yesterday. The right reverend Prelate gave assurances yesterday; discussions have taken place. Noble Lords must remember that if this issue does not go through in this way those people who have held discussions with the Lord Bishop will feel very much let down. On behalf of my own denomination I am bound to say that we shall feel very much let down. Therefore I urge my fellow Christians on the other side of the House to be very careful about what they are doing and to accept the recommendation that the right reverend Prelate has put to them this evening.
10 p.m.
Viscount Eccles: My Lords, I shall keep the House only a minute or two. I have had some experience with this question of daily worship. I helped Mr. Butler before the 1944 Act came in and when it was introduced those religious clauses were put in as part of a bargain of which the larger part was the transfer of Church schools to controlled status. We never expected much to happen. I did not become a Minister until 1954 and then for eight years off and on not one single protest was made to the effect that there was no carrying out of the religious clauses. I did not hear from a layman, a clergyman, a teacher or a bishop. Nobody ever protested at what I told everybody; namely, that less than 10 per cent. of schools held a daily act of worship.
That means that we should support the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London today. He has taken a stand, which I never thought that the Church would do. Of course the Church is under attack and has to make a counter move. This is the counter move and we ought to support it. I should not wish to complicate the matter by accepting the amendment of my noble friend Lord Thorneycroft and would accept the right reverend Prelate's amendment as it is.
Lord Home of the Hirsel: My Lords, I think that there is probably only one answer to this question. My noble friend Lord Thorneycroft possibly puts a different interpretation on the words "in the main" than does the right reverend Prelate. I see no other way except to have more talks and have them quickly and hope that we can have some adjustment of the amendment, if the right reverend Prelate can accept this, on Third Reading. It is a difficult position because time is so short, but I think that more talks is the only answer.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, perhaps I may start by confirming to my noble friend Lord Swinfen that

861
his interpretation of the effect of the Government's Amendment No. 67 is correct. There is a right for children to be excused from both religious worship and religious education.
So far as concerns Amendment No. 69A, which is an amendment to the right reverend Prelate's new clause on collective worship, Amendment No. 69, it has the same effect as earlier amendments tabled by my noble friend. It seeks to provide that the act of collective worship in all maintained schools should be Christian.
We have debated this matter at some length and I think that we are well aware of the strongly held views. In view of the strong support given by the House yesterday to the right reverend Prelate's package of amendments, and indeed his further assurances today that he will seek as far as possible to clarify the position, I can assure the House that the Government will continue to give their support and co-operation in that endeavour. I hope that on that basis my noble friend will now be prepared to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Thorneycroft: My Lords, with the permission of the House I rise simply to say that moving this amendment has created rather more heat than I had either intended or anticipated. Like everybody else my object is to support the right reverend Prelate. I agree with virtually everything that he is trying to do. I see some gap between his expressed intention and the Bill and amendments as drafted which come before the House, but he has offered in the most generous terms to meet us and discuss these matters. We shall certainly take that offer up. I thank him very much for it. Against that background I am absolutely willing to withdraw the amendment and beg leave to do so.
Amendment to the amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Renton Lord Renton had given notice of his intention to move, as an amendment to Amendment No. 69, Amendment No. 69B:
Line 14, leave out from ("involved") to end of line 15.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in view of the discussion that we have just had, and on the assumption that the right reverend Prelate will be so kind as to consider the point raised by my amendment, I do not intend to take up the time of the House in moving it.
[Amendment No. 69B not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 69 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 70 not moved.]
The Lord Bishop of London The Lord Bishop of London moved Amendment No. 71:
After Clause 6, insert the following new clause:
("Religious education required in the basic curriculum: further provisions.
.—(1) Section 2(1)(a) of this Act is subject to section (Exceptions, special arrangements and supplementary and consequential provisions) of this Act.
(2) The religious education for which provision is required by section 2(1)(a) to be included in the basic curriculum for any
862
particular maintained school shall be religious education of the kind required by such of the provisions of sections 26 to 28 of the 1944 Act or sections 76 to 78 of this Act as apply in the case of that school.
(3) Any agreed syllabus which after this section comes into force is adopted or deemed to be adopted under Schedule 5 to that Act (which, as amended by this Act, provides for the preparation, adoption and reconsideration of an agreed syllabus of religious education) shall reflect the fact that the religious traditions in Great Britain are in the main Christian whilst taking account of the teaching and practices of the other principal religions represented in Great Britain.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 7 [Standing advisory councils on religious education]:
[Amendments Nos. 72 and 73 not moved.]
The Lord Bishop of London The Lord Bishop of London moved Amendment No. 74:
Page 4, line 45, leave out ("the religious instruction") and insert ("religious worship in county schools and the religious education").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 75 not moved.]
The Lord Bishop of London The Lord Bishop of London moved Amendment No. 76:
Page 5, line 5, leave out from ("particular") to ("for") in line 6 and insert ("—

(a) the application of section (Collective worship) (3) of this Act in relation to individual schools; and

(b) methods of teaching, the choice of materials and the provision of training").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Bishop of London The Lord Bishop of London moved Amendment No. 77:
Page 5, line 17, leave out paragraph (a) and
insert—
("(a) such Christian and other religious denominations as, in the opinion of the authority, will appropriately reflect the principal religious traditions in the area;").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 78 and 79 not moved.]
The Lord Bishop of London The Lord Bishop of London moved Amendment No. 80:
Page 5, line 37, leave out from ("time") to end of line
38.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Bishop of London The Lord Bishop of London moved Amendment No. 81:
Page 5, line 40, at end insert—
("Each representative group concerned shall have a single vote on the question of whether to require such a review.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 8 [Advisory councils: supplementary provisions]:
The Lord Bishop of London The Lord Bishop of London moved Amendment No. 82:
Page 6, line 30, leave out subsection (7).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 9 [Establishment of Councils]:
Lord Ritchie of Dundee Lord Ritchie of Dundee moved Amendment No. 83:
Page 7, line 2, leave out ("and").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with this amendment I shall be speaking to Amendments Nos. 84, 92, 99, 102, 103 and 105. They all relate to the idea of a special advisory committee for children with special needs. I wish to say a few words about the background to this. The idea has been in existence for some years. I should like to go back 10 years; it will not take very long, I assure the House.
The Warnock Committee sat 10 years ago and was investigating the needs of children with special educational difficulties. It produced its report in May 1978. Among other things it stated:
"that a National Advisory Committee on Children with Special Needs should be established by the Secretaries of State for Education and Science and for Wales on the provision of educational services for children and young people with special educational needs and their co-ordination with other services. A separate Advisory Committee should be appointed for Scotland".
That was one of the recommendations of the Warnock Committee.
In response to some of the recommendations of the Warnock Committee the 1981 Education Act followed which dealt with special needs: the needs of children with special educational difficulties. It laid upon local education authorities the duty of assessing children who were considered to be in special need and, where necessary, providing them with a statement which named their needs and how those needs should be fulfilled. But in fact the government at the time refused to set up the advisory committee. Instead a working party was funded by the Department of Education to examine the desirability and feasibility of establishing a national committee. That met in September 1983.
The findings of that working party were summed up briefly:
"We endorse the almost unanimous view that the case for setting up a National Body broadly on the lines recommended in the Warnock Report is stronger now than when that Report was published in 1978.
The need to set up a body is urgent; otherwise there is a risk that present goodwill and effort will be dissipated and present expectations disappointed. The main immediate task is to monitor the implementation of the 1981 Act and the ideas underlining it to promote its disciplinary co-operation and to help overcome difficulties. A National Advisory Body would also look ahead and would discern the emergence of new demands and would help to promote and develop ideas and practices".
That was said in the report on the working party on this subject.
Nevertheless, for various reasons the Government decided against setting up such a body. However, research continued and a research project at the Institute of Education in London showed that the 1981 Act was not being implemented effectively. To mention two of the salient points, the Act was said not to be working as it should. First, education authorities were dragging their feet over producing statements for children. Sometimes it could take as long as 18 months between an application being made on behalf of a child and the final reception of a statement. There was a strong tendency which was
864
evident over the years for local education authorities to offer what they felt they could afford rather than what the children needed.
Years have passed since that time and one might have expected that when this Bill was published the needs of children with special difficulties would have considerable attention. In fact, when the Bill was first published only four lines were given to this. That has been considerably improved since then and there have been concessions from the Government. But I should like to draw noble Lords' attention to the fact that in the Warnock Report the opinion was expressed that at one time or another during their school lives as many as 20 per cent. of children need special help. That is a fifth of all the children who attend our schools—a considerable number. So when we consider special needs we are not talking about 1 per cent. or 2 per cent. of the severely mentally or physically handicapped children, but about a considerable proportion of the children who go to our schools.
If we do not help these children we shall not be raising standards and we shall not be improving the education standards in our country. I believe that there are two aspects to raising standards, which is what the Bill is about. One I accept is to raise expectations, raise demands and increase the challenges to children, but another equally important aspect is to help those in special need because a great many of our school failures are children who near the beginning of their career at school have difficulties and those difficulties are never diagnosed and never helped.
I have a particular interest in dyslexia because I have had dealings with it through a great deal of my teaching life and also because, unlike the problems of the partially sighted or partially hearing child or handicaps of that kind, dyslexia can pass unnoticed. It can pass for stupidity or laziness. That has often been the case in the past and to my amazement it still is. For that reason it is unnoticed. I believe that many of the 20 per cent. of children who at one time or another have difficulties are probably dyslexic.
This is the moment, I believe, for a special body to be formed which will be expert on those subjects and which will protect and advance the interests of children with special needs—all in the name of raising our educational standards which is what the Bill is about. What better moment could there be than now? I urge that side by side with the National Curriculum Council and the School Examinations and Assessment Council there should be a special needs council. There should be a special advisory body for children who need special help. That body should consist of experts in the subject. I beg to move.
10.15 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I support the amendment on three counts. First, the Education Act 1981 has been in existence for some time, but we must frankly admit that it has not been fully implemented throughout the country. It is good or partially good in some parts of the country, bad in others. Many schools have needed advice and help which they have been unable to obtain or which has not reached them.

865
The noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, has pointed out that when the Bill came before the House the educational needs of such children were mentioned only once. In the consultation paper issued in July 1987 children with special educational needs were not mentioned at all.
I suggest that such a council is needed. When the Bill was printed, the Voluntary Council for Handicapped Children met and 200 organisations attended. They subscribed a number of the ideas which have been put before your Lordships' House by a number of noble Lords present. I believe that that proves how much the council is needed.
I do not denigrate what the Department of Education and Science has, or has not, done. In 1981 it was given an enormous job; it could not carry out the work throughout the country. I believe that such a council would lift standards and give help and advice to those who need it.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I should like to deal with one matter mentioned by the noble Baroness. I agree that there was an overwhelming welcome for the 1981 Act which was a milestone. However, in my view it raised expectations unnecessarily. Will the noble Baroness agree that the main reason for the unsuccessful implementation of the Act is lack of resources? I see that the noble Baroness disagrees. I believe above all that specialist teachers and specialist training are needed together with more equipment. I support the amendment but although in favour of such a body I wonder whether its setting up will greatly improve the material situation.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I agree that resources are very important. But the lack of knowledge is abysmal. I recently visited a school which admitted a spina bifida child without having any conception or idea of what was needed for such a child. That story can be repeated time and time again throughout the country. I believe that if we were to have knowledge, experience and advice then the resources would come in some way.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, I should like to support the amendment. A great deal of my services on the Birmingham City Council were specifically connected with special education. I agree that the 1981 Act made certain recommendations. The forward-looking authorities have put many of those recommendations into operation. However, I believe that the 1981 Act failed to legislate for education for post 16 year-olds. Throughout the country many post 16 year-olds have been deprived of that education. Therefore, the 1981 Act only extended education to the age of 16. There was no further provision for special education.
One hopes that the proposed body will look very seriously at further education provision for those pupils that need the continuation. Their education will have been slower because of their special needs. They will need the extra time in which to catch up. At present they are being deprived of that facility.
866
Therefore, their disablement is further worsened. We hope that the advisory body will be acceptable to the Government. We hope that it will make sure that that provision is extended and will clarify the legal basis of further education which was not clarified in the 1981 Act. The DES at that time said that there needs to be a satisfactory statutory basis for providing for those with special needs.
It is also true to say that there are colleges of further education—and I know this applies to the eight colleges in the city from which I come which take students with special needs. The students at colleges of further education are all very costly because they are very special. It is important when they go to college that it is recognised they will not fit in a class with 10, 15 or 20 people. In many instances it has to be one to one. Therefore, the concern might be that if their interests are not safeguarded by an advisory council like this, further education will be diminished completely even by those forward-looking authorities which provide it at present.
Perhaps I may make a plea that if an advisory committee is set up it will have representatives of not only the physically handicapped. It is important to remember that there are also children with sensory handicaps. The visually handicapped and partially deaf also have to be considered. There are many research organisations which might be helpful to other organisations if this body is set up. I believe that it is important that the continuation of special education should be protected not only at school level but also in further education. I give all my support to this amendment.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I particularly support the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, on the length of time needed to educate children with special needs. As many of your Lordships know, I work with physically disabled people. Because of their great difficulties a large number of those children who have left school come to my organisation still not fully educated to a standard where they can go out into the world and live on their own. We then have to carry on.
I was of a mind to support this amendment but the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, in moving it has put me off. He made the field too large. I am entirely in agreement with him when dealing with physical and mental handicap and sensory deprivation, but to say that at least one child in five needs help at some time or another should be ruled out.
I have always thought of myself as a perfectly ordinary human being, particularly when at school, but not necessarily very bright. However, I would not describe myself as handicapped. I accept that I needed special help with some subjects and sometimes with all subjects. I should have thought that any teacher worth his or her salt should be able to help the ordinary, unhandicapped child, to give extra help and to—
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: My Lords—
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, may I finish what I have to say because I cannot continue once I have sat

867
down? We are on Report and there has been an awful lot of getting up and down as if we were in Committee.
I do not think it right that we should treat ordinary individuals as handicapped. Teachers of perfectly so-called normal children should be able to deal with this within the normal school day.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: My Lords, may I intervene for a moment to say—
Noble Lords: No.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: My Lords, I wish only to reply—
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the noble Lord has the right to wind up at the end of the debate.
Lord McNair: My Lords, I have not yet spoken so perhaps I may do so now. The noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, has completely misunderstood my noble friend Lord Ritchie. My noble friend was not talking about normal people who need a little help because they are finding a specific lesson to be a little difficult. He was referring to dyslexics and he made the valid point that it is a difficult condition to diagnose. The noble Lord was wrong to suggest that my noble friend was talking about ordinary people such as the noble Lord.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, as the parent of a dyslexic child I should like to point out the sad fact that highly qualified teachers still do not always recognise this condition when it occurs. One very much hopes that the Government will be able to accept this amendment. One also hopes of course that such a council will attract additional resources into this special field.
However, even if it does not, the council could very well take on board, for example, the extra time required by dyslexic pupils for examinations. Some examination boards give that extra time, but not all of them do. It is a lamentable state of affairs which I hope will be put right.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Hastings: My Lords, I support the amendments in principle, if not in detail, and I do so because I am very much afraid that what is in the Bill is not sufficient to make the Government's policies effective in this area of special education.
My feeling is enhanced by my experience with the Department of Education. For the past 13 years I have been closely associated with a voluntary school for the mentally handicapped and on behalf of that school, and two others, some three years ago I initiated negotiations with the Department of Education in respect of the qualifications of teachers. It so happens that these schools have a three-year training course in curative education which is recognised on the Continent of Europe and internationally, but not, strangely enough, in this country. The department is very sympathetic and it admires greatly the work of these schools, both verbally and in writing. My noble friend Lord Joseph, who was then Secretary of State, issued a
868
circular advising local authorities, though these schools were not approved, that they were nonetheless to be freely used by the local authorities if they so wished.
This is the point: local authorities vary very much, as has been pointed out by my noble friend Lady Faithfull. Some followed the guidance and some—all too many—did not. I am sure that this is what will happen with the Bill as at present drafted. I am confining my remarks to that about which I know; namely, the mentally handicapped. Government policy has been to try to integrate as many of these children as possible in mainstream schools with the laudable objective that normal children will come to recognise them as worthwhile human beings who have something rather special to contribute to the community.
This policy may work very well in the early stages, but when one reaches secondary education it becomes increasingly difficult for these children to keep up and to cope. If one has one or two out of 10 who can do so, one is very lucky. What will this Bill do for the great majority of these children who cannot cope? The resources must be there. If special schools are to be closed, more money and training must be put in so that there are the teachers with the sensitivity and the ability to deal with these special children.
The responsibility in the Bill, as I understand it, is laid upon not only local education authorities but governing bodies of schools, probably only a few of which will be knowledgeable about special needs in education. If the responsibility is to be there solely, the results will be very uneven throughout the country, as they have been in the past and as they are now. I do not see where the improvement is to come unless, some authority is set up which has been recommended by the Warnock Committee and recommended yet again by the working party, but not yet accepted.
In my closing remarks I wish to make a point which I hope the Minister will not take amiss, because it is not meant personally. My worry is that the Department of Education suffers under the delusion that it is always right. No human being or organisation is always right. I hope that it will be ready to admit that it does make mistakes and that some suggestions can be accepted which will greatly improve upon its own thoughts.
Last night we had an unfortunate example of this attitude when, very late, there were two amendments of a non-political character. In particular, one dealing with the arts could very easily have been accepted, in my humble opinion, as being self-evidently an improvement upon the wording of the Government and it would have been more effective than what was put into the Bill. The noble Baroness said yesterday and emphasised again today that many concessions had been made and amendments had been taken back to be looked at again. The reverse of that coin and the inference to be drawn is that enough is enough and no more were to be accepted yesterday and, possibly, no more today. This means that amendments are not being considered on their merits.

869
Before us is a strictly non-political amendment in the interests of a section of society needing protection and guidance in the fullest possible measure. I ask the Minister not to give us the stock reply that the amendment is not necessary and not to reject it out of hand, which I think would be generally unacceptable to the House. I feel that last night the department greatly miscalculated the atmosphere in the Chamber and greatly underestimated the objectivity and intelligence of noble Lords in regard to a strictly nonpolitical amendment designed to improve the Bill and to aid and help the Government. I hope that the Minister will use her discretion in this case and at least agree to look at the amendment, if it is not already acceptable, and to discuss it thoroughly with the officials in her department and with the Secretary of State himself. I am quite convinced that something of this nature must be put into the Bill at this stage.
I know teachers who are quite desperate. They say that this is the last chance. One teacher in the North of England whom I know has a mentally handicapped child and therefore knows very well the problems, as well as the possibilities and potentialities, of educating a mentally handicapped child. She has told me that when a subject is being dealt with where these children cannot keep up and cannot cope they are pushed out into the corridor and left there until the class is over. I am sure that that example is not unique and must be mirrored many times over. That is why I support the amendment or something of this nature. If we do not take this opportunity, it will be lost for the next 30 years and a generation of handicapped children will not be educated as they ought to be.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, perspective is very important to this debate and I agree with my noble friend Lord Swinfen that the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie of Dundee, expanded his introduction to the point of being unrealistic.
It is true that the Warnock Report said that 20 per cent. of our children require special education; but it is also true that about 2 per cent. of that 20 per cent. were children with severe learning difficulties and that another small percentage were children with moderate learning difficulties. A large percentage of that 20 per cent. were children who from time to time—sometimes over a short period, sometimes in one subject and sometimes in all subjects—would require special attention. In the normal course of education they would be taught by normal teachers in the classroom. Reference was made to them because from time to time they would require special attention and so were brought under the umbrella.
Two points occur to me. First, we have the whole matter out of perspective in this debate. Secondly, I am saddened to discover how greatly we have underrated much of what is being done by local authorities right across the country for children with special needs. No reference has been made to the work being done by local authorities. The vast majority of our children with special needs, in particular those with severe special needs, are having those needs well met by local authorities.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am most ready to admit to the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, that both I and the department can and do make mistakes at times.
These amendments provide for the establishment of an advisory council for people with special educational needs on similar lines to the National Curriculum Council, the Curriculum Council for Wales and the School Examinations and Assessment Council (SEAC), for which Clause 9 already provides. It will be constituted and serviced in much the same way and funded by the Department of Education and Science. There would be a requirement that the Secretary of State in appointing members to the council shall as far as is reasonably practicable appoint at least two members who are disabled and at least one member who has expertise relating to mental handicap.
As we have been reminded, this is not the first time the Government have been pressed to establish such a committee. Indeed, it was considered most recently by the Select Committee on Education, Science and the Arts in its report last year on special educational needs and the implementation of the Education Act 1981. After careful consideration the Government's response, only seven months ago, was that there was no need for such a committee.
The 1981 Act was concerned principally with the integration of children with special educational needs into ordinary schools. In this respect it implemented many of the recommendations made by the Warnock Committee, which have been referred to. Therefore it is important to ensure that such children receive the education most appropriate to their needs, wherever they are placed.
The Bill will apply the national curriculum to all pupils, including those with special educational needs. The National Curriculum Council will have a specific remit to consider the requirements of those pupils. Therefore it would be inconsistent to set up a separate national body which would, to a large extent, not only duplicate but possibly fragment responsibility for giving advice nationally. The Government have not been convinced in the past of the need for a national advisory body for special needs and, as I said, we have considered the matter most thoroughly in the recent past.
More widely, the responsibility for seeing that special education legislation is carried out rests with my right honourable friend and the Department of Education and Science. We have the means for obtaining information and advice. If we need additional specific advice, we can seek it by commissioning research and through our close contacts with the voluntary bodies. That is valuable two-way traffic. Such bodies are never slow in bringing to our attention matters of concern in their field.
The Government feel that such arrangements as will be made in the Bill for children with special educational needs would not be further assisted by setting up a separate council, as proposed by the amendments. Therefore I must fulfil the prophecies of certain noble Lords by saying that I must ask the House to reject the amendments.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may ask whether she can say what form the special remit will take.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, it will be given a remit to take into account the whole area of special educational needs.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, the noble Baroness referred to the fact that the NCC would have a special remit as regards special needs. My question was: what form would such a remit take?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, it will be based on government policy and the implementation of the 1981 Act. We have already considered the composition of the council. Indeed, I have assured the House that consideration will be given, when making appointments to that body, to people with the relevant expertise and, in some cases, personal experience of special educational needs. And, at the very least, consultation will take place between the bodies concerned with that area.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, perhaps the noble Baroness can tell the House whether what she has just referred to is contained in the consultation documents; or has it been printed in Hansard? I have been trying to follow carefully what is being said but I should like to be able to read it.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I was repeating assurances given at a previous stage of the Bill's proceedings. They will be found in Hansard.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: My Lords, we have had an airing of the problem but I am afraid it has been rather disappointing, as is so often the case. However, I should like to take the opportunity to comment on one or two of the contributions from noble Lords, for which I thank them.
I should like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, that when I spoke of one child in five I was indeed quoting from the Warnock Report, as confirmed by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. That report said that at any one time one child in six was likely to need special help and that overall throughout an entire career as many as one child in five is likely to need help of some sort.
I shall read Hansard tomorrow, but I was not aware that I had used the word "handicaps". I was speaking of children with special educational needs. They include children with much milder and less obvious handicaps than the severe learning difficulties some of your Lordships will have been thinking of. I assure the noble Lord that I have experience of these children, having taught them for many years. I know how difficult it is sometimes to spot a child who is having particular difficulty and needs expert help.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, spoke of a normal teacher teaching normal children who were having normal difficulties. What does "normal" mean? It requires special skills to spot difficulties. I have been in common rooms when teachers have
872
asked me, "What is wrong with such and such a child?" They have given the clearest description of a dyslexic child but have not recognised it. So many teachers do not recognise special difficulties. To remedy this, special training is needed.
As regards the work of local education authorities, I believe that attempts to fulfil the 1981 Act are very variable. I know that my county of East Sussex is doing rather well: it has special report teams which go out to schools. There are other counties about which I have heard bad reports and bad stories. So what is happening is very variable.
In view of the hour and with just a crumb of assurance from the Minister that the Government are going to take special account of this matter on the National Curriculum Council and appoint members to it who recognise the special needs—I hope that this discussion will be remembered and that it will indeed come to pass that there is expert opinion on the council—I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 84 not moved.]
10.45 p.m.
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 85:
Page 7, line 6, leave out ("ten") and insert ("twenty").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall be speaking also to Amendments Nos. 86 and 89. Because of the way we structure our discussions, the basis of at least the first two of these amendments means that later amendments would be capable of being carried. The case for acknowledging the size of the councils is the case for agreeing that the subsequent amendments are correct. The argument that says they are correct but that there is no room on the council would fall. I hope your Lordships will forgive me if, as one always has to do when we are discussing legislation, I am doing it the wrong way round.
Indeed, I have slightly, but very briefly, to anticipate the arguments on later amendments; namely, that the reason one wishes for a council of larger potential size is precisely that it would be possible to make room for someone who knows about ethnic minority children, for someone who is a member of a health education authority, and for someone, as I hope the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, and others will argue, who knows about special educational needs. Indeed the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, has already argued that. I could go on about such cases. That is the argument for the difference between 10 and 20 and between 15 and 30. Although I did not hear a crumb of comfort in the previous debate, I hope that in due course, as the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, said earlier, we may be given a crumb of comfort. That is the nature of the first two amendments. I think that this is a very important matter.
The third, of a different kind, concerns the broader qualifications of members of the council. As an old-fashioned person in this regard, I think that the people who know about education should be those who are dominant in educational bodies. I do not intend to start the kind of controversial argument that I managed to produce earlier about appointing businessmen and other such people to these bodies in

873
large numbers. I have had that row, and had a great deal of pleasure out of various responses to it. That is not my point.
My point is the positive one that the councils require people who have relevant knowledge and experience. By people with experience, one does not mean those who assert, "We know all about education; we all went to school, didn't we?". That is the greatest fallacy of all. It makes us all into experts on education, which we are not.
I think that this is precisely the area in which Members of your Lordships' House make contributions of the kind that the occasion requires. We know about these things, and we are an example of the kind of people referred to in the amendment. Had the Government chosen to write the Bill not in this way but in a more limited way, they would have done what was suggested by several noble Lords—that is, they would have listened to our advice and accepted that we know about these things. They would then have responded more positively than they seem to be capable of doing on this issue.
There is no more to be said. It is an important matter. I hope for some support and a positive response from the Minister. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the effect of Amendments Nos. 85 and 86 would be exactly the same as the effect of those introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, which he withdrew after I had explained why we do not think it necessary or helpful to have such large councils. Perhaps I may repeat that the Government do not believe it would be helpful or efficient to have such large councils. We believe that the provisions in the Bill for the councils to be between 10 and 15 in number give adequate scope for the appointment of people with a wide range of background and experience while the bodies will remain small enough to take decisions and operate quickly and efficiently.
I recognise the need for the councils to have access to as wide a range of expert advice and counsel as possible. However, we believe that there is plenty of scope for tapping the experience of a wide circle of people through co-option on to sub-committees of the councils. We have been careful to provide for this in Schedule 1.
On Amendment No. 89, I have to say that we see no good case for amending the Bill to prescribe a fixed percentage or proportion of members because they are knowledgeable and experienced. As I suggested before, composition is essentially a question of judgment. It will be for the Secretary of State to decide on the balance of expertise and experience required on the three new councils, taking account of their respective roles and functions. Moreover, I believe that in making his appointments so far to the shadow NCC and SEAC he has got the balance right, as has my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales in the appointments he has made to the shadow CCW.
I can of course assure the noble Lord that the Secretary of State will have in mind, as I said earlier, the need to appoint knowledgeable and experienced
874
people to the councils whenever such appointments are made. Indeed, the value of the councils' advice will depend crucially on the wisdom and competence of members. However, we do not think it necessary or even useful to lay down that any fixed proportion of members be qualified in the way that the noble Lord suggests. We trust that all the members of the councils will make their distinctive personal contribution to the work of their council, whatever their particular background.
For those reasons I trust that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendments.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I am obviously not happy with that. I have also refrained from commenting on the shadow bodies that have been set up. I think it would be most inappropriate at this stage for us to comment on the particular individuals who have been appointed. That does not mean that I am incapable of making comments on what the Secretary of State has been up to, but I do not think it would be a gentlemanly thing to do at this stage of the Bill.
I am willing to give the noble Baroness the benefit of the doubt as long as she bears in mind that the very first time that the Secretary of State tells us that he cannot apppoint such an appropriate person because the council is not large enough, the very first time that argument is used, I shall not be the first noble Lord to do so, but I shall not be left out in saying, "I told you so". With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 86 not moved.]
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 87:
Page 7, line 7, after ("State") insert—
("after consultation with such organisations as he may recognise as representative of local authorities, teachers, school governors and parents").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment is the same as one which I moved at Committee stage and very similar to one which the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, had down. All it is asking for is to make the Secretary of State's powers to appoint members of the NCC and the SEAC subject to consultation, and consultation with the organisations listed in the amendment.
I think it is important that the phrasing is taken from the National Health Service Act of 1977, which is the major Act controlling the NHS, under which the powers of the Secretary of State for Social Services to set up the Central Health Services Council and standing advisory committees are subject to a duty to consult with representative organisations. The amendment therefore simply imposes a similar requirement on the Secretary of State for Education.
When the amendment was moved in Committee on 5th May (at cols. 781–83 of Hansard), the noble Baroness said that the Government were not unsympathetic to the thoughts which lay behind it. However, she added that they preferred to consult informally and that a mandatory requirement to consult would detract from the independence of the councils and could also give rise to delays in making appointments. But when she was pressed further she said:

875
"I have to say that I am somewhat persuaded by some of the arguments that have been advanced … I should like to take this matter back, without commitment, and perhaps to deal with it at another stage".
This commitment was also made to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear.
However, there seems to be no government amendment and a lot of the appointments have been made, if only in a shadow capacity. There has been concern about the methods of consultation prior to the appointment of members, the shadow members or perhaps rather the shadow curriculum and assessment councils. The Secretary of State stated in his announcement of the membership of the shadow National Curriculum Council and the shadow School Examinations and Assessment Council that the members:
"have been chosen after a good deal of consultation with interests directly concerned with the work of the two Councils".
That was printed in a DES press release No. 159/88. There would appear to have been no formal consultation, and what the Secretary of State is referring to is the fact that he was willing to receive suggestions. I understand that he has ignored quite a few of them.
This amendment would require consultation with the bodies mentioned in the amendment. It is worth while noting the quality of the department's consultation on the proposals which are embodied in the Bill. I have with me a Written Answer with a list containing information supplied by Mrs. Rumbold, Minister of State, on 21st October 1987. It shows the number of documents produced for consultation initially and those subsequently distributed. For example, of The National Curriculum 5–16 document only 2·1 per cent. of those produced were distributed initially; 97·9 per cent. of the consultation documents were subsequently distributed. Similar figures for the grant-maintained schools consultation paper are 4·5 per cent. and 95·5 per cent. Was the consultation on the shadow membership of the NCC and other bodies similar to the initial distribution of consultation documents on the national curriculum?
It seems to me not a very satisfactory arrangement for consultation. We were encouraged by the Minister's comments to us in Committee, and we should very much like to hear what she will now say about this. I beg to move.
11 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I had hoped that I had been able to persuade the noble Baroness after the debate in Committee that the Secretary of State was prepared to listen to suggestions on the curriculum and assessment from organisations and individuals knowledgeable about education, before making appointments. Indeed the names put forward by the noble Baroness and others have been considered. The appointments to the shadow bodies are not yet complete.
The Government have undertaken a very wide range of informal consultations with bodies and interests within education in order to identify the best people to sit on the councils. It was as a result of those consultations that my right honourable friend was
876
able to announce last month the names of those whom he has appointed as members of the shadow NCC and SEAC. We shall also be considering the suggestions made to us in those informal consultations when we come to choose the remaining members.
However we still do not believe there should be a formal requirement to consult. The Government have made it abundantly clear at every stage of the Bill's passage through this House and the other place that the council appointments are to be personal appointments by the Secretary of State. Formal consultations, even if they are conducted without prejudice to the Secretary of State's right to select the people to be appointed, detract from that fundamental principle and could even lead to divided loyalties on the part of members. Although we are adamant on the principle, we remain open to suggestions about membership. As I have said, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is still considering the names of those he should add to the shadow councils. I hope that I have made the Government's position perfectly clear. I must ask the House to vote against Amendment No. 87 if it is not withdrawn and indeed the other amendments we are discussing in this grouping.
Baroness David: My Lords, I was not sure that we were discussing other amendments. Which other amendments is the noble Baroness referring to?
Noble Lords: No. 91.
Baroness David: My Lords, I am sorry. Of course we were also discussing Amendment No. 91 standing in my name and that of the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin of Bewdley. I cannot say that I am altogether satisfied with the reply. I think that the consultation has been fairly perfunctory. It seems to me rather odd that appointments are made before the Bill is enacted. We cannot deny that these shadows will doubtless have substance later. However, I shall not divide the House at this time of night. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 88:
Page 7, leave out lines 10 and 11 and insert ("and at least one shall have relevant knowledge and experience of the education of children of ethnic minority origin.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 88 I shall, with the leave of the House, speak also to Amendment No. 89A, in the name of my noble friend Lord Rea, and Amendment No. 90, in the name of the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss. Most of the arguments for the amendments are well known and I shall not rehearse them. As regards Amendment No. 88, that has two advantages. One is the obvious substantive advantage of having such relevant knowledge and experience. Secondly, apart from the technical argument that the amendment is a good thing, the boost that the amendment would give to the morale of the relevant minority population which we are discussing would be very important.
I would not assume that the person coming under the rubric of the amendment would necessarily be

877
from an ethnic minority, just as I would not assume that a person from an ethnic minority appointed to such councils, or more than one such person, would be regarded necessarily as a person who confines himself or herself to ethnic minority issues. I do not go in for that kind of tokenism. I should not wish to be misinterpreted as suggesting that there should be a simple one-to-one relationship. I am discussing the representation of knowledge and experience of ethnic minority problems. I take it for granted that all inhabitants of our country would be regarded as potential members of the council on the basis of their knowledge and experience in any case.
Turning to Amendment No. 89A, that is illustrative of precisely the point I made earlier about the size of the council. I should find it hard to argue that in a council of only 15 people one would have such priorities that being a member of a health education authority could be a dominant criterion.
I can think of many other things which, if I were advising on who should be appointed, I might well believe should come first. I have not the slightest doubt in terms of the arguments that have been put forward that representation by someone who has been connected with a health education authority is an extremely important matter. It is precisely that example that I press on the noble Baroness as showing why the department is in error in not being willing to countenance larger councils. Both of those arguments seem to me to be relevant in that area. I shall reserve my few comments on Amendment No. 90 until I have heard the comments of the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss.
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, I should like to speak to Amendment No. 90 standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Darcy (de Knayth), the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock. The amendment refers to the National Curriculum Council, the Curriculum Council for Wales and the School Examinations and Assessment Council. As the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie of Dundee, said, 20 per cent. of all our children at school will, at some time or another, have special educational needs. Therefore it is all the more necessary for a member who can represent their views and aspirations to be on all the councils.
The Government have been sensitive about the needs of young people with special educational needs in other parts of the Bill. However, we think that there is a need to strengthen the commitment further. However helpful and sensitive the guidelines of the Government may be, Secretaries of State come and go. It is not enough that the commitment remains in the heart of the Secretary of State. It must be written into the Bill.
Despite the changes to the Bill which have been made by the Government, it shows insufficient consideration of the effects of many proposals on young people with special needs. Developing appropriate curricula for that group of pupils requires knowledge, interest and commitment to children with special educational needs. We are not asking for extra money or for additional members for these councils; rather that at least one member should
878
be knowledgeable or have experience of special educational needs. It is clearly preferable and certainly possible to find someone who has both knowledge and personal experience of disability and suitable educational qualifications.
This is a very important amendment in that it asks that children with special needs are represented on councils and schools examination and assessment councils in the same way as children who have no such needs.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I should like to support both these amendments. The councils are obviously of the very greatest importance. As the noble Baroness knows, we are deeply apprehensive about the great powers that the Secretary of State has taken to himself. The councils represent a way of feeding into the Secretary of State the views of people who do not necessarily share the views of the Secretary of State. They can therefore bring fresh air into his discussions.
I shall not pull my punches on this matter. With the Secretary of State having only informal consultations and making all the appointments personally, there is a very grave danger that the councils will be filled with people who are of a like mind to the Secretary of State. That is not the kind of advice that many of us in your Lordships' House would wish him to receive.
Lord Hastings: My Lords, this group of amendments and the previous group moved by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, are very interesting. They lead me to ask the Minister how she and her department visualise the National Curriculum Council operating.
It seems that if there were to be a member on the council representing the physically disabled—and I think that that is very desirable indeed—that would not cover those with mental disabilities whose needs are entirely different. If one also had a representative for the mentally disabled, that would take up two places straightaway. It leads one to wonder whether 15 members will be sufficient to represent all national interests.
Those of us who have served on committees know that a small committee is much more efficient than a large one. However, on a national basis that does not necessarily apply. I wonder whether the noble Baroness or her department visualise the National Curriculum Council making rules and regulations and giving advice over the whole field of education, including special needs and every other department one could possibly imagine. Alternatively, will it divide itself into sub-committees of people with knowledge in special fields? I think it is of some interest to know how it can operate to the maximum benefit of the education of the nation as a whole.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I should like to support this group of amendments. I agree very much with the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that Amendment No. 89A concerning the health education authority proves the case for a larger council. However, I should have thought that even if

879
the council were not expanded, it certainly needs to include representation as proposed in Amendments Nos. 88 and 90—people with knowledge of children from ethnic minorities and with special educational needs. Turning to what the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, said, I certainly understand special educational needs to cover physical, mental and sensory disabilities.
When my noble friend Lady Kinloss moved the same amendment as Amendment No. 90 in Committee, it gained support from all sides of the Chamber, which induced the Minister to think again about it although without commitment. The council will be so enormously important that I believe that it is crucial that at least one person—and we are only asking for one—should have knowledge of children with special educational needs. I feel strongly that it should be a duty to appoint one such person and that that duty should be written into the Bill.
11.15 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the noble Baroness has underlined the problems of having representative interests on these councils; namely that if every possible interest were represented the numbers could be unlimited. In each case we envisage a relatively small compact group as widely drawn and as widely experienced as possible, which will be able, where necessary, to co-opt specialist members, appoint special advisory sub-committees and consult specialist interests.
We do not want to argue about the importance of having available to the councils in this way through appropriate appointments, co-option and sub-committees, all the advice and expertise they need in order to carry through their important work. The Bill already provides for the councils to include persons with relevant knowledge or experience in education—an important requirement, in our view, which Amendment No. 88 of the noble Baroness, Lady David, would have the effect of removing, though I am sure that that was not the intention. We believe that this is a sufficient basis on which to build councils which are in all respects aware of the problems they face and competent to deal with them. I would include in this the practical problems and opportunities presented by having in our schools children from a wide variety of faiths, cultures and ethnic origins.
As I hope we have now made absolutely clear, we see no case for providing in the Bill for the representation of particular interests, no matter how important those interests may be. This does not imply that the Secretary of State has no wish to include on the councils members who might have special knowledge in the area to which I have referred. On the contrary, I expect that he will see to it that appropriate expertise is included among council appointments in order to reinforce the links which the councils establish at professional level and through their committee structures.
The Government's position in relation to Amendment No. 89A is similar and I shall simply reaffirm that those appointed to the council will be appointed in a personal capacity. That does not
880
imply that my right honourable friend has no wish to include on the councils members with special knowledge and experience in particular parts of the curriculum. We shall also seek to ensure that the councils have good links with subjects such as health education through professional contact and perhaps again the appropriate membership of sub-committees.
So far as concerns Amendment No. 90, proposed by the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, as I hope I have made clear in relation to the previous amendment, Amendment No. 87, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady David, the Government have considered the issues raised but do not consider that there is any need to change the Bill as drafted. The Bill provides for the councils to include in their membership people with knowledge or experience of education. That includes all aspects of education, including the education of children with special educational needs.
With those assurances, I trust that the proposers of these amendments will feel able to withdraw them.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I certainly do not regard any of the noble Baroness's remarks as a reassurance. Speaking for the first and second amendments, I must say that I am profoundly disappointed at the Government's response. If I may refer to what the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, said, these are matters which are not in the remotest sense political. They are matters of judgment.
When the Government legislate in this area they are legislating for all of us. I think that the Government have missed a vital opportunity here to emphasise, as it were, the importance of these matters. Referring particularly to the ethnic minority problem, I do not think that it is a trivial matter to boost morale and give confidence in that area.
As to the special needs problem, it is not my amendment and it will not be for me to decide whether or not in due course to divide the House on it, but I am rather angry because the case for special needs has been made continuously throughout the passage of this Bill both at Second Reading and now on Report.
I am most concerned that the Government have found it completely impossible to respond to this kind of demand that I have heard from across the Chamber. There is nothing that we on our Benches can do about it. We do not command in this situation. It seems to me that the noble Baroness ought at the very least to have said that she will convey to the Secretary of State the broad non-party support for a move in precisely this area.
It will not be up to me whether we divide on this matter but I am deeply upset by the response of the noble Baroness especially to Amendment No. 90.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 89 and 89A not moved.]
Lady Kinloss Lady Kinloss had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 90:
Page 7, line 11, at end insert—
("One member of each Council shall have special knowledge of and concern for provision for children with special educational

881
needs, and regard shall be had to the desirability of that member being a person with a disability.").
The noble Lady said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I am sorry that the noble Baroness cannot accept it. I cannot understand why. We are not asking for any extra money. She states that line 10 speaks of:
"having relevant knowledge or experience in education".
However, it does not state that these people have to have understanding of special educational needs. That is a very difficult issue.
I can only say that I should like to read again in Hansard what the noble Baroness has said and think about what to do at Third Reading.
[Amendment No. 90 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 91 to 93 not moved.]
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 94:
Page 7, line 14, at end insert—
("( ) to determine a framework for the National Curriculum within which any subject working group established by the Secretary of State shall operate and make recommendations;").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment deals with the issue of the relationship between the subject working groups and the National Curriculum Council. One of the extraordinary things about the national curriculum proposals is that they are currently being written while Parliament is still discussing the Bill. Were Parliament to reject the national curriculum—though perhaps that is a little unlikely in the circumstances—a considerable amount of public money would have been wasted. But the Secretary of State apparently has little doubt that the detail of his proposals will be implemented since he has chosen to plan their implementation before Parliament has had the opportunity to discuss all the principles involved.
The process by which a national curriculum is introduced is an important one. As I said earlier, the Government are currently engaged in introducing voluntary arrangements in Scotland under which local authorities will have regard to guidelines established by the equivalent National Curriculum Council. The approach has been specifically endorsed by the Secretary of State for Scotland but a different process is being introduced in England and Wales with the expert bodies being established after a certain amount of the work has been done, and having a purely supportive role in relation to the Secretary of State.
Under this Bill there is a considerable lack of clarity as to the dividing line between the subject working groups and the National Curriculum Council. It would be helpful if the Minister could confirm that, once the Bill is passed and the National Curriculum Council established, no further working groups will be set up and that the council will undertake their function. Alternatively, there appears to be some suggestion that the council will have a role in guiding the activities of the working group, although nothing appears on this on the face of the Bill.
Perhaps I may remind the Minister—although I see that she has just left the Chamber—that at the Committee stage she stated:
"We have not sought to map out the full curriculum in this clause of the Bill. We are specifying the important subject areas to be covered and it will be for the subject working groups, with guidance from the Secretary of State and in due course from our new National Curriculum Council, to ensure that such themes and topics are appropriately covered". [Official Report, 3/5/88; col. 5321
This statement appears to suggest that once it is set up the National Curriculum Council will be asked to produce guidelines for the subject working groups. This is the first time that such a suggestion has been made and it does not appear on the face of the Bill. The amendment seeks to rectify the omission.
The Minister also said that she anticipated that one of the first tasks of the National Curriculum Council would be to look at cross-curricular themes as a whole so that there are proper frameworks for considering the working groups' recommendations. On the one hand this statement appears to accept the notion of a framework determined by the National Curriculum Council; on the other hand it suggests the council's responsibilities to determine the framework for itself in relation to the recommendations of the working groups rather than setting out a framework for the working groups. It would be very helpful if Ministers could make clear precisely what is intended.
Will the National Curriculum Council be enabled, once established, to lay down guidelines for subject working groups and if not why not? It would also be very helpful if Ministers could state how many more subject working groups are to be established. It is not clear whether one will be established for each of the remaining subjects not already covered, when they are to be set up and when the reports are expected from them.
What the amendment seeks is to give the National Curriculum Council the role of setting the framework for the national curriculum with the detailed work being done by the subject groups. I beg to move.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, Amendment No. 94 undoubtedly reflects the considerable knowledge of the noble Baroness of educational matters and her understanding of the intended role of the National Curriculum Council and the Curriculum Council for Wales in establishing and developing the national curriculum. However, as I shall try to show, it is unnecessary in the short term and would have no relevance in the longer term when the curriculum working groups will have done their work.
The amendment would have the effect of adding to the list of functions in the Bill a new function; that is, to determine a framework for the national curriculum within which the various subject working groups which are being set up by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State can operate and make their recommendations. We do not dispute that a framework for the curriculum is not just desirable but essential if future generations of school children are to receive the broad and balanced education which this Government have promised them and which we will see to it that they have.

883
One of the first tasks of the NCC and the CCW must be to begin work on that framework. It will not be easy and it will take some time. In the meantime, I expect that my right honourable friend will ask for and receive advice on the proper relationship of the various curriculum subjects with each other and with the issues and themes which should run through the curriculum. All this is provided for in the present list of NCC and CCW functions set out in the Bill, including the functions of keeping the curriculum under review and advising the Secretary of State on curriculum matters.
Unlike the new function proposed by the noble Baroness, however, the functions in the Bill will still be relevant when the curriculum working groups have all reported and the national curriculum is in place. Then the emphasis will be on monitoring the curriculum and ensuring that it remains relevant in all respects.
I hope that in the light of these considerations the noble Baroness will accept that the functions given in the Bill are more than adequate for present and future needs and that the NCC and CCW can do all that is needed to ensure the success of the national curriculum within them. I therefore hope that she will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
11.30 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, can be answer the question which I posed earlier? It concerns how many more subject working groups the Government intend to set up. How many will be established? When will they be set up? What kind of reports are expected from them?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am not aware of my right honourable friend's exact intentions in this matter. However, I shall see whether I can obtain any information and write to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for his reply. I am not altogether convinced by it. I believe that there will be a problem in relation to these diverse subject working groups and the way in which they relate to the National Curriculum Council. The purpose of the amendment was to ensure that there would be a clear role for the council in setting the framework. However, at this late hour I do not intend to divide the House in the matter and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 95:
Page 7, line 16, at end insert ("and undertake research for this purpose").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I should also like to speak to Amendments Nos. 96 and 98. I hope that on Amendment No. 95 we have an example of the argument which noble Lords used yesterday; namely, that it is already implicit in the Bill. I refer to subsection (3) (a), which reads:
"to keep all aspects of the curriculum for maintained schools under review".
884
The words in my amendment are:
"and undertake research for this purpose".
I tabled the amendment because I hope to receive the answer that it is not necessary because it would be impossible to keep all aspects of the curriculum under review without carrying out the appropriate amount of research. In other words, I am hoping to receive the kind of answer that was given yesterday. I am happy to be put down by the Minister saying that if only I understood the words correctly my amendment would be irrelevant. Inverting the argument, I say that if my amendment is not irrelevant and is needed, it certainly is needed because there is no other way of keeping aspects of the commitment under review.
Although the other two amendments are grouped together, in my opinion they are not quite the same. They are partly the same because it would follow from the duty of the council to keep all aspects of the curriculum under review that logically it must undertake research whether or not requested by the Secretary of State. That follows logically from what I have said and from my reading of paragraph (a). It would follow a fortiori from my amendment which would make explicit that reading of paragraph (a).
I should like to return to a theme which I and other noble Lords raised earlier and which the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, raised this evening. It is that our view of the value of these councils, and in particular this council, is that they derive their value from their independence. As regards matters of research, independence is of the essence. I have previously argued that much of the advice worth having is precisely the advice which is not asked for. That is what the amendment is about. I feel strongly that the phrase "if so requested by him" should be omitted. I accept the fact that there have been known to be female Secretaries of State for Education and Science and that the word "him" is a term of art to cover both. That does not mean that the Secretary of State should not be in a position to ask for such research and advice but he or she should also be in a position of obtaining such research and advice whether or not asked for.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I should like to support the amendments most strongly. Following on from what I said earlier, the value of the councils is their independence from the Secretary of State for the reasons already mentioned. They will inspire no confidence whatever in the general public if the people appointed are seen to be clones of the Secretary of State.
"One of us" is a familiar phrase which means not one of us. Unless they are free to take initiatives of the sort to which the noble Lord, Lord Peston, referred, the value of these councils and the value to the Secretary of State and, much more important, to the wider society of the creative tension which should be established between the councils and the Secretary of State will be lost. A good Secretary of State will not want people who rubber stamp but people who will challenge and take initiatives without being asked directly so to do.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the proposed amendments to the functions of the National Curriculum Council and the Curriculum Council for Wales—Amendments Nos. 95 and 96—would give the councils a significantly greater degree of formal freedom than we intend. The responsibility for promoting and developing the national curriculum properly rests with the Secretary of State, the LEAs and the schools. The work of the curriculum councils is to provide support and advice in this important endeavour. To say this is not to detract in any way from the significance in the scheme of things of the curriculum councils. Their advice, guidance and support will be absolutely vital to the success of the enterprise we are embarked upon.
In practice, we intend that the Secretary of State and the curriculum councils will work in close partnership in evolving and conducting programmes of research and development concerned with the national curriculum and with the curriculum in schools more generally. The councils will no doubt advise on what they see as the research needs and the relative degrees of priority of those needs. The Secretary of State will take that advice into account in allocating resources and in approving the plans which, under the Bill, will be the basis for the councils' operations.
We do not foresee any difficulty for the councils in operating in this way and it is surely right that the Secretary of State, who is accountable to Parliament for the resources used for the development of the national curriculum and who carries statutory responsibility for its implementation in accordance with Clause 1, should have formal control of the programme of research and development which will be necessary to underpin its introduction and subsequent maintenance.
Very similar arguments apply in connection with Amendment No. 98, to which I believe the noble Lord also spoke when he moved Amendment No. 95 and discussed also Amendment No. 96. In the light of those considerations, I hope that he and, indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, will feel that their wishes are indeed met.
Lord Peston: My Lords, they are certainly not. It is mistaken to argue that these bodies should be interpreted in precisely the way in which the noble Lord has done. It seems that he has not remotely endeavoured to deal with the point I made and about which I asked him; namely, how can these bodies keep all aspects of the curriculum under review if they are not in a position to carry out research? That is what is meant by "keeping all aspects of the curriculum under review". I shall not dignify the reply of the noble Lord as an argument. I am very unimpressed with the reply and I certainly wish to divide the House on this matter.
11.39 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 95) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 17; Not-Contents, 37.

DIVISION NO. 6

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Peston, L.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Blackstone, B.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Rochester, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Russell, E.

Kinloss, Ly.

Seear, B. [Teller.]

McNair, L.

White, B.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Winstanley, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Arran, E.

Hesketh, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Hooper, B.

Belstead, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Blatch, B.

Kinnoull, E.

Borthwick, L.

London, Bp.

Butterworth, L.

Long, V.

Caithness, E.

Monk Bretton, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Renton, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Coleraine, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Cowley, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Cox, B.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Trafford, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Trefgarne, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Truro, Bp.

Dundee, E.

Ullswater, V.

Greenway, L.

Young, B.

Harvington, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
11.47 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 96 to 99 not moved.]
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 100:
Page 8, line 12, at end insert ("; and
(ii) to have regard to the requirements of section 1 of this Act.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, we promised to consider the application to the NCC of the general duties set out in Clause 1 in response to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, at Committee stage.
It is, of course, our intention that the National Curriculum Council, and indeed the Curriculum Council for Wales and the School Examinations and Assessment Council, should carry out their work with due regard to the important basic principles enshrined in Clause 1. On looking again at the words of the Bill, we considered that it was important to remove any shred of doubt that the councils must act within Clause 1 by introducing the amendment which is now under consideration. It is along the lines of that suggested in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, but applies to all the councils, not just the National Curriculum Council, and imposes a clear duty on the councils to have regard to Clause 1 in all they do. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 101:
Before Schedule 1, insert the following new
schedule:
("SCHEDULE Al
CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS RELATING TO RELIGIOUS EDUCATION
The Education Act 1944 (c. 31)
1. The following section shall be substituted for section 26 of the 1944 Act
"Special provisions as to religious education in county schools.
26.—(1) In the case of a county school the provision for religious education for pupils at the school which is required by section 2(1)(a) of the Education Reform Act 1988 to be included in the schools basic curriculum shall be provision for religious education in accordance with an agreed syllabus adopted for the school or for those pupils.
(2) Religious education given to pupils at such a school in accordance with the provisions so required shall not include any catechism or formulary which is distinctive of any particular religious denomination.
(3) Subsection (4) below applies where a county secondary school is so situated that arrangements cannot conveniently be made for the withdrawal of pupils from the school in accordance with section (Exceptions, special arrangements and supplementary and consequential provisions) of that Act to receive religious education elsewhere.
(4) If in any such case the local education authority are satisfied—

(a) that the parents of pupils in attendance at the school desire them to receive religious education in the school in accordance with the tenets of a particular religious denomination; and

(b) that satisfactory arrangements have been made for the provision of such education to those pupils in the school, and for securing that the cost of providing such education to those pupils in the school will not fall upon the authority;

the authority shall, unless they are satisfied that owing to any special circumstances it would be unreasonable to do so, provide facilities for the carrying out of those arrangements."
2.—(1) In section 27 of that Act (special provisions as to religious education in controlled schools), the word "education" shall be substituted for the word "instruction" in each place where it occurs in subsections (1), (2), (4) and (5).
(2) The following subsection shall be substituted for subsection (6) of that section—
"(6) In the case of a controlled school the provision for religious education for pupils at the school which is required by section 2(1)(a) of the Education Reform Act 1988 to be included in the school's basic curriculum shall be provision for religious education—

(a) in accordance with any arrangements made under subsection (1) of this section; or

(b) subject to any such arrangements, in accordance with an agreed syllabus adopted for the school or for those pupils."

3.—(1) In section 28 of that Act (special provisions as to religious education in aided schools and in special agreement schools), the following subsections shall be substituted for subsection (1)—
"(1) In the case of an aided or special agreement school the provision for religious education for pupils at the school which is required by section 2(1)(a) of the Education Reform Act 1988 to be included in the school's basic curriculum shall be provision for religious education—

(a) in accordance with any provision of the trust deed relating to the school or, where provision for that purpose is not made by such a deed, in accordance with the practice observed in the school before it became a voluntary school; or

(b) in accordance with any arrangements under this section.

(1A) Subject to subsection (1C) of this section, the religious education given to pupils at such a school shall be under the control of the governors of the school.
(1B) Where the parents of pupils in attendance at such a school—

(a) desire them to receive religious education in accordance with any agreed syllabus adopted by the local education authority; and

(b) cannot with reasonable convenience cause those pupils to attend any school at which that syllabus is in use; then, unless the authority are satisfied that owing to any special circumstances it would be unreasonable to do so, arrangements shall be made for religious education in accordance with that syllabus to be given to those pupils in the schools during the times set apart for the giving of religious education in the school in accordance with the provision for that purpose included in the school's basic curriculum by virtue of section 2(1)(a) of that Act.

(1C) Those arrangements shall be made by the governors of the school, unless the local education authority are satisfied that the governors are unwilling to make the arrangements, in which case they shall be made by the authority."
(2) The word "education" shall be substituted for the word "instruction" in each place where it occurs in subsections (2) to (4) of that section.
4. The word "education" shall be substituted for the word "instruction"—

(a) in section 29(1) of that Act (preparation, etc., of agreed syllabus);

(b) in each place where it occurs in section 30 of that Act (saving as to position of teachers); and

(c) in section 67(3) of that Act (determination of question as to whether religious education is in accordance with trust deed relation to a voluntary school).

5. In section 77 of that Act (inspection of educational establishments)—

(a) the word "education" shall be substituted for the word "instruction" in both places where it occurs in subsection (5); and

(b) in subsection (6), for the words "instruction in a voluntary school in accordance with the provisions of this Act" there shall be substituted the words "receiving religious education in a voluntary school in accordance with section (Exceptions, special arrangements and supplementary and consequential provisions) of the Education Reform Act 1988".

6. In section 114(1) of that Act (interpretation) the word "education" shall be substituted for the word "instruction" in the definition of "agreed syllabus".
7.—(1) In Schedule 5 to that Act (procedure for preparing and bringing into operation an agreed syllabus of religious education) the word "education" shall be substituted for the word "instruction" in each place where it occurs in paragraphs I, 5, 6 and 9 to 11.
(2) In paragraph 2 (representative committees constituting the conference), for sub-paragraph (a) there shall be substituted the following sub-paragraph—
("(a) such Christian and other religious denominations as, in the opinion of the authority will appropriately reflect the principal religious traditions in the area;").
(3) For paragraph 12 of that Schedule there shall be substituted the following paragraphs—
"Reconsideration of agreed syllabus
12. Whenever a local education authority are of opinion (whether upon representations made to them or otherwise) that any agreed syllabus for the time being adopted by them ought to be reconsidered, the authority shall cause to be convened for that purpose a conference constituted in accordance with the provisions of this Schedule.
13. —(1) The following provisions of this paragraph apply where a local education authority cause such a conference to be convened for the purpose of reconsidering any agreed syllabus, whether under paragraph 12 of this Schedule or under section 7(8) of the Education Reform Act 1988 (obligation of authority to cause such a conference to be convened if required to do so by representative groups on standing advisory council for religious education).
(2) If the conference unanimously recommend that the existing syllabus should continue to be the agreed syllabus, the authority may give effect to the recommendation.
(3) If—

(a) the conference unanimously recommend a new syllabus to be adopted in substitution for the existing syllabus; and

(b) it appears to the authority that the new syllabus complies with section (Religious education required in the basic curriculum: further provisions) (3) of that Act (new agreed syllabus to reflect mainly Christian religious traditions);

the authority may give effect to the recommendation.
(4) If either—

(a) the authority report to the Secretary of State that the conference are unable to reach unanimous agreement; or

(h) it appears to the Secretary of State that the authority have failed to exercise their power under sub-paragraph (2) or (3) above to give effect to the unanimous recommendation of the conference;

the Secretary of State shall proceed in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 10 of this Schedule, and paragraph 11 of this Schedule shall apply accordingly."
The Child Care Act 1980 (c. 5)
8. In the Child Care Act 1980 the word "education" shall be substituted for the word "instruction" in—

(a) section 39(2)(b) (regulations with respect to facilities for religious education in community homes); and

(b) section 42(5) (determinaton of questions as to religious education to be given in a controlled or assisted community home).

The Education Act 1981 (c. 60)
9. In section 12 of the 1981 Act (approval of special schools), for subsection (4) (provision to be made in regulations as to religious worship and instruction in special schools) there shall be substituted the following subsection—
"(4) Provision shall be made in the regulations to secure that, so far as practicable, every pupil attending a special school will attend religious worship and receive religious education, or will be withdrawn from attendance at such worship or from receiving such education in accordance with the wishes of his parent.".").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord Renton Lord Renton moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 101, Amendment No. 101A:
In the proposed substitute section 26 (special provisions are to religious education in county schools) leave out subsection (2).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a probing amendment. Its purpose is to ask my noble friend on the Front Bench and the right reverend Prelate to reconsider the wording of subsection (2) of the redrafted Section 26 of the Education Act 1944. Noble Lords will find subsection (2) near the top of page 15.
This subsection has a venerable origin, going back to 1870. I do not suggest that we could do without the subsection altogether but I feel that what was considered right in 1870 and again in 1944 may not he quite right in the new circumstances presented to us by the amendments of the right reverend Prelate and of my noble friend.
This amendment is too restrictive. Its context is the teaching of religious education. Everyone agrees that that is to be an academic study and not a matter of indoctrination. However, to say that this academic study shall be carried out without any reference to a catechism or formulary—I understand that in this context formulary primarily means a creed which is distinctive of any religious denomination—is a quite unnecessary prohibition. I suppose that the Apostle's Creed is the most widely used one among the many Christian denominations.
I remember from my Home Office experience that there was an old exercise book which listed all the
890
religious denominations, Christian and others. There were hundreds of them. They had to be listed by the Home Office because to be valid any marriage held by a Christian denomination had to be by a denomination listed in that book. I can assure your Lordships that there are hundreds of denominations. Their practices and creeds perhaps vary slightly. To say that an academic study of the Christian faith cannot take place without reference to a formulary in the sense of a creed seems to be unnecessarily restrictive.
The right reverend Prelate has kindly told me that he will in due course reconsider the wording and consider whether a better form of words more appropriate to the new circumstances can be found. With those few words, I beg to move.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Renton. I do not want to go back to 1870, but when Parliament passed the 1944 Act, Section 26 of which contains these words, it was not thinking of anything other than the Christian faith and was referring to denominations of the Christian faith.
It is quite clear from Amendment No. 77, which we have already accepted, that we are referring to denominations when I personally would use the word "faith". Therefore we are talking about Christianity as a denomination, Mohammedanism as a denomination and Buddhism as a denomination. That is not the word I would have used but that seems to be what we are talking about. Amendment No. 77 refers to "Christianity and other religious denominations". Therefore where I should have preferred the words "Christian and other religious faiths", we have agreed to something different.
If this is included in the new schedule, it seems to me that we shall have terrible difficulty because what I think that Section 26(2) was aimed at is any particular denomination of a religious faith. That is what I think we were aiming at and that is quite easy to achieve. But as it is at the moment there is a potential difficulty. I hope that the Government or the right reverend Prelate can put this right.
The Lord Bishop of London: My Lords, I think I can answer this fairly simply. The purpose of this, the original Cooper-Temple clause, was to prevent what in those days was called "denominational teaching" in the sense of one particular Christian Church or denomination at that time. The old cry "No denominational teaching on the rates" was a characteristic of that period. That is the intention behind this, and that intention still remains.
I have been assured by the department that the clause still holds, but I agree that perhaps the point needs to be confirmed. Therefore I hope that the Minister will indicate that the point will be looked into. I do not think that there is any debate about the intention behind the provision, nor is there any intention to remove it or add to it; it is simply a question of interpretation. I hope that that can be looked into and confirmed.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, could I just raise one point in clarification? It might have been covered by

891
the noble Lord opposite. I think that in Committee the right reverend Prelate agreed that there is confusion with regard to the nomenclature of denomination and faith and the bodies on the SACREs where denomination and faith are confused. If this could be systematically cleared up, I think that would save misinterpretation with regard to the point made by my noble friend Lord Renton. If "denomination" reads "faith" in this context, it could mean that you would not reach anything distinctive of any faith. But it would not make sense in the context of the bodies of the SACREs.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I understand that "denomination" in the 1944 Act has always been interpreted as covering faith; for example, those of the Jewish faith. In one place we have specifically used the words "Christian denomination" rather than religious denomination. The distinction makes doubly clear that "denomination" is normally to be interpreted as including faith. Nevertheless, I appreciate the concerns that have been expressed and we are certainly willing to look into the matter to be sure that it is completely clear and, if necessary, to clarify the position further.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, perhaps I may ask a question before the Minister sits down. Is she aware that the Jewish faith could be said to be divided into various denominations, and the Moslem faith could be said, as we know perhaps from what is going on between Iran and Iraq, to be divided between various denominations? Therefore, to use "denomination" as being equal to faith could be said to be confusing.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I am not sure that I said that denomination was equal to faith. I simply said that "denomination" has been interpreted as covering faith, which I think is slightly different.
Lord Renton: My Lords, with great respect to my noble friend, I think that it would be more accurate to say that faith being the much wider expression covers many denominations.
I should like to express my deep gratitude to my noble friend for her open-mindedness on this occasion. I am also most grateful to the right reverend Prelate. I am sure that when he used the word "interpretation" he was not merely thinking of ways of interpreting the present words; he was thinking whether the present words might be better expressed.
With those assurances, together with my gratitude to other noble Lords who have spoken, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment to Amendment No. 101, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Amendment No. 101 agreed to.
Schedule 1 [The Curriculum and Assessment Councils]:
[Amendments Nos. 102 and 103 not moved.]
12 midnight
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 104:
Page 190, leave out line 18 and insert ("determine; and
(b) shall pay, or make such payments towards the provision of, such pension to or in respect of any member of the Council as the Secretary of State may determine.
(2) If a person ceases to be a member of the Council and it appears to the Secretary of State that there are special circumstances which make it right that he should receive compensation, the Secretary of State may direct the Council to make to that person a payment of such amount as the Secretary of State may determine.
(3) A determination or direction of the Secretary of State under sub-paragraph (1) or (2) above requires the approval of the Treasury.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 104 I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 106. These are technical amendments, necessary to clarify certain powers of the NCC, SEAC and CCW beyond reasonable doubt and to bring the councils in line with what has already been provided in Schedule 6 for the University Funding Council, the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council and the Education Assets Board.
The proposed additions to paragraph 8 of the schedule will ensure that, if necessary, the pension contributions of a member of a council such as a full-time chairman can be maintained and that, should very special circumstances arise, compensation can be paid to a council member who has to cease membership of the council. I should say at once that we do not think it likely that either of these powers will be used in the near future, but we must ensure that the Government and the councils have the necessary authority to meet any contingencies which may arise in the future.
The amendments to paragraph 10(5) of the schedule make it clear beyond possible doubt that the councils can contribute to the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme in respect of their employees' service. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 105 not moved.]
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 106:
Page 191, line 3, at end insert—
("(6) The Council shall pay to the Treasury, at such times as the Treasury may direct, such sums as the Treasury may determine in respect of the increase attributable to sub-paragraph (5) above in the sums payable out of money provided by Parliament under that
Act.
(7) Where an employee of the Council is, by reference to that employment, a participant in a scheme under section 1 of that Act and is also a member of the Council the Treasury may determine that his service as such a member shall be treated for the purposes of the scheme as service as an employee of the Council (whether or not any benefits are payable to or in respect of him by virtue of paragraph 8 above).").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 11 [Development work and experiments]:
[Amendment No. 107 not moved.]
Baroness Seear Baroness Seear moved Amendment No. 108:
Page 9, line 22, at end insert—
("( (1A) Nothing in this section shall be taken to require direction by the Secretary of State in respect of minor experimentation in curriculum matters as part of the normal professional activities of teachers").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, briefly this is another attempt to get a greater degree—perhaps that is an exaggeration and I had better say to get some degree—of flexibility and freedom of professional action at local level and so that carrying out minor experiments in curriculum matters as part of the normal professional activities of teachers shall not be prohibited. It is highly desirable that teachers, if they are to be encouraged in their professional work and in their sense of being in a profession, should be allowed to make such experiments.
I hope the noble Lord will not say in reply that there is no need for this. There is great need, by having such statements on the face of the Bill, to encourage teachers to feel that they have freedom to take this kind of highly desirable action. I beg to move.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I think that Clause 11 has been one of the most controversial, because it has been one of the least understood, elements of our provisions. I hope that if I once again explain in some detail the nature and scope of the clause, the noble Baroness will see that this amendment is unnecessary and will feel able to withdraw it.
Clause 11 does not regulate the scope for all curriculum development and experimentation in future. The great majority of this work will continue as now, in schools and LEAs, in colleges and universtity departments of education, to look at alternative ways of meeting commonly agreed, broad curriculum objectives. The only difference will be that increasingly in future these commonly agreed broad objectives will take the shape of national curriculum attainment targets.
Because the national curriculum cannot prescribe teaching methods and materials or curriculum organisation, it is apparent that there will be no need to seek exemption from its provisions in order to experiment as radically as schools may wish in those particular areas.
What is new about Clause 11 is that, where curriculum development work wishes to go beyond the broad framework of objectives set out in the national curriculum orders, it will need to be approved by the Secretary of State. There are two good reasons for this. The first and pragmatic one is that without such regulation, teachers could declare their classes permanent experimental zones and so avoid any obligation to follow the national curriculum. The second reason is that experimental work so major and fundamental that it seeks to establish alternative central objectives for any part of the curriculum needs to be carefully controlled and the Secretary of State will be able to ensure that as a condition of his approval.
Clause 11 is not the stifling provision that it has been unjustly claimed to be. In its operation we shall ensure that it does not become overbureaucratic. Indeed, we envisage that its day-to-day operation may well be in the hands of the National Curriculum Council and not of the Department of Education and Science. The council will certainly have an important role to play in advising the Secretary of State on the appropriate use of his powers under the clause.
894
From all this it will be apparent, I am sure, that the minor experimentation that the amendment seeks to protect is in no danger of falling within the scope of Clause 11. The amendment is therefore unnecessary, I think, and I hope that the noble Baroness on reflection will agree that that is so.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister whether there is a Cabinet split on this matter since the Secretary of State for Wales seems to have a rather different view. In the Welsh Grand Committee last month, the Secretary of State for Wales said:
"My view is that we shall always have a system in which there is considerable freedom at local level and freedom to experiment. I hope that we shall never have a stagnant education system … if certain education authorities have the freedom to experiment with new concepts and ideas that are not imposed by the centre".
There appears to be a major difference between the view that the Minister has just expressed and what the Secretary of State for Wales said.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I am afraid that I am totally unconvinced by what the Minister said. He admits that there is a grave misunderstanding, as he calls it—let us hope that he is right in calling it that—about the implications of Clause 11, and that people fear that there will be a degree of regimentation. Given that we have been told this evening that the National Curriculum Council will be comprised of people hand picked by the Secretary of State, this will not give confidence to the professionals, who hope that independent opinions will be given to the Secretary of State. It is all the more important therefore that there should be on the face of the Bill the reassurance that experimentation of this kind is permitted. It can do no harm; it could do good.
At this late hour, I do not propose to divide the House but merely to register once again dissatisfaction at the way in which the Bill has been put together and is being handled. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 109 not moved.]
Clause 12 [Exceptions by regulations]:
[Amendment No. 110 not moved.]
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth)Baroness Darcy (de Knayth) moved Amendment No. 111:
Page 10, line 1, leave out ("shall") and insert ("may").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 111 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 112 and 113. They are all concerned with children for whom the national curriculum is disapplied or modified under Clause 12, which deals with what the Minister termed in Committee, at col. 459 of Hansard, "collective exceptions" as opposed to the individual exceptions of children with statements under Clause 13 and exclusions of a temporary nature under Clause 14.
Amendments Nos. 111 and 112 are virtually probing amendments to ascertain that the regulations cannot in themselves force the exclusion

895
of a particular child from the national curriculum but will in every case and in every circumstance allow the school to make the decision.
The Minister suggested in Committee, at col. 458, that the regulations could apply, for example, to children with mobility or language problems or exceptionally gifted children, so it is a wide group. I hope that the Minister will be able to assure us that the regulations will allow schools to deal flexibly with children covered by the words "cases or circumstances" rather than insist, for example, that a child whose English falls below a certain standard must be excluded from parts of the national curriculum.
Even if the Minister can give that assurance, Amendment No. 113 remains essential to ensure that the parents have the right to be consulted, involved in decisions and, if necessary, to appeal. As the Bill stands, the only safeguard that a parent of a child excluded under Clause 12 has is the right to complain to the local education authority through the complaints procedure set up under Clause 18. Unless there is a formal obligation to inform parents, many of them will not be aware of what is happening and certainly will not be aware of their right to complain under Clause 18. Clause 14, dealing with temporary exclusions, gives parents the right to information and appeal. The government amendment to Clause 13 looks as if there may be some move with regard to statemented children. I very much look forward to hearing the Minister's explanation of the amendments to Clause 13.
The children excluded under Clause 12 now being discussed will be by far the largest group. I feel that their parents should have the right to be informed, to be told what alternative education is to be provided and to be told of their right to appeal to the governing body. This is what Amendment No. 113 would achieve.
I turn back to Amendment No. 111, which is a bit of an anticlimax as it is mainly exploratory. I beg to move.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I wish to support this amendment on three counts. First of all, it is the background and one of the beliefs underlying this Bill that there should be parental responsibility. I think it is very important in this area that parents should be consulted. Secondly, those of us who have dealt with children with special educational needs know that there are some teachers who are absolutely excellent with the children but who in certain cases have become over-involved. This always happens in the area of the handicapped, as I think the noble Baroness would agree. Therefore just to rely entirely on the teacher without it being a teacher-parent decision is very unwise: the wrong thing could be done. Thirdly, for the sake of the child, I believe there has to be consultation with the parent, because the child must feel part of the family. On these three counts, therefore, I support the amendment.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, these amendments, as we now understand, have two aims. The first is to substitute "may" for "shall" in two places in Clause 12 and so make the following of Clause 12
896
regulations optional rather than obligatory. I believe that those changes are unnecessary, indeed, undesirable. They seek to introduce an element of choice and discretion in dealing with pupils who may be covered by the "cases or circumstances" which are to be set out in the regulations.
I accept that there is a case for judgment and discretion; but that will properly be exercised at the point where the people concerned with the education of the child—the parents, the teachers and perhaps the governors—decide whether the "cases and circumstances" set out in the regulations apply to the individual child. In other words, it is for the Secretary of State to say, in the light of full consultation, that if the circumstances are such that all or some provisions of the national curriculum would be inappropriate, those provisions shall not apply, or shall be modified. But it is for local decision whether those circumstances apply to any individual child, as it is for local decision how and at what speed a pupil is introduced to the various attainment targets which the national curriculum will prescribe.
Turning now to the other part of the amendment, I should like to take this opportunity to explain what may be a misunderstanding about the application of Clauses 12 and 14. Clause 14 deals with exemptions for individual pupils and a decision taken by an individual head teacher based on his perception of the needs (not necessarily special educational needs) of an individual child.
Clause 12 is rather different. It is designed to apply to those children in whose "cases and circumstances" the provisions of the national curriculum should be modified or disapplied. The disquiet which your Lordships feel should be allayed by the way in which we propose to arrive at the regulations determining "cases and circumstances". Certainly, I have made abundantly clear that we are not reverting to a pre-1981 Act revival of "categories of handicap". What we shall have is a recognition of those cases and circumstances in which, for example, the foreign language requirement may be modified or lifted in the case of children with poor communication skills or a very limited command of English. Another group might be the gifted children who have achieved good GCSE grades in a foundation subject well before the age of 16 and wish to move on to further studies.
It may reassure your Lordships if I say that, before the Secretary of State makes regulations under Clause 12, he will have to refer his proposal to the National Curriculum Council who will have to consult outside interests and then advise him. He will then have to publish his regulations in draft and allow one month for representations. Only after that process will he be able to make the regulations, which will then be subject to the negative resolution procedure in Parliament. That is the effect of Clause 15.
I know that some noble Lords are associated with, and active in, groups whose interests may need to be represented in the consultations. I would urge them to make their voices heard so that the regulations are as appropriate as we can make them from the first draft. But to say that there should be wide consultation on this, as on other aspects of the

897
national curriculum, is not to agree that the application of the national curriculum should in the case of each individual pupil be subject to a parental right of appeal.
The judgment about how a pupil is treated within the national curriculum framework is part of the head teacher's general responsibility. He must apply the arrangements reasonably and responsibly, and if he fails to do so there is a general remedy in the complaints machinery to be established under Clause 18. Only where he steps outside that framework in the way allowed in Clause 14 or through the mechanism of the statement of special need is it necessary to allow a specific right of appeal. I hope that these arguments will be regarded as compelling and that the amendments will not he pressed.
12.15 a.m.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I wish to thank the Minister for his reply. His response to the first two amendments is fairly satisfactory as regards the decision about the children being a local one. His explanation of the way in which the regulations are to be made was also satisfactory. I am, however, much less happy with his explanations of why he cannot allow the parents of this batch of children information about what is going on or that they should be told of their right of appeal—indeed that they have a right of appeal to the governing body.
The Minister has said that there will be a right of appeal covering children with statements. The 18 per cent. of children may well fall within the terms of Clause 13. But children without statements will not have a right of appeal. They will have only the general right of appeal. It would have to be a very clued-up and persistent parent who found that he had this right of appeal and was able to proceed with the complaints procedure set out in Clause 18. I shall return to that amendment very shortly. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw my probing amendment, Amendment No. 111.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 112 not moved.]
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth)Baroness Darcy (de Knayth) moved Amendment No. 113:
Page 10, line 3, at end insert—
("( ) Regulations under this section shall in particular provide that where all or some of the provisions of the National Curriculum are deemed not to apply to a particular pupil under this section, the parent of the pupil shall be informed in writing by the head teacher of the effect of the regulations and of the provision that it is proposed will be made for the pupil, and of his right to appeal to the governing body, if he does not agree with the application of the regulations to the pupil, or with the provision it is proposed to make for the pupil.
( ) On any such appeal the governing body may—

(a) confirm the head teacher's action; or

(b) direct the head teacher to take such action authorised by the regulations as they consider appropriate in the circumstances;

and it shall be the duty of the head teacher to comply with any directions of the governing body under paragraph (b)
above.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I have already just spoken to this. Unless I get a snicket of give from the Minister, I am afraid I shall have to divide the House. I see that the Minister is not even looking at me. I beg to move.
12.18 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 113) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 14; Not-Contents, 30.

DIVISION NO. 7

CONTENTS

Blackstone, B.

McNair, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Faithfull, B. [Teller.]

Peston, L.

Hastings, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Ingleby, V.

Russell, E.

Kinloss, Ly. [Teller.]

Seear, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Arran, E.

Harvington, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Hesketh, L.

Belstead, L.

Hooper, B.

Blatch, B.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Borthwick, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Butterworth, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Caithness, E.

Mountgarret, V.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Renton, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Coleraine, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Cowley, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Cox, B.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Trafford, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Trefgarne, L.

Dundee, E.

Ullswater, V.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
12.26 a.m.
Clause 13 [Pupils with statements of special educational needs]:
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendments Nos. 114 to 116.
Page 10, line 4, at beginning insert ("The special educational provision for any pupil specified in").
Page 10, line 4, leave out ("a pupil's") and insert ("his").
Page 10, line 5, leave out from ("may") to ("with") in line 8 and insert ("include provision—

(a) excluding the application of the provisions of the National Curriculum; or

(b) applying those provisions").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move en bloc Amendments Nos. 114, 115 and 116. These are minor technical drafting amendments which I can explain if your Lordships require.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 117 not moved.]
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth)Baroness Darcy (de Knayth) had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 118:
Page 10, line 9, at end insert—
("( ) Where a local education authority propose to direct under this section that the provisions of the National Curriculum shall not apply, or shall apply with modifications to a child who has a statement, they shall first serve on the parent of the pupil concerned—

(a) a copy of the statement as they propose to amend it, including such attainment targets, programmes of study and assessment arrangements as are considered suitable for the pupil; and

(b) notice in writing of the parent's right to appeal under section 8(1) of the 1981 Act against the special educational provision set out in the statement as amended to include the local education authority's direction.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister could help me. I think that his drafting amendment has rendered part of this amendment redundant. As there is some confusion I shall not move the amendment at this stage if I can reserve my right to bring it back at a later stage if the confusion is not cleared up.
[Amendment No. 118 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 119 not moved.]
Clause 14 [Temporary exceptions for individual pupils]:
[Amendment No. 120 not moved.]
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth)Baroness Darcy (de Knayth) moved Amendment No. 121:
>Page 10, line 22, at end insert—
("(2) Where a head teacher proposes to give a direction under regulations made under this section he shall first where practicable consult the parent of the pupil concerned.")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 121 I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 122. They both deal with children who will be the subject of exclusions of a temporary nature under Clause 14.
Amendment No. 121 obliges the head to consult parents before excluding individual children from all or part of the national curriculum, but only if practicable. The purpose is to meet a point made by the Minister in Committee (reported at col. 460 of the Official Report of 3rd May) that heads might have to act quickly to meet an acute short-term problem. I feel that such occasions will be very rare and that there should normally be consultation on such important decisions whenever practicable in accordance with the concept of partnership with parents.
Amendment No. 122 indicates that the head shall seek other specialist advice before deciding to exclude a pupil from the national curriculum if he considers it desirable. There is no compulsion, but writing this possibility into primary legislation will encourage consultation. Furthermore it will provide reasonable grounds for complaint when pupils are excluded without adequate advice being sought. I beg to move.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I believe that I am replying not only to Amendment No. 121 but also to Amendment No. 122 to which the noble Baroness also spoke.
900
I appreciate the concerns that we all have to increase the safeguards in the interests of a child whose head teacher proposes his temporary withdrawal from the national curriculum. We are faced here with the need to balance the head teacher's requirement to deal promptly with a situation and the child's right to ensure that he or she receives every consideration in a period of temporary problems.
We are faced here with the need to balance the head teacher's requirement to deal promptly with a situation, and the child's right to ensure that he or she receives every consideration in a period of temporary problems. I remind your Lordships that Clause 14 deals with temporary withdrawals for individual pupils. By no means all those children will have special educational needs.
The first of the two amendments here appears to relate to the kinds of professional advice which would be required under the 1981 Act if the child were to undergo assessment of special educational needs. In the case of such a child, we are making provision under Clause 14(4)(c)(ii) and for him, therefore, prior recourse to professional advice will not be necessary. Indeed, it would delay the procedures, and in the meantime leave that child to face the difficulties which the provisions of the full national curriculum might be causing him. Even where the child is not suspected of having SEN, it may be entirely appropriate for the school to call in some outside advice in identifying his problems and seeking solutions. Indeed, many do so at present. What we must allow the school to achieve, and what this amendment would prevent, is to lift or modify the national curriculum requirements as a matter of some urgency where the child is, for whatever reason, experiencing serious problems. This amendment would not enable the head teacher to do that.
Secondly, the amendment seeks to ensure prior parental consultation. I believe that we really must make the provision sufficiently flexible to allow our head teachers to act quickly. I appreciate that the words "unless impracticable" go some way to ensuring that the head teacher has some flexibility, but I wonder how valuable that get-out clause would be.
I feel I really must say this to your Lordships: the Government have been asked to put more trust in the professional judgment of all head teachers. Let us now give them sufficient room to manoeuvre and to run their schools in the best interests of the children. In that spirit, I ask the noble Baroness not to press her amendments.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may ask him for clarification. He said that the head teacher must be able to move quickly. Why quickly? In a situation like this, there needs to be a considered judgment. One of the important matters is that the head teacher should seek other advice, particularly about the child's home. Perhaps I may just cite the case of one severely deaf child. It was thought by the school that the child should be educated in a deaf class in one of the schools. This was decided on without knowing that the child was an illegitimate child, and that there were

901
three other illegitimate children in the family and that the mother was quite unable to help that child at home. Without that information the teacher made the wrong decision to keep the child at school. That child is now 16 and cannot communicate at all. I feel very strongly that other advice and psychological and educational advice must be sought—not in all cases, I admit, but in a number of cases—so that a wrong decision is not made.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I fear that I had sat down when my noble friend rose, nonetheless, if I have your Lordships' permission to speak again, perhaps I may say that there is of course nothing to prevent head teachers taking appropriate advice if there is time for them to do so, and I dare say that, in the kind of circumstances pointed to by my noble friend, that is what would happen. We want to give them the necessary flexibility, and I fear that these amendments would not assist in that desirable aim.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I sort of thank the Minister for that reply. I do not find it very encouraging. On the first count about acting quickly, I should have thought that the phrase "unless impracticable" would cover the rare circumstances in which a teacher would have to act quickly. I cannot see that "if desirable" does not give him some leeway. If the clause says that, if he considers it desirable, he shall consult specialist advice, no one is compelling him. I merely think that it would be extremely useful to have this possibility in the Bill. It would be useful as grounds for appeal when there was some question as to whether the child had been excluded without adequate advice being sought. Anyway, I am sorry that the Minister cannot accept either of these mild, but I think rather useful, amendments. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 122 not moved.]
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 123:
Page 11. line 14, at end insert ("(whether initially or on a review of any statement of his special educational needs the authority are for the time being required under section 7 of the 1981 Act to maintain).").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the amendment which lies before your Lordships is simply a refinement of, and an addition to, the provision at present standing in Clause 14(4)(c)(ii). I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 15 [Procedure for making certain orders: England]:
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 123A:
Page 12, line 13. after ("bodies") insert ("parents,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, while I have no great wish to delay your Lordships at this late hour, the topic of this amendment is of great significance. I must say at least a few words on it.
The amendment refers to consulting parents. My first response, when looking at the sentences in the Bill, is that there may have been a slip of the word processor and that parents were intended to be in
902
there. After all, a great deal of the philosophy that lies behind the Bill concerns the enormous importance of parents. Anybody who is aware of any educational research over the last 50 years, or uses their common sense, is fully aware of the intrinsic role of parents in terms of educational achievement and educational success. It looks rather odd that in discussing who will be consulted, parents are left out.
I do not believe that we can play the usual game in this case of looking at Clause 15(3)(b) and include parents under "any other persons". I do not think anyone can legitimately argue that point.
I should have thought that one would wish to consult parents and parental organisations almost ahead of any of the other bodies that are referred to here, and to emphasise that one wants to know their views. I should have thought that one would go to enormous lengths to send out to parents' organisations—which are largely the best way of distribution—large numbers of copies of the consultative document, and to make it abundantly clear that the department is extremely keen to know the views of parents individually and of the organisations that represent them.
Having had some experience of Whitehall, I know that it can be a frightful nuisance to have such views. But the point of consultation is to have to put up with the frightful nuisance of people saying, "We do want to be consulted and what we want to do is the following peculiar thing." That is important. I should like to hear the Minister's argument in response to that.
I am an ardent consumerist. I would probably go further. It would seem to me to be wholly desirable that consumer bodies generally should be encouraged to take part in this consultative process. I have in mind the National Consumer Council and the Consumers' Association, both of which on occasions have shown considerable interest in education. It is a pity—although it is not exactly germane to my amendment—that they too have not been mentioned on the face of the Bill. My main pressure is to recognise explicity the need—almost an anxiety—on the part of the Department of Education and Science to consult parents. That is the purpose of the amendment. My other purpose, apart from pressing the amendment, is to hear the Minister's reply on this matter.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, of course we expect that the National Curriculum Council will use its discretion to include parents' groups in its consultations. We also expect that it will wish to include employers' organisations and representatives of minority cultures and other relevant interest groups, including conceivably the ones referred to by the noble Lord. The list in Clause 15—those whom the National Curriculum Council is duty bound to consult—is not intended to be comprehensive. It covers those on whom the national curriculum will impose new duties and responsibilities; that is, LEAs, governing bodies and teachers, who therefore should have a formal right to be consulted. But the freedom of the National Curriculum Council to go beyond those groups is not constrained, nor should we want it to be. I hope that that will reassure the noble Lord.
Lord Peston: My Lords, at this late hour it is the nearest I shall get to reassurance. I should have preferred a more positive statement, but I certainly do not intend to wax heavily on that now. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 17 [Provision of information]:
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 124:
Page 13, line 40, at end insert—
("(2A) The publication of the results of assessment of pupils shall be prescribed under subsection (1) only where such results are—

(a) adjusted to reflect socio-economic factors on a standard basis specified by the Secretary of State;

(b) accompanied by a range of performance indicators (including attendance, punctuality and overall contribution to the life of the school) related to the individual pupil; and

(c) accompanied by a statement from the local education authority as to the overall performance of the school in relation to its intake, on the basis of statistical guidelines issued by the Secretary of State.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is an important amendment and I fear that I shall take about five minutes to move it. I hope your Lordships will forgive me for taking a little time. In the Written Answer published on 7th June the Secretary of State set out the Government's formal response to the TGAT report. As I said earlier today, the statement was highly significant in a number of respects, not least in its failure to comment at all on the issue of whether raw examination or assessment results provide a suitable basis for the comparison of schools or the summative assessment of pupils.
As is quite well known, a number of education experts, including some in the Department of Education and Science, have been working for some years on trying to find a fair basis for the comparison of examination results between schools. A number of studies have been published, notably by researchers at Sheffield University, who have devised the most sophisticated system so far.
The basis of the argument for statistical weighting of examination results is that there is a very high correlation between social need and poor performance in public examinations. That is a well-known fact that has been established for many years, but without such adjustments both parents and policy-makers are likely to make judgments which will perpetuate disadvantage rather than looking at the real value of the school in relation to its intake.
The amendment seeks a further requirement that the publication of weighted results should be accompanied by performance indicators setting out the wider aspects of an individual's performance and the overall performance of the school. There was a DES announcement last month that set out the results of work to date within the department on performance indicators. Apparently the department is drawing up guidelines with the intention of listing factors which indicate the quality of school performance; so factors such as teacher turnover, pupil attendance, how often children volunteer to take part in sporting or cultural activities are all being considered. I am sure your Lordships will agree that these are important factors as well as examination results and test performance.
There has been no explanation of how this developing work in relation to the performance of schools will be put alongside the publication of assessment results under the national assessment. It must surely stand to reason that the publication of crude examination results, school by school, will amount to an oversimple yardstick that is bound to be widely publicised in local areas. Attempts to broaden the debate and to point out the wider performance of schools and their pupils are likely to be lost, if I may say so, in an increasingly market-oriented environment. If the work on performance indicators is to succeed, it must be fostered and encouraged at the early stages and have a proper place in the development of the national assessment schemes.
The third requirement of the amendment takes this proposal a stage further and calls on the Secretary of State to draw up statistical guidelines which would enable local authorities to assess the overall performance of the school in relation to its precise intake. This is equivalent to the notion of value added in assessing the degree to which a school has secured progress for its pupils. It is perhaps progress that matters more than anything else. The purpose of such statements will be to try to identify schools which, while their performance may not seem particularly remarkable in terms of actual results, are succeeding in bringing their pupils much further than might otherwise be expected, given their social background, their educational disadvantage or other problems. In the absence of such an approach there is a substantial risk that schools in areas of high deprivation may be pushed into a spiral of decline due to their apparently—I stress the word "apparently"—poor performance.
I should like to remind the Minister of what was said at the Committee stage:
"it is not the Government's intention to create league tables in any event".—[Official Report, 3/5/88; col. 501.1
That statement was repeated more than once. It is wholly unclear from the terms of the Bill how wide publication and league tables will be prevented. The Secretary of State's statement on 7th June was that:
"aggregated results at the ages of 11, 14 and 16 should be [published] so that the wider public can make informed judgments about attainment in a school or LEA".
Such information is grist to the mill for local newspapers and the normal passing on of information among parents.
The Minister's statement made in Committee appears to be in conflict with what the Secretary of State said on 7th June. It is hardly credible that lists of local schools with crude totals of assessment grades will not be widely available in local areas and form an important element in shaping local judgments as to which are the good, mediocre and bad schools. Therefore there is a real danger that league tables will occur. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent such a development, and surely common sense suggests that it will take place.
The amendment proposes that results should be published but in a form that allows for weighting for social factors. Since publication will in my view inevitably lead to the creation of league tables, the

905
amendment proposes that any such tables should be based on information which is fair and comparable on a statistical basis. The comparison of results from schools which draw pupils from a very wide range of social backgrounds is wholly unfair and must be discouraged.
In Committee the Minister stated that there was nothing in the Bill to prevent authorities continuing publication of exams weighted for social factors, and a few do so already. That is true, but it does not meet the argument that such results will be ignored if other figures are more immediately available. I should also like to know what will happen in the authorities which do not publish weighted figures of this kind. The Government's position appears to be contradictory.
It would be useful if Ministers could clarify whether the position has changed since their more detailed consideration of the TGAT report or whether it is still possible that the Government will at least bring forward guidance to provide for both social statements and for the weighting of social factors.
I shall sit down in a moment, but I should like to point out that a further and final issue concerns the relationship of the publication of results with the Government's stated aim of introducing records of achievement at age 16. It would be useful if Ministers could explain the relationship of an approach based on showing the rounded achievement of the pupil, which we all favour, with the publication of overall test scores, which will have the inevitable effect of labelling schools and the pupils who are educated in them. In Committee the noble Baroness, Lady Young, spoke of the value of pupil profiles, but the publication of raw examination results can hardly assist in the objectives which she put forward. I beg to move.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the noble Baroness is suggesting an extremely sophisticated system such as TGAT did not propose. Indeed, the task group considered and rejected her first proposal—that results should be adjusted to reflect socio-economic factors on a standard basis—on two grounds. First, no one has yet arrived at a generally accepted formula for calculating the effects of such factors on academic performance; and, secondly, adjusted figures, by scaling up the scores of pupils with low attainment in areas of socio-economic deprivation, could conceal large numbers of pupils who are under-achievers and could also conceal the need for additional resources to be made available to these schools.
The noble Baroness also suggests that results should be accompanied by a range of performance indicators related to the individual pupil and by a statement from the local education authority about the overall performance of the school in relation to its intake on the basis of statistical guidelines issued by the Secretary of State. I have to say that, while we have initiated some work in the field of performance indicators—so far only on a whole school basis not related to individual pupils—that work is not yet sufficiently advanced to allow us to specify
906
performance indicators, or, if used, statistical guidelines, in the way that the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, suggests.
We shall come in a moment to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, which deals with a similar topic. The noble Lord is shaking his head so I am reassured to see that we may not have the benefit of his moving that amendment this evening. I hope that I have been able to explain the shortcomings in the amendment of the noble Baroness; namely, that there is not the mechanism to put what she plans into proper effect. Accordingly, I hope that she will not press the amendment.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. I do not agree with very much of what he said. While I recognise that there are of course difficulties in setting up a system of this kind, a great deal of work has already been done. Some local education authorities, of which the ILEA is one, have already established a scheme of weighting for social factors which is much fairer to individual schools that happen to have a very high proportion of socially deprived pupils. It gives far better information about the quality and performance of those schools and, indeed, schools with a high proportion of socially advantaged pupils which simply publish crude examination results.
I am very surprised that the noble Lord does not accept that or that he cannot seem to understand the point being made. If one publishes crude results, one will have a very crude interpretation of those results. On the performance indicators, I was glad that he confirmed that work is going on in this area and I hope that it will continue and will eventually be introduced even if it is not yet ready for introduction.
Although I am not satisfied with the reply, I have no intention of pressing my amendment at this time of night. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 125 not moved.]
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 126:
Page 14, line 22, leave out subsection (6).
The noble Lord said: This amendment seems to show up a certain contradiction in the Government's position. In this area, and indeed in others, the Government should be congratulated on their view that more information is better in this sort of public sector activity, rather than less. I believe it is good that the Secretary of State will, through regulations, oblige LEAs, governing bodies and head teachers to make available a whole range of information in documentary form. I wholly approve of that.
I also wholly approve of the fact that LEAs and governing bodies may also be obliged to make available copies of their curriculum policy documents, annual reports of governing bodies, and so on. I understand that the Government have been consistent in their view on this, and that goes back to the 1980 and 1986 Acts. Therefore nothing I say suggests that the Government have set out along the wrong path; quite the contrary.
What puzzles me about this amendment is subsection (6), which states:
"Regulations under this section may authorise local education authorities … to make a charge … for any documents".
As an economist I have no objection to charging. I like charging. It seems to me that in most cases charging is the appropriate allocative mechanism. But in this case charging is absolutely preposterous. The only effect of charging would be to deter the acquisition of such documents. There appears to be no other reason for charging. If it is to deter, that contradicts the Government's policy. Even if there is only a danger of deterring, it contradicts the Government's policy. Therefore, given the desirability of openness in this respect, and the desirability of encouraging openness, it seems that the Government have somehow got this wrong.
It is possible that since the word "may" appears rather than "must" we are discussing a fall-back position in extremis occasionally to charge for a very expensive document that far too many people are demanding. Even on that I would err on the other side. However, if it is not meant to be hardly, if ever, used, the noble Lord should go back to the Secretary of State and say that so much of this aspect of his policy is right that it would be foolhardy to ruin it by retaining subsection (6). I beg to move.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, there is no intention under Clause 17 of restricting access to information to those who are able and willing to pay. There can be no charge for inspecting any of the information made available under the new regulations and while exact details must be the subject of consultation we should expect that the information would certainly be available in each school and some of it perhaps in other places such as public libraries.
However, the information which may be covered by the regulations is not confined to brief summary curriculum information as is now found in the school prospectus or statement of curriculum policy. We may well wish to consider—again subject to consultation—giving parents access to detailed schemes of work, for example, which would run to many pages for any one subject or age group. We shall certainly want to give parents the right to see any syllabus their children are following. If parents wish to have copies of this information to keep for themselves, as they should have the right to do if they ask, it would be an unacceptable burden on the school to have to meet the cost of copying it as many times as it is requested.
We do not want schools to deny parents their own copies on grounds of cost. But without a specific power to charge, schools could not legally make additional copies and ask parents to pay. There will be no question of obliging them to charge, but we should like to leave schools free to respond to a demand for copies which they would otherwise have to resist as too expensive to meet. I hope that reassures the noble Lord.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I thank the Minister. That certainly is nearer to a reassurance than anything I have heard since 3.30, or so, this afternoon. We are
908
in agreement that it is most important to encourage parents to become involved and to acquaint themselves with the documentation. At least that takes us somewhere. I am more reassured than I have been. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 18 [Complaints and enforcement]:
Baroness Carnegy of Lour Baroness Carnegy of Lour moved Amendment No. 127:
Page 14, line 32, after second ("schools") insert ("and organisations representing Head Teachers").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 128. Clause 18 as it stands requires local authorities to set up procedures for dealing with certain complaints about the actions, or proposed actions, of local authorities or of governors in relation to schools.
Government Amendment No. 129, which I assume my noble friend is about to move, seeks to improve the clause, but it still does not remedy one important omission—that it is possible for a local authority to draw up complaints arrangements and seek the Secretary of State's approval of those arrangements without taking any account of the views of head teachers. This seems quite wrong and I understand it is of considerable concern to head teachers themselves. For example, complaints may be about the way in which the curriculum is being handled in a school or in an authority or how religious worship is being handled. In the process, head teachers or members of their staffs, may well be complained about. Such complaints can be extremely delicate matters for head teachers to handle.
Surely, when the arrangements are set up by the local authority it should be obligatory upon it to consult with and take account of the perspective of the head teachers and their collective view as to whether the scheme will work. It should be necessary for the Secretary of State, before accepting the arrangements, to make sure that consultation has in fact taken place. I hope that my noble friend will take this point extremely seriously. It appears to be a glaring omission. If he cannot accept the amendment at this stage, I hope he will read what I have said and perhaps bring back an amendment to remedy the situation on Third Reading. I beg to move.
1 a.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I rise with slight trepidation because I wish to say a few words in support of the amendment moved by the noble Baroness. My fear is that, in doing so, I may ruin it for her rather than the reverse. Nonetheless, it seems that her argument is cogent and compelling. One is rather puzzled because the head teachers are the people with the most knowledge and experience in this area. In the new regime that we are moving into we shall have governing bodies which are inexperienced. I am not against them being consulted, but it does not seem that the Bill addresses itself to the people who can be of the most help, who are the head teachers.

909
We on our side strongly support this amendment and the line that the noble Baroness has taken, which is that, if the noble Lord in his reply is unable to agree at this moment, he might wish at the very least to reflect upon the matter and come back to it, because we shall have at least one more chance to deal with the issue.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am very happy to reflect upon this matter. I do so without offering a commitment to my noble friend of any kind, but I will ensure that the matter is considered further. If there is any amplification or clarification that we think it right to make, we shall seek a further opportunity to do so.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, for his support. Evidently, that did not spoil the impact of my remarks and I am extremely grateful to my noble friend for what he said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 128 not moved.]
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, if Amendment No. 129 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 130.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 129:
Page 14, leave out lines 35 to 45 and insert ("is to the effect that the authority, or the governing body of any county or voluntary school maintained by the authority or of any special school so maintained which is not established in hospital—

(a) have acted or are proposing to act unreasonably with respect to the exercise of any power conferred or the performance of any duty imposed on them by or under —

(i) any provision of this Chapter; or

(ii) any other enactment relating to the curriculum for, or religious worship in, maintained schools other than grant-maintained schools; or

(b) have failed to discharge any such duty.").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I am sure that we can expect a general welcome for this government amendment, which meets and extends commitments that we made in Committee to widen the scope of the new complaints machinery to be established under Clause 18 of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I hope it may be agreeable that I speak on this amendment because my own amendment will fall, since I assume that a government amendment moved at this time of night is likely to be accepted. I am glad to see the move that the Government are making to deal with complaints. The noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, made a promise to go in that direction and we believe it to be a step in the right direction. In saying that I prefer Amendment No. 130, essentially what I am arguing is that one could go quite a little further.
One hopes that our school system will not be dominated by complaints and troublemaking. On the other hand, in so far as a complaints procedure is important—and to refer again to consumerism—there must be a method of dealing with the fact that one does not have what one thought one was getting and what one was told one would get. I fail to see why
910
the whole range of activities covered by the school should not be included in the complaints procedure. The Government's amendment does not go that far. In particular, as I understand it—I am perfectly willing to be told that I am wrong—non-curricular matters to do with school rules, discipline and extracurricular activities are not covered. I certainly believe that they ought to be.
I fully accept that the Government have made some movement. I do not quite understand why they have not gone the whole way. They could not possibly have done that in order to annoy those on this side of the House. There must be a reason and I look forward to hearing, as I hope our last activity this evening, what the reason is.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, we have made some concessions on this point and that is as far as we are prepared to go on this amendment.
Lord McNair: My Lords, it is not very often that we can say thank you, even with reservations. I should not like to let this opportunity pass without saying that we are grateful for what the Government have done.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 130 not moved.]
Clause 20 [Interpretation of Chapter 1]:
[Amendment No. 131 not moved.]
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Brighton and Preston Cemetery Bill
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee without amendment.
House adjourned at seven minutes past one o'clock.

  ALZHEIMER'S DISEASE
  ALZHEIMER'S DISEASE
  AFFORESTATION POLICY: GUIDANCE
  AFFORESTATION POLICY: GUIDANCE
  FELLING AND REPLANTING: POLICY
  FELLING AND REPLANTING: POLICY
  COMMUNITY CHARGE: COST OF COLLECTION
  COMMUNITY CHARGE: COST OF COLLECTION
  HAZARDOUS WASTE INSPECTORATE REPORT
  HAZARDOUS WASTE INSPECTORATE REPORT
  HOMELESS SINGLE-PARENT FAMILIES: EMERGENCY HOUSING COST
  HOMELESS SINGLE-PARENT FAMILIES: EMERGENCY HOUSING COST